Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • No, reading the guidance online it says to wait for a letter from the court. Should I wait or submit the directions? BTW, I assume that the directions are a longer version of the particular of claim accompanied by evidence, correct?
    • Thanks for opening, it's been another rough year for my family and I've procastinated a little.. Due to the age of my defaults on this and other accounts (circa 2021), I really need to avoid a CCJ as that will be another 6 years of credit issues. Mediation failed as I played the 'not enough info to make a decision' however during the call for some reason they did offer settlement at 80%, I refused. this has been allocated to small claims track, court date is June 3 and I've received their WS. I'm starting on my WS. They do appear to have provided everything required of them (even if docs could be reconstructions). Not really sure what my argument is anymore but I do want to attend court and see this through. Should a judgement be made against me then I will clear the balance within 30 days and have the CCJ removed - this is still possible isn't it? I'm going to be reading up today and tomorrow and hope you can provide me some guidance in the meantime. Wonder what your advice would be given the documents they have provided? I am now in a position to clear the debt either by lump sum or a few large installments - Is this something i should look into at this late stage? Thanks as always in advance
    • I have now received my SAR. It includes a great deal of information! Is there a time limit on how long account information is kept and/or can be provided to debtors? I have received many account statements which were not previously sent to me. I remember that the creditor should provide explanations of any acronyms and abbreviations that maybe used in the documents. Is this still the case? Also what, if any, are the regulations in regard to adding fees to a debt? Can fees be added to a debt after the court has approved a charge on a property. Perhaps due to the numerous owners of the debt, many payments I made were not properly recorded on the account, some were entered over a year after the payment was made! Following the Legal Charge, I paid every month until my payments were refused. I am trying to compute the over payments, but the addition of fees etc. is confusing me. Any comments and/or help would be appreciated.
    • did you submit your directions
  • 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

TV Licence query


Pauli363
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2395 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

Hi.

I bought a second home 5 or 6 years ago with the intention of renting it out, or occasionally using it as a weekend home.

 

Ii arranged a sky dish install and tv aerial at the time, but never installed a tv.

 

 

Due to my wife extended illness, the house has sat unoccupied, although I maintain it and keep it secure and tidy.

 

However, from about 6 months after buying the house (as a new build) I began getting demands for a tv licence. These were and have always been addressed to " The Occupier"

 

I have since just been ignoring these and throwing them in the bin along with the mountain of junkmail I normally get at that address.

 

We are now in a position to begin using the house, and as such would be installing a tv.

I am happy therefore to pay my licence from now online.

 

I fear though, that once I purchase the licence, and they have my name, they will come at me with a summons for non payment for the other years.

 

Is this likely to be the case, or will records just update to show the property is now properly licensed (once I buy the annual licence)

Link to post
Share on other sites

they cant do anything of the sort.

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

for what?

 

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

were you watch live tv at that premises?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

well then you didn't need a licence then.

you ONLY need one if you watch live tv..

 

 

owning a tv is NOT a requirement to have a receiving licence!!

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Paul ...simply apply for a licence from the date you intend to move in.......you will have evidence from your council rates the date you occupied.The previous scatter Occupier letters are sent to all empty properties.

 

Regards

 

Andy

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 OTHER

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group - The National Consumer Service

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

Link to post
Share on other sites

dc100uk is mistaken.

Since Apr 17 you have reqd a TV licence for any eqpt capable of viewing 'on demand' services, not just 'live' broadcasts. That can include a BB-enabled laptop.

As said, I doubt they will chase you for years prior to purchasing a TV Licence without proof, even if the current household currently owns an average 1.4 TVs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

dc100uk is mistaken.

Since Apr 17 you have reqd a TV licence for any eqpt capable of viewing 'on demand' services, not just 'live' broadcasts. That can include a BB-enabled laptop.

As said, I doubt they will chase you for years prior to purchasing a TV Licence without proof, even if the current household currently owns an average 1.4 TVs.

 

That only relates to BBC i player on demand. You don't need a licence to watch ITV, CH4, Youtube, netflix, on demand services etc.

 

I think they should change the licencing system to one more relevant today, if they still want to fund the BBC. Other countries have changed already. One country adds a small fee to electricity bills, so every house with electric which has possibility of a TV being installed, pays towards the countries broadcasting 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

dc100uk is mistaken.

Since Apr 17 you have reqd a TV licence for any eqpt capable of viewing 'on demand' services, not just 'live' broadcasts. That can include a BB-enabled laptop.

As said, I doubt they will chase you for years prior to purchasing a TV Licence without proof, even if the current household currently owns an average 1.4 TVs.

 

You do not need a licence just because you own any equipment that you can watch live broadcast or BBC iplayer, you only need one if you actually watch tv programms as they are broadcast and BBC Iplayer!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

PCs, laptops, routers and other digital devices including smartphones cannot be "examined and tested" by a TV licensing operative. Firstly examining and testing e.g a laptop requires authorisation under Section 49 RIPA 2000 which Capita Business Services will never obtain. Secondly, data processing equipment such as PCs and laptops fall outside the ambit of the 2003 Communications Act.

 

Any TV Licensing operative attempting to access files on a personal computer, laptop or smartphone can be charged under Section 1 of the Misuse of Computers 1990 as they will causing a computer to perform an unauthorised act.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...