Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
      • 160 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

Bailiffs in at BBC obtain 7 years interest on overpayment of TV licence


Its WAR
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 1115 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

My aged uncle had been paying for his TV licence by auto renewing monthly direct debits despite (despite turning 75 years old 7 years ago). My request for a refund was ignored for over a month, so I made a Direct Debit Indemnity claim and received a full refund for 7 years overpayment within the day from my bank.  It was very simple.

 

I then asked TV licensing for a compensation payment for the interest and they have refused on the grounds they did nothing wrong. It seems they do not take customer dates of birth. This is why  they have no idea whether their customers should be charged or whether they have reached the age for a free license.

 

It seems to me (especially for the benefit of old people), it would be simple to include a date of birth in the application process and therefore automatically cancel direct debits or even reject applications once they become eligible for a free license.

 

My question is, can I insist on interest? I understand statutory 8% interest is only an award if a judge  (at a county court etc) allows it. As I received the refund without going to court, I guess I cannot insist on that interest. However, I hope to proceed to make this scandal more public and seek the interest on his behalf.

 

Any ideas gratefully received.

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

Any chance we can see a copy of your particulars of claim ?

 

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

  • 4 weeks later...

£247 judgement today against BBC in default of acknowledging the claim, based on 8% interest.

 

Claim details: 

1. I am xxxxxxxxxx   and hold Power of

Attorney for my uncle Mr xxxxxxxxx of xxxxxxxx

2. Mr xxxxxxx turned 75 on xxxxxx 2014 and was

entitled to a free TV license

3. For the following 7 years, the Defendant

continued to take money by auto renewing direct debits for

Mr xxxxxx TV license.

4. The Defendant ignored my formal demands

dated 16 July 2020 requesting a refund.

5. On 4 September 2020 I claimed the money

back under the Direct Debit Indemnity

guarantee from xxxxxxxxxx Bank.

6. Having received the refund from Mr xxxxxx

bank, I wrote to the Defendant on 14

September 2020 requesting a payment of

interest.

7. On 19 October 2020 the Defendants refused

to make any interest refund.

 

Lets see if they settle or apply to set aside.

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you should hang around. I think you should put in for immediate enforcement. It will cost you 50 quid – but you might as well put the county court bailiffs in.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Update:

 

A few days after obtaining judgement by default, I receive a letter from MCOL saying the claim form had been returned to the court unserved. But they deemed it as served as long as the address was correct. If the address was correct I can proceed with the case. I decided the address was correct and have paid £77 to instruct the courts bailiffs.

 

Of course, the address might be wrong. But having checked, I can still only find the BBC is at Peel Wing and therefore nothing to suggest the address is wrong. I wonder therefore, whether I may have sued the wrong people? The claim is for interest on 7 years of license fees. Capita are the organisation that deal with the TV license..........Maybe I should have sued Capita (the people who send inspectors to your house and prosecute you if you haven't bought a license).

 

However, in that case, as the BBC were issued with the summons, I would have expected them to issue a defense stating they have been sued in error.  Anyway, for now, I expect the bailiffs will have visited by Christmas and come back with payment in full........................... Unless you guys think differently.

 

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
  • BankFodder changed the title to Bailiffs in at BBC obtain 7 years overpayment of TV licence

I've sent an email to a press contact

And one to a journalist at the BBC!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • BankFodder changed the title to Bailiffs in at BBC obtain 7 years interest on overpayment of TV licence

:rockon:

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

@Its WAR please could you email your contact details to us at our admin email address. Email address and telephone number please.

There is a journalist in the national press who would be interested in talking to you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Story in the Sunday Express 28/2/21. Image also shows a copy of their apology. You will see it only apologises for the delay in corresponding and ignores the substantive point regarding paying interest on the £1000. The apology reads more like a defense and they state they would have defended had the summons not gone astray. Some apology.

008 (2).jpg

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Its WAR

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...