Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well done. Are you able to tell us more about how it went on the day please? HB
    • when mediation call they will ask the same 3 questions that are in their email you had to accept it going forward. simply state 'i do not have enough information from the claimant to make an informed decision upon mediation so i refuse. end of problem.  
    • Food prices, including a $40 chicken, has stoked fury and calls for big foreign supermarket chains to come to Canada.View the full article
    • Which Court have you received the claim from ? Civil National Business CEntre Name of the Claimant ? Lowell Portfolio i Ltd How many defendant's  joint or self ? Self   Date of issue –  15 Feb 2024 Particulars of Claim What is the claim for – the reason they have issued the claim?  The claim is for the sum of £922 due by the Defendant under and agreement regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 for a Capital One account with an account reference of [number with 16 digits] The Defendant failed to maintain contractual payments required by the agreement and a Default Notice was served under s.87(1) of the Consumer Credit ACt 1974 which has not been complied with. The debt was legally assigned to the claimant on 16-06-23, notice of which has been given to the defendant. The claim includes statutory interest under S.69 of the County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from the date of assignment to the date of the issue of these proceedings in the sum of £49.15 The Claimant claims the sum of £972 What is the total value of the claim? £1112 Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? I dont know the details of the PAPDC to know if it was pursuant to paragraph 3, but I did receive a Letter of Claim with a questionaire/form to fill. Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? no Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. Assigned/purchaser Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? I was aware, I'm not certain I received a 'Notice of Assignment' from Capital One but may have been informed the account had been sold without such a title on the letter? Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Yes Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Not since the debt purchase, and not from Capital One. Why did you cease payments? I can't remember - it was the tail end of the pandemic and I may not have had enough income to keep up payments - I am self-employed and work in the event industry - at that time. I also had a bank account that didn't allow direct debits and may have just forgotten payments and became annoyed at fines for late payments. What was the date of your last payment? Appears to be 20/4/2022 Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No Here is my Defence: Defence - 1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had an agreement with Capital One but do not recognise this specific account number or recollect any outstanding debt and have therefore requested clarification by way of a CPR 31.14 and section 78 request.. 3. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am unaware of having been served with a Default Notice pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974. 4. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law and Property Act 1925 Section 136(1) 5. The Defendant has sent a request by way of a section 78 pursuant to the Consumer Credit Act 1974, for a copy of the agreement, the Claimant has yet to comply and remains in default of said request. 6. A further request has been made via CPR 31.14 to the Claimants solicitor, requesting disclosure of documents on which the Claimant is basing their claim. The Claimant has not complied and to date nothing has been received. 7. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to: a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement and; b) show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed for and; c) show the nature of the breach and evidence by way of a Default Notice pursuant to sec 88 CCA1974 d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim 8. As per Civil Procedure 16.5 it is expected that the claimants prove the allegation that the money is owed 9. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of section 136 of the Law of Property Act and section 82A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 10. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief. .................. Please note that I had to write a defence quite quickly as I hit the deadline. At the time of writing the defence, I hadn't been able to find correspondence from Capital One, but had since found default letter etc. I submitted CCA request and CPR 31.14. However, I didn't get any proof of postage or use registered post for the CPR (an oversight) but did with the CCA request. I received a pack which included a letter from Overdales, going over the defence I'd filed, as well as letters of Lowells and reprints of letters from Capital One. But I have no idea if this pack is in response to the CCA request or the CPR ! I would have expected two separate responses ... although I do know they are both the same company. Looking over the pack today, and looking through old emails .. I find some discrepancies in the Capital One default letters (notice of default and Claim of default). They are both dated *before* an email I have stating that a default can be avoided. The one single page of agreement sent (so not the full agreement) has a 16 digit number at the top in small print, next to 'Capital One' which corresponds to a number called 'PURN' printed at the top of each of the 10 pages of ins and outs of the account (they're not official statements, but a list of monthly goings) yet no mention anywhere on either of the account number. I cant really scan them at the moment - I can later tomorrow, but that will be after the mediation call I'm sure. I guess I may be on my own for this mediation ... I am not certain the CCA request has been satisfied .. or if the CPR has been . And then I appear to have evidence that the Default notices provided are fabricated ? Yet, I do have (elsewhere ... not at home) Default letters from Capital One I can check ..
  • 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 5371 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

Afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick. It has NOTHING to do with 'aerials' - if you recieve live TV broadcasts from ANY source (even SKY and ITV) then you need a licence. This is why cable users and dish users are still required to have a licence. If you don;t watch BBC channels, that's fine - but that isn't what your licence is for. You'll STILL have to pay regardless.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 315
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Afraid you've got the wrong end of the stick. It has NOTHING to do with 'aerials' - if you recieve live TV broadcasts from ANY source (even SKY and ITV) then you need a licence. This is why cable users and dish users are still required to have a licence. If you don;t watch BBC channels, that's fine - but that isn't what your licence is for. You'll STILL have to pay regardless.

 

hi buzby,

i get what your saying but it is a taxation to fund the bbc is it not,

therefore no bbc no taxation,

can you see my point

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't. It may well fund the BBC, but that's not what the fee is for.

 

It is to permit the legal viewing to 'television programmes' - in other words, it is a broadcast recieving licence. If you don;t believe me, flip over the licence and read the reverse.

 

Whether you watch the BBC or not, is totally irrelevant!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't know if this has been posted before as i have only read the last page on this thread but this makes for interesting reading:

 

Letters from BBC Television Licensing/intro

 

LOL davey, did you find that link in the DCA forum like me?

 

I read the lot and the BBC are a bunch of swines IMV.

 

I particularily liked the non-existant 'Vals' sigs but they are just the tip of the iceburg with the TVL or should I say BBC.

 

Val%20Smith%20signature%20-%202002%20-%20close%20up.JPG

 

Val%20Smith%20signature%20-%202003%20-%20close%20up.JPG

 

Val%20Smith%20signature%20-%202004%20-%20close%20up.JPG

 

Christ, that's not the half of it..... the TV licence fee is forced, and you are, without a shadow of doubt, guilty until they are satisfied. I had the pleasure last year, courtesy of Capita (I think) to pay for 2 years in 1 year as I was skint....ces't la vie. Wilkommen to the UK, or more likely, the western 'rich' world (I want to say capitalism only I'm not sure I get it). :D

 

I'd have the BBC sent to Sierra Leone if it was up to me, not that I hate them or anything!.

 

Not read the thread, probably off topic, don't care, hate the BBC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No it isn't. It may well fund the BBC, but that's not what the fee is for.

 

It is to permit the legal viewing to 'television programmes' - in other words, it is a broadcast recieving licence. If you don;t believe me, flip over the licence and read the reverse.

 

Whether you watch the BBC or not, is totally irrelevant!

 

i get your point about the broadcast recieving licence, but you contradict yourself,

( it may well fund the bbc, but thats not what the fee is for.)

 

the revenue off this licence is for the bbc, or do's it go some where else?

so while the bbc are recieving the fee's, i believe it is relevant & i should have a choice on what i watch & pay for.

Edited by masmit
Link to post
Share on other sites

i get your point about the broadcast recieving licence, but you contradict yourself,

( it may well fund the bbc, but thats not what the fee is for.)

 

??? There's no contradiction. The fee is to permit the holder to operate a television 'reciever'. Where the money goes is no business of the viewer. Sorry if you cannot understand the difference.

Link to post
Share on other sites

if you watch the telly ashmk, you should pay for a licence.

 

we don't condone non-payment of the TV licence.

 

I agree if you watch broadcast television, you should have a licence, HOWEVER I DISAGREE with the sweeping statement that 'if you watch the telly' you should pay for a licence'. Anyone using display screen ('television') to view DVD's, computer generated content, or CCTV images needs no licence whatsoever.

Link to post
Share on other sites

??? There's no contradiction. The fee is to permit the holder to operate a television 'reciever'. Where the money goes is no business of the viewer. Sorry if you cannot understand the difference.

 

Buzby is right. The 'Government' charge a license fee for the reception of live television. The fee you pay goes to the government, not the BBC.

 

We know that fee is paid to the BBC to run it's services, but you should note the wording, you are paying for a license for the receiving equipment if it receives any live transmissions and not just if it receives BBC, so blocking the BBC will not entitle anyone to watch for free.

 

I can't say I like paying it, look at what's on today, Good Friday and miserable weather and they have no special programmes at all, Keeping up appearances, what rubbish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Buzby is right. The 'Government' charge a license fee for the reception of live television. The fee you pay goes to the government, not the BBC.

 

We know that fee is paid to the BBC to run it's services, but you should note the wording, you are paying for a license for the receiving equipment if it receives any live transmissions and not just if it receives BBC, so blocking the BBC will not entitle anyone to watch for free.

 

I can't say I like paying it, look at what's on today, Good Friday and miserable weather and they have no special programmes at all, Keeping up appearances, what rubbish.

i cant believe what im reading, buzby's right? i believe in his response he works for BBC.

Your claim is it is a tax & PAYMENT go's to the goverment & then they fund the BBC. Whats being said is the BBC has no responsibility to the TVL, its the goverment.

If this is true then, if you have a complaint to the TVL & your not happy with the response, then why do you take that complaint to the BBC for it to be resolved.

Surely if by what your saying it would be the goverment ombudsman to resolve complaints.

Therefore i disagree & still believe no BBC no TVL, that's just my opinion & i dont work for SKY or CABLE, just think in this day & age it should be pay per view giving me the choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The tv licence is a tax, the BBC have been charged with collection and administration of that tax, they in turn have contracted that collection out to a few companies with the biggest collector being Capita Business Services Ltd; using the allocated name 'TVL' as it gives it that official sounding ring like DVLA or HMRC.

 

If the conditions of use were only set by the BBC, you can bet your life that it would be on a TV, full stop, and not on the way it is used.

 

Unfortunately there is only one way around the licence and that is not to have one and hope you are not caught.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i cant believe what im reading, buzby's right? i believe in his response he works for BBC.

Your claim is it is a tax & PAYMENT go's to the goverment & then they fund the BBC. Whats being said is the BBC has no responsibility to the TVL, its the goverment.

If this is true then, if you have a complaint to the TVL & your not happy with the response, then why do you take that complaint to the BBC for it to be resolved.

Surely if by what your saying it would be the goverment ombudsman to resolve complaints.

Therefore i disagree & still believe no BBC no TVL, that's just my opinion & i dont work for SKY or CABLE, just think in this day & age it should be pay per view giving me the choice.

 

Buzby is both right and wrong.

 

He is right in that It is a tax levied by HMG. The licence is required to receive direct broadcast TV programmes - from whatever source.

 

He is wrong that it is collected by HMG and given to the BBC. The BBC are the collecting agent in behalf of HMG. That is why complaints about TVL end up at the BBC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Pat overlooks is that the licence and the collection thereof was instigated as a Government 'package' - they collected AND enforced. It was the Post Office (a Govt organisation) that accepted payment and Post Office Telephones (ditto) who provided the technology to weed out non-payers who viewed. This was the 'TV Detector van'.

 

I would argue nothing really has changed, the Govt told the BBC it wanted out of the burdensome task of collection and enforcement, and this resulted in the outsourcing of collections and enforcement. The PO 'lost' the contract to sell licences, as did BT to track viewers without a licence. I believe there is now no 'detection' in the accepted sense - TVL now utilise the 'blunderbuss' approach, everyone needs a licence and will be pursued until they are satisfied none is required - even then, in this unlikely event, the status of a non-licence holder has an expiry date of 24 months, before the collection process starts again.

 

Technically, the money is pursued because an act of parliament says whoever is charged with the collection of it can legally do so. However, if this collection is to stop at any time it will be the Government who will order it, NOT the BBC.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

you won't pay that. wait,

i think this topic has been posted before.

i don't know but i'm still interested reading it. :)

I have also never brought a TV license in my life.

__________________

Edited by maroondevo52
Commercial link removed
Link to post
Share on other sites

What Pat overlooks is that the licence and the collection thereof was instigated as a Government 'package' - they collected AND enforced. It was the Post Office (a Govt organisation) that accepted payment and Post Office Telephones (ditto) who provided the technology to weed out non-payers who viewed. This was the 'TV Detector van'.

 

I would argue nothing really has changed, the Govt told the BBC it wanted out of the burdensome task of collection and enforcement, and this resulted in the outsourcing of collections and enforcement. The PO 'lost' the contract to sell licences, as did BT to track viewers without a licence. I believe there is now no 'detection' in the accepted sense - TVL now utilise the 'blunderbuss' approach, everyone needs a licence and will be pursued until they are satisfied none is required - even then, in this unlikely event, the status of a non-licence holder has an expiry date of 24 months, before the collection process starts again.

 

Technically, the money is pursued because an act of parliament says whoever is charged with the collection of it can legally do so. However, if this collection is to stop at any time it will be the Government who will order it, NOT the BBC.

 

Yes an 'act' of parliament is just that - an act. In other words a contract, if you pay you have been duped. The TV licence funds a private company and if you do not wish to contract with them there is nothing they can do about it. (sorry if this link has been posted before I haven't read the whole thread).

 

Bribery, Corruption and Fraud at the BBC - Stop paying your TV Licence fee NOW! | www.tpuc.org

This e-book is what got me started http://www.freedomfiles.org/mary-book.pdf

 

This short film opened my eyes

http://www.flixya.com/video/1164060/Money_As_Debt_-_Forex

 

In truth we can find peace and in unity we can cause change

http://www.tpuc.org/

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry Miss T, and Act of Parliament is far more than a 'contract', as for not paying, it goes without saying that anyone who does not view live broadcasts should not be bullied into paying for a licence they do not need.

 

However, if you are suggesting that TV viewers should somehow NOT pay for their licence, I and I am sure many others, trust they will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am also sorry Miss T but you (as many others) have been duped by one of the growing anti-license lobbies.

 

The tv licence is not a fee, it is a 'tax' and as such has the full weight of the law behind it. Non payment is a 'criminal' offence which is why you can be sent to prison for non payment.

 

It was officially classed as a 'tax' in January 2006.

 

The BBC, although remaining in the public sector, was reclassified from the public non-financial corporations sector to central government.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Hi,

I got rid of my TV about ten years ago and have faced no end of threats and harassment from them. I have stood my ground though and written to them, the OFT and my MP.

 

After all these years they now seem to be serious about coming round to inspect my home. The principal is guilty until proven innocent apparently.

 

I dont have a TV and use an HDMI projector for games and dvds/blu-ray and I own two laptops and a Google G1 smart phone.

 

My question is this; does anyone have advice on how to handle the inspection?

 

I have already decided to comply with their request to inspect, but how far do their powers extend? For exmaple, if they come in to inspect my home can they search my hard disks, intenet history and smart phone for evidence of illegal activity (ie wathcing live broadcasts)?

 

Will they be able to request to search my computers and phone?

I have nothing to hide (except a few DVDs rips of The Simpsons perhaps!), but I will probably refuse this on principal. Does anyone have any advice?

 

Additionally, does anyone know what the inspectors ID card looks like? I can't find any references anywhere.

 

Thanks in advance,

J

Link to post
Share on other sites

NO - DON'T give in to them. They have no powers whatsoever and can only enter your house with a warrant issued by a court and they have to have very convincing evidence to show the judge before he will issue one.

 

Just ditch the letters in the bin or write inside 'up yours' and send it back to them.

 

If you invite them in, all they can do is look to see if you have an operating television that is receiving 'live' (that is very important) television.

 

They can ask if you have a tv card in your computer and have a look at that, but then only to see if you are receiving 'live' television. If you have no aerial connected then you won't receive anything.

 

I strongly advise - don't let them into your house unless they have a warrant, which they won't and under no circumstances sign anything.

 

They have less powers without a warrant than your postman, remember that.

 

P.S. No they can't search your hard drive or even switch on your computer. There is NO law againt owning a television or having a tv card in your computer. They must catch you actually using it.

 

And if you want to watch any television, then watch it over the internet. Both BBC and ITV have iplayer for you to do so and it does not require a license.

Edited by Conniff
Link to post
Share on other sites

I sent them a trespasses will be shot notice they replied saying ok no one will visit.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Fully agree. They are one part of UK officialdom that do not have ANY right of entry, and to do so simply to 'prove' that you don;t have a working TV is a travesty. If invited in, they can look into each and every room of your hose in search of any device that may contain a TV tuner (laptop, laptop,PC. You'll then be asked to 'demonstrate' they do nt have the ability to receive TV programming. You mobile phone will also be a target as these can also receive TV programmes 'as live' and these will require a licence, and if their suspicions are founded, you'll be asked to sign a statement noting the items, they discovered that were capable of viewing.

 

You need this like a hole in the head - even if you refuse to sign the statement it will be marked that you refused to incriminate yourself and works either way.

 

DON'T let them in, unless you plan to follow Sweeny Todd's example.... :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh good they can search each and every room does this mean we can make them take there shoes of aswell in respect of our religious belifs or what they may have trodden in due to having kids.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

One reason this tax will never end is the 'big' money the government makes from it.

Just to take one person Jonathan Ross. We have all show alarm about the amount he is paid (£18million) and then consider the 'income tax' taken at 50% which means the government gets £9million income just from that one man.

 

So the government will have no plans to ever scrap it and will always agree to increases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

A little bit of background info to start with.....

 

6 Months ago I did pay a court fine for not having a TV licence, and currently have one, but this is where it all gets interesting.

 

The property I rent does not have a ariel, but does have a sky dish (left over from the last person) I do currenlty have a sky package - but I am going to be stopping that next month.

 

I currently watch NO television, but instead use my 37" HD TV as a monitor for my PC! My PC has internet access, but does not have a TV card.

 

Now I am sure most of us are aware that it "may be" possible to get access to all (99.9%) of the channels available worldwide via the internet - but of course I don't watch TV via this either.

 

Now my question is , If I stopped my Sky package, and didn't have a set-top box (either freeview (the word FREE always worries me in that!) or freesat) as I don't have an ariel or a PC with a TV card - what steps would I have to take to stop paying the BBC the stupid yearly amount of money that I currently do?

 

Regards

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...