Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi All I have now received a Final Reminder, which I have attached. Can you confirm that I should still ignore this letter and take no further action. It does not appear to say "Letter of Claim" anywhere on the document but I just wanted to check with you all. Many thanks FightUnfairParkingTickets Parking Charge Final Reminder issued 29th May 2024.pdf
    • Hello I am a resident of a communal block of flats owned by a Housing Association and since Tuesday 14th May 2024 Matthews and Tannert had put up scaffolding for a job on the roof last week, which was up for the best part of nine days. They had removed the scaffolding on Thursday 23rd May 2024 but my Sky box is still not working because of the satellite dish outside, and I was wondering whether the scaffolders had touched the dish while it was there and as a result had probably knocked the dish and probably made the dish go out of signal or whatever. I needed someone to check this out as well as to see my Sky box to see what could be the problem, and hopefully sort this out. I have had my Sky Digibox for many years and I have got recordings saved on them that I have had a long time - it would break my heart if I had lost them forever.       I contacted Sky but I almost made the mistake of accepting an offer where I would have to pay £31.50 and wait a whole month without television in my front room for it. I am in debt at the moment and I don't want all this on top of everything else - thankfully I have since cancelled it two weeks later when I told the person on the phone that it is the dish which is at fault as well as the fact that I live in a communal Housing Association property, and so that is one of very few weights off my mind. I emailed the Housing Association's Repairs department and they said that they will contact an electrical company to come out and see to the dish outside. I received a telephone call on Friday 24th May from the man to say that he will arrive on Wednesday 29th May 2024 to do the job. He arrived at around 9.40 am on Wednesday as promised; he went into my flat and had a look at the Sky box and saw the blue screen on my front room TV set, indicating no signal. He also looked outside as to where the dish was.  The main problem was that the ladders that he had with him were not enough to reach the dish outside as the dish was towards the top of the building - obviously the Health and Safety aspect of the job didn't allow him to do this. He then mentioned that whether he could do the job as a result of getting onto the roof and doing it like that as the dish is closer to the top. He said that he needed the key to enter the loft part of the building in order to reach this, and he needed to contact the Housing Officer at the Housing Association who had key to this, but lo and behold, he came on the Wednesday to do the job, and guess what? Wednesday was the Housing Officer's day off and so therefore he was unable to contact him for the key so that he could do the job! I just couldn't believe it myself. I am personally annoyed because this has not been sorted, and the man who came to do this is also annoyed because he came all the way to Nottingham from Peterborough, and he said to me that he won't get paid if he cannot do the job, so you see, we are both angry about this for different reasons. We are both in the same boat with regards to frustration, and we both want to see a conclusion to this, once and for all. Sometimes I wish that I didn't live in a flat which is in a communal building and I am thinking of getting a transfer to a one bedroom flat that isn't in that sort of place. I pay around £85 a month in a Direct Debit to Sky to receive their TV services which I cannot use at the moment, and I don't have much money in my bank account as it is due to one thing and another. I also pay nearly £14 a month to TV Licensing so that I can legally watch TV in my front room. I pay for Sky hence the fact that I want the Sky service in my front room and not Freeview. Also, as the General Election is coming up in five weeks' time, I want the satellite TV to be working properly so that I can catch up with what is on the news channels, and I feel rather "cut off" from that at the moment, and I want it working in time for Thursday 4th July 2024 for ovbious reasons . I have Freeview in my bedroom, but that is not the point  - I don't want to be limited to my bedroom every time I want to watch TV. I have tried putting the Freeview in te front room but it doesn't seem compatable for the same uses that I usually have Sky for.  Sunday 9th June 2024 is Day 27 of the satellite TV not working in my flat, and I feel that something needs to be done about this. You can take this message as a complaint if you like, but nevertheless, I want this message to be acknowledged and also something to be done about what has happened. I have enough on my plate with regards to health problems and depression without things like this making things worse. I would appreciate it if something was done.  I don't like naming and shaming but it is Matthews and Tannert's fault that I am in this situation in the first place, and sometimes I wish that I could sue them. In a nutshell, I have had more than enough after being without TV in the my front room for nearly four weeks. Also, at a time like this, I am missing so much of interest on TV what with the General Election comning up in just a few weeks.
    • There's no facility for a settlement "out of court" as such. But matters that are started under the "Single Justice" (SJ) Procedure can often be concluded without the defendant appearing. The SJ procedure, as the name suggests, involves a single magistrate, sitting in an office with a legal advisor, dealing with matters "on papers" only. Nobody else can attend. The SJ deals with straightforward guilty pleas. Anything where the SJ believes the defendant should appear, or which should be dealt with by the "ordinary" court are adjourned o a hearing in the normal magistrates'  court .As well as this, all defendants have the right to a hearing in the normal court if they wish. Nobody is forced to have their case heard under he SJP.  In particular, as far as traffic matters go, a SJ will not disqualify a driver and if a ban is to be considered, the case will be passed over to the normal court. Because, following your SD, you will be pleading Not Guilty (and offering the "deal"), your case would usually be heard in the normal court, meaning a personal appearance. To be honest, performing your SD at the court is a more straightforward way of doing things. It avoids any possible hitches involved in serving he SD on the court. But of course, as I said, most courts have backlogs which mean an SD may not be quickly accommodated. If you do end up doing your SD before a solicitor, check with them the protocol for serving it on the court. Do let us know what the solicitor says about Wednesday.    
    • Welcome to posting on CAG cabot, people will be along soon to help you try to sort this out. Please complete this:  
    • Quotes of the day penny mordaunt came out swinging with her broadsword, and promptly decapitated sunak while Nigel Farage, representing Reform UK, made contentious claims about immigration policies, which were swiftly fact-checked during the debate.   Good question though raised at labour about the 2 child benefit cap, which I broadly agree with, but the tory 'trap' assumes tory thinking - rather than child centric thinking. There should be no incentives to have kids as a financial way of life paid for by everyone else ... ... BUT the kids should not be made to suffer for the decisions of their parents Free school meals would feed the kids, improve their ability to learn, and incentivise them to go to school. As an added benefit ... it would invest in our nations future.   How far this should go is a matter for costing, social intent and future path of the nation, but not feeding our nations kids is an abomination. There should be at least one free school meal per day for every child who attends school. Full Stop. Its the cheapest and most effective investment in our future we could make.
  • 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

Tv License question....just curious


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 5374 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

For years we didn't have TV when the kids were very small as we felt that it would be a negative influence on them. Nevertheless, we were badgered frequently by the TVLA because we had no TV licence. On one occasion, we were visited by an inspector who asked if she could come in and check if I had a TV. I told her no but she was welcome to park a detector van outside my home indefinitely as far as I was concerned.

 

A week or so later, we got a letter from the TVLA expressing concern that an inspector had been denied access to check whether or not I had a TV. At the time, I was doing illustration work and my income depended on copyright licence fees from companies (mostly greeting card companies) using my designs under the terms of the copyright licence. So I wrote to the TVLA expressing concern that I had no record of ever having received a licence fee for the use of any of my designs and asked if they could arrange a time and date at their convenience when I could call into their offices and check through their stationary and literature to ensure that they weren't using any of my designs without a copyright licence.

 

I did receive a reply. It stated that it would not be possible to allow members of the public access to their offices for the purposes requested but went on to assure me that the TVLA was not in the habit of using copyright protected work without appropriate consent.

 

In response to their initial letter, I sent a copy of this letter along with a brief note from me that it would not be possible to allow officers of the TVLA access to my home for the purposes requested but I assured them I was not in the habit of owning TVs, vehicles or any equipment requiring a licence without the appropriate licence. I added that any further demands for payment, threats of legal action or demands to enter my home would be regarded as harrassment and appropriate action taken.

 

I very much doubt that I actually had the law on my side but they never bothered me again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 315
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

TVL are just arses - Sorry, but they rely on Bully tactics, I remember reading somewhere that about 90% of people prosecuted were single Mums with kids, who were "coereced" into giving a doorstep "admission"

 

I always chase the cheeky fookers, and yes - we do have a licence, but only because my OH wouldn't let me go without....

 

Mike

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
So to confirm. If they want to enter your premises they need to apply for a warrant through a Judge at which point you would have been notified? If they turned up you could simple say "no thank you".

 

Absolutely Robert. They have less power than your paperboy, cannot 'demand' anything and are called 'officers' as an intimidatory measure. They can only enter if you invite them in or with a warrant issued by the courts, but of course they don't tell you that, they use the air of authority to make you think they have some kind of power, but they have none.

 

You do not have to respond to any letters they send you either as these have no legal standing, and it is up to them to prove that you are using a television receiver to receive 'live' broadcast, and not mearly that you own one.

 

A post earlier mentioned that detector vans do not work. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they do. A cathode ray tube television emits a very strong rf field and that can be picked up in quite a wide circle around where it is being used and in the normal house that is in the street, and they can tell you which channel you are watching as well, so I am afraid that the privacy laws do not cover it either.

 

Modern LCD and Plasma televisions or computers with the same monitors do not radiate this rf field so it is they that cannot be detected.

 

When we have all changed to these type of screen at some time in the future, their job is going to be made a lot harder

 

And never ever sign anything. They are as devious as debt collectors and will say it is to acknowledge they have called when it is in fact an admission that you are using a television without a licence even if you don't own a television, and a court summons will probably appear soon after.

 

Just one other thing. TVL is the BBC, they use an outside contractor to collect the fee and it is not a statutory body set up by the government or anyone else

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had the same problem, had a mobile home which was used for the odd weekend and one weekend they came round, no tv visible and they asked the neighbours if I lived there permanently and had a tv... neighbours didn't know as they were 'weekenders' too and the bloke was well miffed. He went to the site manager and he confirmed that I didn't live there permanently.

 

When I moved I got my license for my old address stopped and as I am in rented property and the landlord pays the tv licence here they couldn't make me take a new licence as I am not a separate household... I now watch tv from a tv tuner card on my digital PC screen.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A post earlier mentioned that detector vans do not work. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they do. A cathode ray tube television emits a very strong rf field and that can be picked up in quite a wide circle around where it is being used and in the normal house that is in the street, and they can tell you which channel you are watching as well, so I am afraid that the privacy laws do not cover it either.

True, but my understanding is that of all the "detector vans" you see in the street, only one or two are actually functional, the rest being dummy vans to re-inforce their scare tactics. I have also read that there has never actually been a prosecution based on detector van evidence. Only on "confessions" obtained on the doorstep/in the premises by TVL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone HATES paying for tv licences but EVERYONE doesn't avoid paying them through deception.

 

Yes, the tactics of TVL are atrocious but this doesn't give anyone the right to avoid payment when they use a TV, thus increasing the cost of licences for poor buggers like me who pay it!!!

 

Those who avoid paying when they have a TV are not screwing the BBC, they're screwing the licence payers, i. e. me and 99.9% of people on this site who I am certain will be disgusted by some of the ignorant remarks on this thread.

 

What next - let's stop paying council tax and say we don't use the roads, bins and pavements . . .

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Modern LCD and Plasma televisions or computers with the same monitors do not radiate this rf field so it is they that cannot be detected.

 

When we have all changed to these type of screen at some time in the future, their job is going to be made a lot harder

 

 

yes but we are all going digital soon..........

 

wont be that long before they can "turn you off" for not paying .......

 

The agency they use to collect the tvl is I believe CAPITA.......responsible for among other things collecting and enforcing the london congestion charge.

 

rgds

 

Dave

** We would not seek a battle as we are, yet as we are, we say we will not shun it. (Henry V) **

 

see you stand like greyhounds in the slips,

Straining upon the start. The game's afoot:

Follow your spirit; and, upon this charge

Cry 'God for Harry! England and Saint George!'

:D If you think I have helped, informed, or amused you do the clickey scaley thing !! :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone HATES paying for tv licences but EVERYONE doesn't avoid paying them through deception.

CAG certainly encourages everybody who watches television to pay the licence fee, and distances itself from comments to the contrary.

If you watch TV, pay the fee.

If you do not, then don't be bullied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't have a television for some years, though I have one (and a licence) now. During the time I didn't have a licence I started off sweet and innocent, writing them letters saying I didn't have a television. After a while I worked out that keeping up your side of the bargain was a complete waste of time, so I just started ignoring the letters. Only phoning occasionally to complain about misleading wording.

 

I've read (TV Licensing – and the non-viewer – an FAQ) that there is a simple way of getting rid of TV Licencing Inspectors. If they are going to interview you under caution, then under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, they have to provide you with a lawyer should you demand one. So if you demand one, they'll go away. The link I doesn't look too conclusive concerning this, so confirmation/other evidence might be useful.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They use those words as further intimidation.

 

You do not have to speak to them at all, unless they turn up with a warrant, (even then you don't have to say anything).

 

I like your way of thinking AT but unfortunately you will have to pay for that legal eagle as you can only get free legal advice if you are being interviewed in a police station.

Link to post
Share on other sites

They use those words as further intimidation.

 

You do not have to speak to them at all, unless they turn up with a warrant, (even then you don't have to say anything).

 

I like your way of thinking AT but unfortunately you will have to pay for that legal eagle as you can only get free legal advice if you are being interviewed in a police station.

 

OK, HSE - Questioning of Suspects supports your claim. But they can't continue on with the "interview" without legal advice having been taken, so it ends there. I would presume.

Link to post
Share on other sites

CAG certainly encourages everybody who watches television to pay the licence fee, and distances itself from comments to the contrary.

If you watch TV, pay the fee.

If you do not, then don't be bullied.

 

Really?

 

Of course they do have a bit at the bottom (almost called it a link then) saying you should write to them if you don't have a TV, but given how aggressive and hostile their letters are, I didn't see why I should. Instead I decided to be as uncooperative as possible

 

The evidence suggest otherwise

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, crash - how is this advocating not paying a licence fee? I agree with webby. If one does not have a tv, why should one make it easy for them? Why should one write to them? Surely the onus is on them to prove that one watches tv?

 

This is not avoidance of paying the licence at all.

Any help and advice is offered in good faith, based solely on my own knowledge and on experience gathered from this site. I am not qualified to offer legal or financial advice, which you should seek from an expert before making any important decisions. My opinions are therefore offered without liability.

 

If I've been helpful, please click my scales. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As further intimidation, these people who obviously use the DCA collection manual as their instruction manual, attempt to make it look as though your house must have a licence, and you may receive a letter begining:

 

Official Warning - This Property is Unlicensed

 

You are hereby notified that we have authorised officers from our Enforcement Division

to visit you home and interview you under caution, as our records show there is still no TV Licence at this address.

Maybe, on second thoughts, these people wrote the manual that the DCAs use for collection.

 

Surely this type of thing must come under the 'Harasement' regulations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So basically because my friend only has a dvd and his games console attached to his tv, he does'nt have to pay....Cheers for that.

 

Careful! I amused myself by reading up on TV licencing some time ago. It appears that there is case law which means that a TV capable of receiving transmissions requires a licence even if it isn't connected. The advice that I read (not written by lawyers, nor am I one), said that anyone wanting to use a TV for purposes other than receiving broadcasts should disable it so that it cannot receive such signals. Even that won't help you though if a TVL inspector fools you into signing a confession, which is, I'm told, easier to do by accident than you'd think, with key phrases hidden in larger documents etc. It is claimed that TVL doesn't publicise these precedents (though it uses them in court) as it's easier to get a conviction if people aren't familiar with them.

 

On the lighter side, I also read a story where someone had a TVL inspector on his doorstep. The TVL inspector asked to come in. The householder said no. The TVL inspector said that he was going to stand there until he was allowed in. It was raining heavily and there was no shelter outside the door. The householder said "fine" (or similar) and just stood there for some time until the TVL inspector realised that the situation was ridiculous and left.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To disable does not mean removing some part so that it can't receive. It is satisfactory to have the television detuned.

To enter your home they have to have cause, ie they have seen it through the window (and believe that it is a live tv picture) or captured it on a detector. They will still even then, need a warrant from the court to enter.

 

If the set has an aerial plugged in or a set top box, and on switching it on a live television picture appears, then I am afraid that no denial will be good enough.

Just a television and a dvd is fine. Remember though that a video is a television receiver and some dvd have receivers in them (rare), and also a computer with a television card is also classed as a television.

 

One of the reasons to try and educate is that there is nothing tvl has that you need to sign.

Link to post
Share on other sites

To enter your home they have to have cause, ie they have seen it through the window (and believe that it is a live tv picture) or captured it on a detector. They will still even then, need a warrant from the court to enter.

 

I have read some horror stories of what TVL inspectors will do if they believe that the person they are (in my opinion) harassing does not know the law. In theory they need to follow the process you describe. In reality there appear to be some "bad eggs" among TVL inspectors.

 

There are also more mild examples where inspectors will use bullying or manipulative, erm, "strategies" to get the homeowner to give them permission to enter. As a fictional example, imagine the inspector putting his hands on his hips, saying in an officious voice "I need to inspect your property to ensure that you do not have a television. Show me to the lounge." Wouldn't work on one of us I'm sure, but on poorly educated unemployed people, sometimes effective.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...