Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thank you both. My defence was as vague as their Claim. 1. I am the defendant in this claim and litigant in person. All allegations made by the claimant are denied. 2. The defendant does not recognise the alleged agreement xxxxxxxxxxx as mentioned in the particulars of claim therefore it is denied that any such agreement exists. 3. The defendant has requested copies of the alleged agreement under Data Subject Access Request, Consumer Credit act 1974 s.77/8 and Civil Procedure Rules 31.4 but to date the claimant has failed to provide a copy of this document. 4.The defendant has also requested copies of the default and termination notice for the alleged account xxxxxxxxx as required to legally enforce the alleged debt, but again the claimant has failed to provide either. 5. In addition the defendant has requested copies of statements for the alleged account xxxxxxx showing the amount of monies allegedly owed to the claimant. To Date these have not been provided. 6. The defendants view is that this claim is vexatious and an abuse of process as the claimant has failed to provide any documentation to support their claim and respectfully requests that the said claim be struck out.   As an aside, I noticed that the 'statement' they did provide had a different figure on it to what they are claiming, so I will hopefully be able to flesh out quite a bit in my skeleton argument.   Spam 
    • 80% refund sounds like a very good deal* as they are entitled by law to deduct an amount from the refund to reflect the use you have had of the item over the 12 months it has been working.   So you could argue that a deduction of 20% for one year indicates that they expect it to last for at least five years, and probably longer.     * Think about it this way - would you pay 80% of the value of a brand new iPad to buy a second-hand one that somebody else has been using for over a year, or would you expect to get it cheaper than that?
    • Hi WoodDD.. Neither Case was cited in the VSC WS... however, MR D form VCS threw in VCS v Ward & Idle for the Judge to consider during the hearing. The Judge did not have time to review this. I believe he may have had a quick scan but decided it wasn't relevant at the time.. By not relevant, he didn't elaborate if it was not admissible or anything else..   Hope this helps..   Regards Tom     
    • Can I  ask what you mean by "... they recommended a firm... "?   I ask because I'm a bit surprised that Social Services are even allowed to do that.  (I may be mistaken and that this is common practice, but it seems a bit odd to me).   If they did do so and the work has turned out to be sub-standard and unsatisfactory, I would have no hesitation in making a formal complaint to the council and also to my (or your friend's) local councillor(s).  You acted on the council's recommendation and you should have a reasonable expectation that the firm recommended should be reliable and professional.  I would also insist that trading standards be asked to investigate this firm.  (Where I live our local county council trading standards department runs an approved trader database).   A complaint to the council might not directly assist you but it might help to prevent others being taken in by this firm.
    • Hello Susan, welcome to CAG.   Hopefully Paul Walton will see this message and reply to you, but it would also be a good idea to start a new thread of your own so we can advise on anything else connected with your refund.   Best, HB
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

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


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 OTHERS

 

 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
On 25/01/2021 at 01:58, Its WAR said:

I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.

you do realise that the BBC will now have to serve their presenters SPAM instead of sirloin steak.

 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...