Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • I have looked at the car park and it is quite clearly marked that it is  pay to park  and advising that there are cameras installed so kind of difficult to dispute that. On the other hand it doesn't appear to state at the entrance what the charge is for breaching their rules. However they do have a load of writing in the two notices under the entrance sign which it would help if you could photograph legible copies of them. Also legible photos of the signs inside the car park as well as legible photos of the payment signs. I say legible because the wording of their signs is very important as to whether they have formed a contract with motorists. For example the entrance sign itself doe not offer a contract because it states the T&Cs are inside the car park. But the the two signs below may change that situation which is why we would like to see them. I have looked at their Notice to Keeper which is pretty close to what it should say apart from one item. Under the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4 Section 9 [2]a] the PCN should specify the period of parking. It doesn't. It does show the ANPR times but that includes driving from the entrance to the parking spot and then from the parking place to the exit. I know that this is a small car park but the Act is quite clear that the parking period must be specified. That failure means that the keeper is no longer responsible for the charge, only the driver is now liable to pay. Should this ever go to Court , Judges do not accept that the driver and the keeper are the same person so ECP will have their work cut out deciding who was driving. As long as they do not know, it will be difficult for them to win in Court which is one reason why we advise not to appeal since the appeal can lead to them finding out at times that the driver  and the keeper were the same person. You will get loads of threats from ECP and their sixth rate debt collectors and solicitors. They will also keep quoting ever higher amounts owed. Do not worry, the maximum. they can charge is the amount on the sign. Anything over that is unlawful. You can safely ignore the drivel from the Drips but come back to us should you receive a Letter of Claim. That will be the Snotty letter time.
    • please stop using @username - sends unnecessary alerts to people. everyone that's posted on your thread inc you gets an automatic email alert when someone else posts.  
    • he Fraser group own Robin park in Wigan. The CEO's email  is  [email protected]
    • Yes, it was, but in practice we've found time after time that judges will not rule against PPCs solely on the lack of PP.  They should - but they don't.  We include illegal signage in WSs, but more as a tactic to show the PPC up as spvis rather than in the hope that the judge will act on that one point alone. But sue them for what?  They haven't really done much apart from sending you stupid letters. Breach of GDPR?  It could be argued they knew you had Supremacy of Contact but it's a a long shot. Trespass to your vehicle?  I know someone on the Parking Prankster blog did that but it's one case out of thousands. Surely best to defy them and put the onus on them to sue you.  Make them carry the risk.  And if they finally do - smash them. If you want, I suppose you could have a laugh at the MA's expense.  Tell them about the criminality they have endorsed and give them 24 hours to have your tickets cancelled and have the signs removed - otherwise you will contact the council to start enforcement for breach of planning permission.
    • Developing computer games can be wildly expensive so some hope that AI can cut the cost.View the full article
  • 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 Licence


Guest weegirl
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 6120 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

Guest weegirl

Just had a question from my lodgers. I have a house rented out to students, who have been getting letters to buy a TV licence. The letters don't come addressed to me anymore as I have notified them I have moved, just to 'The Occupier'. They haven't responded to them, (they haven't bought a licence either though) and have recently received another letter saying the file has been passed to the enforcement division.

 

They are adamant that they will not be buying one, and see the whole thing as a big laugh. I'm a bit ****ed at them as it is my house, and may end up with a black mark against the credit on it, so I just want to check if the TV Licence people can fine them if they don't get into the house. I am aware that the onus is on the inspector to prove that a TV is receiving UK television, how can that be done if they don't get in, and what do they need to get a warrant?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The onus is on TV Licensing to prove that a TV Licence is required. The students have no legal requirement to respond to any communication from TV Licensing, they will continue to receive correspondence until they give in and purchase a TV licence. The likelihood of a search warrant being obtained is extremely slim due to the expense and the evidence required to obtain one.

Ownership of a TV does not in itself require the purchase of a TV licence. A licence is only required when the TV is being used to receive a broadcast signal from the BBC and such like. If a TV is being used only to view pre-recorded DVD's and Video's a license is not required.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Addresses are not blacklisted. Your tenants will be the ones who may end up with a court case and fine if they ought to have a TV licence and don't have one.

 

How do you know the tenants are receiving letters - are they passing them to you? Pass them straight back, TV licence is the tenants' responsibility.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The onus is on TV Licensing to prove that a TV Licence is required. The students have no legal requirement to respond to any communication from TV Licensing, they will continue to receive correspondence until they give in and purchase a TV licence. The likelihood of a search warrant being obtained is extremely slim due to the expense and the evidence required to obtain one.

 

Ownership of a TV does not in itself require the purchase of a TV licence. A licence is only required when the TV is being used to receive a broadcast signal from the BBC and such like. If a TV is being used only to view pre-recorded DVD's and Video's a license is not required.

 

I'm afraid thats not quite right if you are using any device that is capable of receiving a broadcast then you need a licence, if you want to get round it and only watch DVDs etc then you need a TV that does not have a tuner built in such as a plasma TV without the external tuner and only have a DVD player connected for example, if you had a VCR or DVD recorder that have tuners built in then you would still need a licence. I went thru all this "theoretically" with an enforcement officer some years back when they called at my house as they didnt think I had a licence (they hadnt amended their records when I moved house) so played with him for a bit before showing him my bank statement showing the DD.

 

He was most unamused as by this time I had wasted over an hour of his time PMSL

Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever the TV Licensing tells you that you must buy a TV Licence when you have a TV they are misleading you. They prey on the ill-informed and gullible members of the public, they are merely salesmen earning a commission for every TV License they coerce people into purchasing whether or not they require one.

You do NOT need a TV Licence for owning any kind of TV receiver/VCR/Satellite receiver/PC with TV-Card [PC/TV] etc. irrespective of the fact that these devices may have built-in tuners, providing those tuners are not being used to receive broadcast signals, a TV Licence is not required. The onus is on TV Licensing to prove that those tuners are being used for the purpose intended. To make their life less complicated TV Licensing simply assumes that any TV will be used for watching TV broadcasts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm afraid thats not quite right if you are using any device that is capable of receiving a broadcast then you need a licence, if you want to get round it and only watch DVDs etc then you need a TV that does not have a tuner built in such as a plasma TV without the external tuner and only have a DVD player connected for example,

 

That's not correct. No licence is required provided that an aerial or other reception equipment is not installed. The presence of a tuner in the TV is irrelevant, as long it is not set up to receive broadcasts.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No thats not right whats to stop you having an internal aerial and even if thats techincally true the ONLY way of proving your innocence is not to have equipment capable of receiving a broadcast or do you really think a court is going to believe you or find in your favour.

 

You cant win against the establishment on this one they have too much to lose the ONLY way to beat them is to have a TV with no tuner period.

 

It doesnt matter what you think the fact is TV licencing will take you to court and you will lose end of debate if you have test cases that have proved otherwise to hand then id love to see them and I will of course admit im wrong but somehow I dont think so

 

As far as the onus being on TV licensing have you even been through our legag system when the establishment has something to lose its not down to them to prove you guilty you end up having to prove your innocence sadly

Link to post
Share on other sites

Cite

 

A test case isn't needed as the rules are already clear.

 

I also find that people who declare anything to be the 'end of the debate' to try and head off a response are usually on very shaky ground.

Post by me are intended as a discussion of the issues involved, as these are of general interest to me and others on the forum. Although it is hoped such discussion will be of use to readers, before exposing yourself to risk of loss you should not rely on any principles discussed without confirming the situation with a qualified person.

Link to post
Share on other sites

A former prisoner at the forefront of prison law advocacy has overturned a TV licensing conviction on appeal. John Hirst said that he used his television only for watching videos, DVDs and CCTV footage of his own house but was found 'technically guilty'.

Hirst, who tells this week's OUT-LAW Radio about the case, represented himself at Hull Magistrates' Court despite suffering from Asperger Syndrome, a form of autism. Again representing himself, he won his case on appeal to the Hull Crown Court when the TV Licensing Authority decided not to defend the case.

The full text can be found here - http://www.out-law.com/page-7465

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest weegirl

To add to the confusion, my current property cannot receive a signal due to the area I live in, my neighbours all have powerful roof ariels with boosters, which I don't have so an internal ariel is obviously useless. I was mis-informed a few years ago about this from an inspector, and set up a DD until I telephoned and queried it. The call centre person was very nice and informed me that I didn't need a licence. I sent a letter of complaint in, inviting them around to view the snow on my set, and they refunded me and didn't bother me since, maybe they couldn't be bothered though. Sometimes it depends who you get in these matters.

 

I do agree that they prey on the ignorant and vulnerable though. I put this on another post, but the circumstances they informed me I needed a licence were dubious, my house was getting renovated, I obviously was not living there as the house had no internal floors, ceilings or plasterwork and all of my furniture was in storage in the garage. The inspector just walked in past the builders and seen the TV and video under a dust sheet. The first I knew of this was when I received a letter stating that he had found 'evidence' that I was using a TV without a licence. The letter was worded in such a way I felt like a major criminal, it really got my back up.

 

The students are aware they are liable for this licence, not me, it is just annoying as they may move on soon though and the next person I rent to may be left with any fallout they create.

 

Found a site called Abolish the TV Licence [ www.tvlicensing.biz ] which may be of interest to people - a campaign against the licence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Guest weegirl

Just seen your post greenrizla - viewed the test case, liked the quote:

 

"The TV Licencing Authority assume if you say that you don't watch your TV for live broadcasts you're a liar," Hirst told OUT-LAW Radio. "It's still down to the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the assumption to be there that you are guilty and you need to prove innocence."

 

Good point - the arrogance they have about the whole thing doesn't do the licensing authority any favours. Even the initial letters they send have a real attitude about them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...