Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I apologise if I was being unclear. Where it currently stands is that they will have it repair, placing scaffolding in our garden for 5 days. They have moved fast, but we will still have to postpone our contractors, meaning, we won't necessarily have the work done in time for the wedding and therefore will incur additional expenses for either a marquee or a wedding venue. They are vehemently against having any kind of liability in any regard but continue repeating that they are legally entitled to use our garden for their repairs (I believe this is true unless the work can be carried out using a cherry picker). The neighbour seems either indifferent or oblivious to the fact they can't reach all of the side of the roof from the space where they can place the scaffolding. They have asked their roofer of choice about using a cherry picker but the roofer has said it wasn't possible. It's not clear whether the roofer doesn't want to use a cherry picker or whether there is an issue with it. They have told us it is a problem that we are installing a gazebo as it will prevent them to access their roof from our garden in the future?!?  
    • Couldn't agree more, really wanted a true ruling on this just for the knowledge but pretty sure the Judge made some decisions today that he didn't need to?.. maybe they all go this way on the day? We hear back so few post court dates I'm not sure. Each Judge has some level of discretion. Their sol was another Junior not even working at their Firm, so couldn't speak directly for them! that was fortunate I think because if she would have rejected in court better, she might have  been able to force ruling, we are at that point!, everybody there!!, Judge basically said openly that he can see everything for Judgement!!!  but she just said "I can speak to the claimant and find out!" - creating the opportunity for me to accept. I really think the Judge did me a favor today by saying it without saying it. Knowing the rep for the sol couldn't really speak to the idea in the moment. Been to court twice in a fortnight, on both occasions heard 4 times with others and both of my claims, the clerk mention to one or both parties "Letting the Judge know if you want to have a quick chat with each other"! So, it appears there's an expectation of the court that there is one last attempt at settling before going through the door. So, not a Sol tactic, just Court process!. Judge was not happy we hadn't tried to settle outside! We couldn't because she went to the loo and the Judge called us in 10 minutes early! - another reason to stand down to allow that conv to happen. Stars aligned there for me I think. But yeh, if the sol themselves, or someone who can make decisions on the case were in court, I would have received a Judgement against today I think. She was an 'advocate'.. if I recall her intro to me correctly.. So verbal arguments can throw spanners in Court because Plinks dogs outsource their work and send a Junior advocate.
    • that was a good saving on an £8k debt dx
    • Find out how the UK general elections works, how to register to vote, and what to do on voting day.View the full article
    • "We suffer more in imagination than in reality" - really pleased this all happened. Settled by TO, full amount save as to costs and without interest claimed. I consider this a success but feel free to move this thread to wherever it's appropriate. I say it's a success because when I started this journey I was in a position of looking to pay interest on all these accounts, allowing them to default stopped that and so even though I am paying the full amount, it is without a doubt reduced from my position 3 years ago and I feel knowing this outcome was possible, happy to gotten this far, defended myself in person and left with a loan with terms I could only dream of, written into law as interest free! I will make better decisions in the future on other accounts, knowing key stages of this whole process. We had the opportunity to speak in court, Judge (feels like just before a ruling) was clear in such that he 'had all the relevant paperwork to make a judgement'. He wasn't pleased I hadn't settled before Court.. but then stated due to WS and verbal arguments on why I haven't settled, from my WS conclusion as follows: "11. The Defendant was not given ample evidence to prove the debt and therefore was not required to enter settlement negotiations. Should the debt be proved in the future, the Defendant is willing to enter such negotiations with the Claimant. "  He offered to stand down the case to give us chance to settle and that that was for my benefit specifically - their Sols didn't want to, he asked me whether I wanted to proceed to judgement or be given the opportunity to settle. Naturally, I snapped his hand off and we entered negotiations (took about 45 minutes). He added I should get legal advice for matters such as these. They were unwilling to agree to a TO unless it was full amount claimed, plus costs, plus interest. Which I rejected as I felt that was unfair in light of the circumstances and the judges comments, I then countered with full amount minus all costs and interest over 84 months. They accepted that. I believe the Judge wouldn't have been happy if they didn't accept a payment plan for the full amount, at this late stage. The judge was very impressed by my articulate defence and WS (Thanks CAG!) he respected that I was wiling to engage with the process but commented only I  can know whether this debt is mine, but stated that Civil cases were based on balance of probabilities, not without shadow of a doubt, and all he needs to determine is whether the account existed. Verbal arguments aside; he has enough evidence in paperwork for that. He clarified that a copy of a DN and NOA is sufficient proof based on balance of probabilities that they were served. I still disagree, but hey, I'm just me.. It's definitely not strict proof as basically I have to prove the negative (I didn't receive them/they were not served), which is impossible. Overall, a great result I think! BT  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like
  • Recommended Topics

Being taken to court for not having a TV Licence.....the importance of responding to the Summons and Means Enquiry.


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3085 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

Ten percent of all court fines relate to using a TV without a valid licence. It is a sad fact that the vast majority of people who receive a visit from a TV Licence Enquiry Agent ignore the summons and the accompanying Means Form. A large percentage of people subject to these fines rely upon state benefits.

 

In almost all cases, the person receiving the summons should respond to plead guilty. In doing so, 'credit' will be credit (which will be a reduction in the standard fine).

 

Secondly....it is vitally important to complete the Means Enquiry Form (as outlined below). The following is a copy of an excellent post by a Magistrate that featured on a 'blog' today:

"Went in to Court today to fill a gap in the rota. I found myself in a non-CPS court dealing with TV licensing offences, and local authority Council Tax cases arising from non-payment of the tax.

 

http://magistratesblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/this-isnt-what-i-signed-up-for-three.html

Edited by caro
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 57
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

There is a lot to be said for the fact that you self incriminate yourself by speaking to, and signing the TVL 178 Form.

If people kept 'wood in ole' or refused to speak to the goons, then there would be no prosecutions.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot to be said for the fact that you self incriminate yourself by speaking to, and signing the TVL 178 Form.

If people kept 'wood in ole' or refused to speak to the goons, then there would be no prosecutions.

 

It is a criminal fine as I understand it, so the burden is beyond reasonable doubt, it think it would be hard to prove if like you say if the person did not self incriminate or let them in.

I do not know if it is still the case but their "operatives "used to give you the pace warning, before interviewing you on your doorstep. I always thought that this a was a bit over the top and designed to insinuate that they had more power than they do, although they are empowered to issue it. You can just shut the door in their face after(or before) you heard it.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only a matter of time, not having a TV license will become a civil offense :-(

 

Not a moment to soon IMHO.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course there are many who have moved or are just minding the property when the goon knocks. These are people wo are taken to Court without any knowledge.

The goons are salespeople Capita is the employer, need we say more. Do not say anything to a Capita goon, certainly not your name.

 

You are not compelled to engage with them at all, People who do not need a license including those who have no TV have been convicted by self incrimination, as in when asked if they watched anything, on TV the innocent said they saw Eastbenders at a neighbours. Kerching Goon hits jackpot.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only a matter of time, not having a TV license will become a civil offense :-(

 

Even if one does not have a television* in the house ?

 

*) This includes any other device capable of displaying a live broadcast.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if one does not have a television* in the house ?

 

*) This includes any other device capable of displaying a live broadcast.

 

The mere possession of the TV or device doesn't need a license, it is the use to watch TV programmes as they are broadcast, so use for streaming Netflix, Amazon, YouTube or I-player doesn't require a license. Rest assured the BBC wants to bring all these under the TV license, but why the hell should the BBC gain revenue via the outmoded ludicrous TV Tax from someone accessing my or anyone else's YouTube channel, it's not their intellectual property.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a lot to be said for the fact that you self incriminate yourself by speaking to, and signing the TVL 178 Form.

If people kept 'wood in ole' or refused to speak to the goons, then there would be no prosecutions.

 

On my website the page about court fines for TV licence evasion has either been the most downloaded page daily or the 2nd one. The same with enquiries and telephone calls. What has always worried me though is that most people do not realise that the document that they sign at the door is a PROSECUTION STATEMENT confirming that they had been viewing a TV without a licence. This document will be presented to court with the summons.

 

Secondly, most people also seem to think that by completing the additional documentation (direct debit forms) to purchase a NEW TV licence means that they will not be prosecuted. Complete barmy.

 

Never sign a document unless you know what it is that you are signing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's only a matter of time, not having a TV license will become a civil offense :-(

 

Given that the contract with Capita has a few years left to run I cannot see the government making any changes for a while. I could be wrong though.

 

If they did become civil offences, this would lead to a staggering increase in County Court judgments and with High Court Enforcement Officers lobbying hard for amendments to be made to legislation to allow them to enforce low value debts (below £600) such offences could keep bailiffs busy for years ahead.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't forget BA that the CAUTION is very important. I know you are not going to like this but some licence holders MUST have an appropriate Adult present when questioned.

 

If the goon fails to take this onto account then the case fails. Secondly they do not have an implied right of access either. Finally when they start to look through windows and are caught they can face the wrath of the Police too.

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

Secondly they do not have an implied right of access either. Finally when they start to look through windows and are caught they can face the wrath of the Police too.

 

Actually the do MM, the point is that this is all they have. :)

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Given that the contract with Capita has a few years left to run I cannot see the government making any changes for a while. I could be wrong though.

 

If they did become civil offences, this would lead to a staggering increase in County Court judgments and with High Court Enforcement Officers lobbying hard for amendments to be made to legislation to allow them to enforce low value debts (below £600) such offences could keep bailiffs busy for years ahead.

 

Would it not be possible to de regulate in the same way as traffic offences were, perhaps create a administrative centre such as the equivalent of TEC and enforce through certified bailiffs ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually the do MM, the point is that this is all they have.*

 

They actually do what?

 

I quoted the point on the post MM. You said they do not have an implied right of access, this is incorrect they do.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

Show us where please

 

You want me to show you the garden ?

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

No I want you to show us where they have implied access

 

Your posts MM, with respect give me a head ache. If you mean you want me to show you where the implied right is written, I cannot, its implied.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it doesn't, and the inspector operates under exactly the same implied right, as MM says this can be withdrawn by placing simple notice on the gate or by sending a letter to the inspectors office(EDIT or just telling him to go away).

Not of course to be confused with bailiffs who visit under the power of the statute.

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES TO COLD CALLERS PROMISING TO WRITE OFF YOUR DEBTS

DO NOT PAY UPFRONT FEES FOR COSTLY TELEPHONE CONSULTATIONS WITH SO CALLED "EXPERTS" THEY INVARIABLY ARE NOTHING OF THE SORT

BEWARE OF QUICK FIX DEBT SOLUTIONS, IF IT LOOKS LIKE IT IS TO GOOD TO BE TRUE IT INVARIABLY IS

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...