Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi.   You need to put your pdf docs into a multi-page file please, or people will be here forever downloading - or give up. Our upload guide will help you.   I expect people will be along to advise later.   HB
    • This is submitted by My Father with my full permission     Diary of Sweden 2019 to date Last update 23/06/2021   Document list: Letter from Transport Styrelsen 290519 Letter to Transport Styrelsen 141220 Certificate from Kronofogden sent 150520 received 130221 Essex magistrates letter 120221 Documents received 130221 in Swedish Letter from Kronofogden sent 150520 received 130221 Letter from Kronofogden 150321 Letter with new hearing date 060421 Notes on appearing in court Swedish translation   Data between inverted commas is file name   15th May 2019 I was stopped at the border having arrived from Denmark. I was several hours behind other drivers in our convoy of articulated trucks You need to add what happened to you include tests and results where you were taken how long held what they did with truck including damage when they moved it. Did they speak to you in English at all times, was their English understandable, was any paperwork translated into an English hard copy, were you given option of having English translations When were you released including taking you licence away. Did they offer any assistance? Were you offered the assistance of a legal representative and legal aid.     The only part in the English Language is “Letter from Transport Styrelsen 290519” and that was about 5 lines on the second page saying I could send a statement to not lose my driving licence rights in Sweden All other paperwork sent to Chelmsford address is in Swedish only so no idea what the charges were and I was not at any stage offered the services of a translator. The “Essex magistrates letter of 120221” point 6 says I was offered the chance of a reply. That was only true if I could speak Swedish. I have tried running all the paperwork sent to me through a translator and it makes no sense whatever.   The statement they have sent to court Documents received 130221 in Swedish are wrong, I was not given the right to reply, just said I could make a statement about retaining my right to drive in Sweden. This was the only opportunity I had to defend myself. In the “Letter from Kronofogden sent 150520 received 130221” sent with the Essex Magistrates letters was dated 15/05/2020 is that now out of date for action, also that’s in English so there is no excuse for other documentation not to be in English Kronofogden states that no letters were returned to them, this is not true as my father sent at least two of them back as Not at this address as I have moved twice since this incident In the “Certificate from Kronofogden sent 150520 received 130221” it states I was Drunk driving, that is not true as I was breathalysed and that read completely clean, I was not given results of blood and urine tests. The Certificate does not split up the fines for the two offences, only the fine and the Sum of money to the Public Fund. On the European framework list that was sent to me in document "Essex magistrates letter 120221" and also the Certificate the only offence was 34. Smuggling of goods. Drunk driving was not one of the offences to be included on the list, therefore I should not have to pay the full amount and as the amounts only show total for fines and not each offence separately I should not have to pay total amount I should only pay the fine for the offence of smuggling. As they have not itemised fines then this should be dismissed. If not please ask for time to pay after looking at my financial statement.   11th May 2021 Attended magistrates court with my father who had much of the information and understanding of the correspondence. He was stopped at the entrance and refused entry, they then ushered me in straight up to wait outside the courtroom so I could not get the information from my Father. This was stated as Covid rules; the legal people arrived and just walked through with no questions asked. One Paralegal (who happened to be black) was stopped and refused entry even though she arrived with her client, there was a huge argument and the Court manager was requested by the paralegal. This is not the way to give justice to people. In the “Certificate from Kronofogden sent 150520 received 130221” it states I was Drunk driving, that is not true as I was breathalysed and that read completely clean, I was not given results of blood and urine tests. The Certificate does not split up the fines for the two offences, only the fine and the Sum of money to the Public Fund. On the European framework list that was sent to me in document "Essex magistrates letter 120221" and also the Certificate the only offence was 34. Smuggling of goods. Drunk driving was not one of the offences to be included on the list, therefore I should not have to pay the full amount and as the amounts only show total for fines and not each offence separately I should not have to pay total amount I should only pay the fine for the offence of smuggling. As they have not itemised fines then this should be dismissed. The Magistrate stated that they were not concerned with original case where the fine was given only this one, so judgement was given against me. They said the judgement would be sent to me   To present: I have up to present not received a copy of the judgement I have had three copies of further action sent to me, one at my old address and when I informed them again (as I did in court} they sent another two copies of the further action letter to me.    
    • Discover this Traineeship opportunity offered by Inspire Alta Ltd and #CreateYourFuture View the full article
    • Hi Andy I refer to the attached, please can you advise I will be able to rectify any issues tomorrow evening now, please   can you confirm if this is in order, as I anticipate to send the documents by email before the deadline on Friday once I have completed all the work as I am in between work and meetings at the moment. WS Amended as per advice..docx exhibit bundle.docx
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

  • Recommended Topics

Legality of TV Licence visits


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2068 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Having recently moved into my new local authority accomodation like clockwork the dreaded TV Licence threatograms start to appear.

 

To be clear i have a wide screen TV but i used it as a computer monitor due to my poor eyesight. I have no airiel to receive live TV broadcasts

 

Anyway ignore the first letter, nice and diplomatic, i have now received the second in the escalation process. This states:

 

Visit has been authorised

Investigation into my property has begun

 

I am fully aware of what they can and cannot do

 

TV Licence is administered by CAPITA

They are a private commercial organisation so under what legislation/statute can they:

 

1. Say they are sending their Goon squad to intimidate me at my property

2. State an investigation has been instigated at my property

 

I am after legislation that gives them these powers to intimidate someone in their own home.

 

CAPITA being an agency of the BBC will still be subject to Article 8 ECHR. Right to a private and family life with no uneccessary interference from the state. Article 6 gives the presumption of innocence. So why am i being classed as guilty just because there is no statutory requirement for me to hold a TV Licence?

 

The BBC is under state control.

 

I WANT TO NAIL THESE BARSTEWARDS AT CAPITA with the law and statute as to their business model

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy way to deal with them...throw the letters in the bin/hamster cage and refuse to answer any questions if they do knock on your door! That oncludes your name...if anyone asks for your name/identity ask who they are and if TV goons just shut the door

Link to post
Share on other sites

TV licence has the power to investigate any property without a TV licence under the Communicatins Act

 

TV licence use the implied right of access under Common law to send their goons to my front door

 

Besides giving notice witdrawing that common law right i am trying to use Article 8 ECHR right to privacy

 

ALL UK statute has to be compatible with both Common law and the ECHR when drafting legislation

Link to post
Share on other sites

If they come to your door with the police and a warrent, do you have to let them in? I've seen videos on YT which show this, but some people still refuse entry and they simply leave.

Link to post
Share on other sites

When you tell them to go away they undoubtedly will but may try and get an entry warrant and come back with it

and maybe a police officer (makes them look serious but they invariably big up the need for plod to be there

otherwise they wouldnt bother accompanying the goons). I

 

 

believe that they have to make the warrant claim public in the court so that would mean it will be possible to attend

and object to them entering your property on the grounds that you do not have use of receiving apparatus.

 

 

They will then make a note that they should leave you alone

but this address marker only lasts 2 years so they will be back after then.

 

98% of properties have a telly and 95% of those need a licence but they treat the ones who dont have or need a licence as criminals

in the same way as they treat the 2 or 3% of those who evade paying.

 

If they do pitch up invite them to return with a police officer as you would let them in but not capita

and they have an "instrument" in the form of a warrant card.

That winds them up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

use your phone and start filming them too. that normally makes them disappear

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

 

 

 

The SabreSheep, All information is offered on good faith and based on mine and others experiences. I am not a qualified legal professional and you should always seek legal advice if you are unsure of your position.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am more interested in this implied right of access they say they have to intimidate people until that implied right is removed

 

Where under Common Law do they get that implied right??

 

You hear of it with postman ,milkman etc, i am after the source

 

Link please

 

I am more logic and referenced facs than the freeman twaddle

Link to post
Share on other sites
TV licence has the power to investigate any property without a TV licence under the Communicatins Act

 

TV licence use the implied right of access under Common law to send their goons to my front door

 

Besides giving notice witdrawing that common law right i am trying to use Article 8 ECHR right to privacy

 

ALL UK statute has to be compatible with both Common law and the ECHR when drafting legislation

 

That's not correct, common law fills the gap and or interprets statute, there a fair bit of wiggle room via the rules of statutory interpretation.

 

Furthermore, the case law has already said that to the way to lisence operate is compatible with article 8.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not interested in common law and equity/Stare decisis

 

If case /common law states it is compatible with article 8 then i would appreciate a link, and not Margin of Appreciation either

Edited by obiter dictum
Link to post
Share on other sites
I am more interested in this implied right of access they say they have to intimidate people until that implied right is removed

 

Where under Common Law do they get that implied right??

 

You hear of it with postman ,milkman etc, i am after the source

 

Link please

 

I am more logic and referenced facs than the freeman twaddle

m

 

 

Lawful visitors to whom occupiers owe the common duty of care for the purposes of the Occupiers Liability Act of 1957 include:

 

Invitees - S.1(2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - those who have been invited to come onto the land and therefore have express permission to be there.

 

Licensees - S.1(2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - those who have express or implied permission to be there. According to S. 1(2) this includes situations where a licence would be implied at common law. (See below)

 

Those who enter pursuant to a contract - s.5(1) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - For example paying guests at a hotel or paying visitors to a theatre performance or to see a film at a cinema.

 

Those entering in exercising a right conferred by law - s.2(6) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - For example a person entering to read the gas or electricity metres.

 

 

 

 

Implied licence at common law

 

In the absence of express permission to be on the land, a licence may be implied at common law where there exists repeated trespass and no action taken by the occupier to prevent people coming on to the land. This requires an awareness of the trespass and the danger:

 

 

Lowery v Walker [1911] AC 10 Case summary

 

 

 

Repeated trespass alone insufficient:

 

 

Edwards v Railway Executive [1952] AC 737 Case Summary

Link to post
Share on other sites
I am not interested in common law and equity/Stare decisis

 

If case /common law states it is compatible with article 8 then i would appreciate a link, and not Margin of Appreciation either

 

Common law and stare decisis are essentially the same thing..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Thank you

 

I will burn the midnight oil looking into those cases on Westlaw

 

Much obliged

 

Not nessesary to read 7 zillion pages just go on elawrescources and read the summary

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
98% of properties have a telly and 95% of those need a licence but they treat the ones who dont have or need a licence as criminals in the same way as they treat the 2 or 3% of those who evade paying.

 

Just interested in hearing your thoughts on how you think they should tackle the 5% of those who don't pay but should, with those that don't need a license?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was going to start a thread regarding the TV license but decided to post it here. Has anyone read the new report from here

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/468381/51658_Un_Num_TV_Licence_PRINT.pdf

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and leave a note to let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...