Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • 1st letter image.pdf1st letter 2nd page.pdf
    • Many thanks for the replies and advice!   I what to send this email to the Starbucks CEO and the area manager. Your thoughts would be appreciated.   [email protected] [email protected]   Re: MET Parking PNC at your Starbucks Southgate site   Dear Ms Rayner, / Dear Heather Christie,   I have received a Notice to Keeper regarding a Parking Charge Notice of £100 for the driver parking in the Southgate Park Car Park, otherwise infamously known as the Stanstead Starbucks/McDonalds car park(s).   Issued by: MET Parking Services Ltd Parking Charge Notice Number: XXXXXXXXX Vehicle Registration Number: XXXX XXX Date of Contravention: XX.XX.XXXX Time: XX:XX - XX:XX   After a little research it apears that the driver is not alone in being caught in what is commonly described as a scam, and has featured in the national press and on the mainstream television.   It is a shame that the reputation of Starbucks is being tarnished by this, with your customers leaving the lowest possible reviews on Trustpilot and Trip Advisor at this location, and to be associated with what on the face of it appears to be a doubious and predatory car park management company.   In this instance, during the early hours of the morning the driver required a coffee and parked up outside Starbucks with the intention of purchasing one from yourselves. Unfortunately, you were closed so the driver walked to McDonalds next door and ordered a coffee, and for this I have received the Notice to Keeper.   It is claimed that the car park is two separate car parks (Starbucks/McDonalds). However, there is no barrier or road markings to identity a boundary, and the signage in the car park(s) and outside your property is ambiguous, as such the terms would most likely be deemed unfair and unenforcable under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   I understand that Starbucks-Euro Garages neither operate or benefit from the charges imposed by MET Parking. However, MET Parking is your client.   Additionally, I understand that the charge amount of £100 had previously been upheld in court due to a ‘legitimate interest in making sure that a car park was run as efficiently as possible to benefit other drivers as well as the local stores, keeping cars from overstaying’.   However, this is not applicable when the shop or store is closed (as was the case here), as there is no legitimate interest. Therefore, the amount demanded is a penalty and is punitive, again contravening the Consumer Rights Act 2015.   As the driver’s intention of the visit was genuine, I would be grateful if you could please instruct your client to cancel this Notice to Keeper/Parking Charge Notice.   Kind regards
    • I received the promised call back from the Saga man today who informed me that the undertakers have decreed it IS a modification and they will need to recalculate a quote individually for me. However it all sounds very arbitrary. The more I think about it, and with help from forum replies, the more I am sure that it is not a modification. If for example the original seatback had become damaged by a spillage or a tear, I would be entitled to replace it with the nearest available part. The problem is when it comes to a payout after an accident, there is no telling what an individual insurer will decide when he notices the change. I am still undecided which of the two best routes to go with, either don't mention the replacement at all, or fill in the quote form without mentioning, and when it comes to buying the insurance over the phone, mention it at the time.
    • Please post up their letter so we understand what they've asked. You need to cover up your name and address and their reference number. HB
    • Hello,  I received the standard letter.  I don't understand No. 3: If this is in relation to a ticket irregularity, then if you were unable to produce a pass because you did not have it with you or if your pass was withdrawn because you were unable to produce a valid photocard to accompany it, please enclose a photocopy of the pass/photocard with your reply. Question: do i enclose my photocard? my partner's freedom pass was confiscated.
  • 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

bbc iplayer'loophole' to be closed


Guest
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2676 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

  • Replies 68
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

 

An agreement was reached between the government and the BBC last July that the government would update licence fee legislation, as part of negotiations that saw the corporation agreeing to cover the cost of providing free licences for over-75s.

 

In his keynote speech, Mr Whittingdale said: "Having discussed this with the BBC and the BBC Trust, I will be bringing forward, as soon as practicable, secondary legislation which will extend the current TV licensing regime, not only to cover those watching the BBC live but also those watching the BBC on catch-up through the iPlayer."

 

I think that ALL TV companies should contribute to the free licenences for over 75's

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

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

What loophole though. The law clearly says live tv or radio transmissions.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

they see it as a 'loophole', though not technically one as such atm. its to change the law so it includes the beebs catchup stuff ie not just live?

how it wld/cld be enforced though, prob via an increase in the 'ultra vires' licence fee :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Soon we will need a license to breath!

 

As there are already reports of court orders based on 'seeing flickering lights through the curtains', You'll have to prove you were incapable of watching it

- impossible of course unless you have no internet/mobile phone or anything like and even then they can say you must be hiding it somewhere.

Strip searches by the license goons ...

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

they see it as a 'loophole', though not technically one as such atm. its to change the law so it includes the beebs catchup stuff ie not just live?

how it wld/cld be enforced though, prob via an increase in the 'ultra vires' licence fee :lol:

 

Easy - have you need to put in your TV license number (or register for access) before they let you access it on the web. Job done.

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except if it was that easy and true, theyd have already done that a long time ago.

They have to prove you were watching live tv. You could have been watching a DVD, or watching youtube on your tv.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except if it was that easy and true, theyd have already done that a long time ago.

 

It is that simple, its just that previously it wasn't worthwhile as the majority were catchup where a license isnt yet required - hence not worth the trouble.

 

They have to prove you were watching live tv. You could have been watching a DVD, or watching youtube on your tv.

 

Actually - they dont, they should have to - but they dont

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-administering-the-licence-fee-AB20

 

 

"A magistrate (or sheriff in Scotland) has discretion to grant a search warrant for authorised persons to search premises suspected of illegal activity in respect of television licensing. It is an offence to intentionally obstruct a person exercising the warrant (see section 366(8) of the Communications Act 2003). TV Licensing will be accompanied by the police when executing a search warrant."

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4

 

 

excerpt

(7)Where a person has the power by virtue of a warrant under this section to examine or test any television receiver found on any premises, or in any vehicle, it shall be the duty—

 

(a)of a person who is on the premises or in the vehicle, and

 

(b)in the case of a vehicle, of a person who has charge of it or is present when it is searched,

 

to give the person carrying out the examination or test all such assistance as that person may reasonably require for carrying it out.

 

(8)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

 

(a)intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of any power conferred on that person by virtue of a warrant under this section; or

 

(b)without reasonable excuse, fails to give any assistance that he is under a duty to give by virtue of subsection (7).

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are quite a few countries that have abolished the TV licence and publicly fund.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

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

Uploading documents to CAG ** Instructions **

Looking for a draft letter? Use the CAG Library

Dealing with Customer Service Departments? - read the CAG Guide first

1: Making a PPI claim ? - Q & A's and spreadsheets for single premium policy - HERE

2: Take back control of your finances - Debt Diaries

3: Feel Bullied by Creditors or Debt Collectors? Read Here

4: Staying Calm About Debt  Read Here

5: Forum rules - These have been updated - Please Read

BCOBS

1: How can BCOBS protect you from your Banks unfair treatment

2: Does your Bank play fair - You can force your Bank to play Fair with you

3: Banking Conduct of Business Regulations - The Hidden Rules

4: BCOBS and Unfair Treatment - Common Examples of Banks Behaving Badly

5: Fair Treatment for Credit Card Holders and Borrowers - COBS

Advice & opinions given by citizenb are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

PLEASE DO NOT ASK ME TO GIVE ADVICE BY PM - IF YOU PROVIDE A LINK TO YOUR THREAD THEN I WILL BE HAPPY TO OFFER ADVICE THERE:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

There are quite a few countries that have abolished the TV licence and publicly fund.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

 

Yes, Yet our government has implemented a law supporting TVL where not breaking the law and simply requiring them to leave you alone can be interpreted by a magistrate as grounds for a search warrant.

 

I didn't believe this at first, but it does appear to be true. - although many of the other statements readily seen would certainly seem to be false - like they have to catch you watching TV - well no they dont - a TV set up to receive channels, even if the Aeriel isnt plugged in would seem to see you prosecuted.

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

Easy - have you need to put in your TV license number (or register for access) before they let you access it on the web. Job done.

 

I cannot see any other way of restricting access to iPlayer unless with a licence number. Mind you, what would stop me giving my licence number to my sons?

 

I haven't read this yet, but this is the Culture Secretary's full keynote speech today:

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/culture-secretary-keynote-to-oxford-media-convention-2016

Link to post
Share on other sites

It says little apart from some BBC trumpet blowing, whinging about online ad blockers and saying that BBC programs online were never intended to be free and they intend to close that loophole.

The real issue is how they close the loophole.

If they just extend the TVL bullboys rights, then you pc, laptop and phone will also come under their 'investigation' completely breaching the requirement to reasonable privacy expected but never mentioned in their current investigations.

The only realistic way is to require registration to watch it with confirmation of licence at/during registration.

Its my opinion that anything openly broadcast on any media should be free to receive - or not to receive as you wish.

Sky and VM manage it - why not the BBC.

It seems to me on examination that there appear to be some simple facts

The word of the law (as shown in the links above) allows suspicion as a valid reason to give a search warrent to TVL, and at least some magistrates also appear to hold that view.

... despite TVL statements here http://www.lime-marmalade.net/philip_dean.html

Obstructing (very subjective)

Obstructing a search warrant, even a TVL one, is a separate offense clearly defined in the links above which does not require any guilt proven on the issue the search warrant was granted for.

The law as stated is linked above

In addition to the video linked on a number of the anti-TVL sites, there are a number of local newspaper reports detailing such events.

Heres one http://www.burtonmail.co.uk/Television-licence-trial-begin-today/story-25958759-detail/story.html

PACE

TVL are not required to follow PACE requirements, they are required to give a 'caution'

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-administering-the-licence-fee-AB20

"What is a prosecution statement? A prosecution statement is a record of an interview which takes place under caution, conducted by TV Licensing enquiry officers if they suspect that an offence under the Communications Act 2003 has been committed.

When taking statements enquiry officers must have regard to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act Codes of Practice (‘the PACE Codes’) or Scottish criminal law (depending on where the address is). This means enquiry officers have a duty to caution the individual concerned of their legal rights before taking a statement if the individual still wishes to give a statement. Most of the PACE Codes do not apply to enquiry officers as they do not have any power to arrest or detain people, enter premises or seize property. The PACE Codes only apply to enquiry officers in so far as it imposes a duty on them to give a caution.

There is a duty to respect your privacy, but dont read too much into that.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0eNVR3Ar16ZbDlKeldrVzFhZE0/edit?pref=2&pli=1

Note the PACE statement in the above contradict the 'facts' on the TVL site

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-administering-the-licence-fee-AB20

I am NOT legally qualified in any way and THESE ARE MY OPINIONS based on some research AND SHOULD BE confirmed with a suitable LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

They might as well make it compulsory for every adult to pay a TV licence, whether they normally watch a TV or not. If they walk down a high street they will pass shops selling TV's. If they go to a pub, they may watch TV. Etc etc,

 

If every adult paid a licence, rather than a household, they could reduce the fee to about £25 a year each.

 

Nobody would be exempt from paying.

 

In the modern world we are in, where you can watch it on numerous devices anywhere you want to, it is illogical to maintain a household licencing system.

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it only BBC iplayer or all catch up? I don't have a licence and I'd be happy enough to be checked because my TV isn't tuned in to receive live channels. If this is intended to only apply to BBC iplayer how on earth will they police it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

If every adult paid a licence, rather than a household, they could reduce the fee to about £25 a year each.

 

Like they tried to introduce with the Poll Tax that ended in riots.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you search for worldwide TV licencing you will see a Wiki page. Quite interesting reading. UK was first to introduce licences and it is now pretty common. Germany actually charges a higher licence. Some still charge for radio.

 

They could scrap licences and just fund all TV subsidies from general taxation. BBC should be forced to accept more advertising and the money should be spread across different broadcasters.l

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

The £25 if every household pays just doesnt stack up unc.

By those calculations only 1/6th of households are paying.

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

oops - sorry misread

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

You obviously have no idea how many pay/membership streaming websites there are, most of which probably dont make millions in their lifetimes..

The BBC already have the DB to validate the licenses, which give addresses should checking be meeded.

Its a simple matter to check for multiple connections from different IP's - all standard stuff although there would still be some cheating od course - as there is with VM and SKY - who still make big profits..

Now the BBC might end up with the implementation costing millions, but it certainly wouldn't be justifiable.

Have you heard of Sky Go for example.

or look here

http://www.thegreatcourses.com/

On Search warrants

"A magistrate (in England and Wales), a sheriff (in Scotland) or lay magistrate (in Northern Ireland) may grant a

search warrant if he or she is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing

(i) that a TV licensing offence has been or is being committed;

(ii) that evidence of the offence is likely to be found on the specified premises (or vehicle); and

(iii) that there is no one able to grant access to the premises, vehicle or evidence with whom it is practicable to communicate, or that entry will not be granted unless a warrant is produced, or that the purpose of the search may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless it carried out by a person who secures entry immediately upon arrival.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/403561/15_02_12_Consultation_document_-_TV_Licence_Enforcement_Review__2_.pdf

https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/docs/code_2013_accessible_english.pdf

The Tory Legacy

Record high Taxes, Immigration, Excrement in waterways, energy company/crony profits

Crumbling Hospitals, Schools, council services, businesses and roads

 

If only the Govt had thrown a protective ring around care homes

with the same gusto they do around their crooked MPs

 

10 years to save the Vest

After Truss lost the shirt off the UKs back in 49 days

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...