Bedsit Bob
-
Posts
149 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Post article
CAGMag
Blogs
Keywords
Everything posted by Bedsit Bob
-
Bear in mind a bailiff is a very rare event. It only happens after you have been convicted, and continually refused to pay the fine. Even then, there is another option, available to the Magistrates.
-
Corrected for you.
-
I tried that. They weren't interested. The lady I spoke to read the back of one of the Threat-O-Grams, then said:- "It says here, we'd like to stop writing to you, so it you contact them they'll visit and then stop bothering you, so they're giving you a way out". Giving me "a way out"
-
Once a month, every month Besides, since when has the law required the accused to prove their innocence?
-
They have now.
-
Being taken to Court next month for 'no TV licence'
Bedsit Bob replied to MaisyMouse's topic in TV Licensing
Or just shut the door on them. -
They don't sue anybody. TV Licence evasion is a criminal offence, hence alleged evaders are prosecuted, not sued.
-
Corrected for you.
-
A SW application doesn't require PROOF, merely "reasonable grounds to believe". More importantly however, not talking to them means no risk of inadvertently giving information that could be used to fit you up. And before someone says "nobody has ever been fitted up", Capita/TVL employees have been convicted of falsifying evidence. So, don't give your name or other details, and exclude yourself from the edited version of the Electoral Register.
-
They're not given any time to purchase a licence. If they admit to watching without a licence, a "Prosecution Statement" is taken immediately. It's usually around 5-6 months. This is because, information must be laid, within 6 months of the date of the alleged offence. Leaving it as long as possible, means the accused is less likely to be able to accurately recall what they said, hence less likely to put up a believable defence, under questioning in the Dock.
-
Firstly, they no longer ask. Secondly, while they were obliged to ask, you weren't obliged to give it, although they could, of course, refuse the sale if you didn't. The alternative, from your POV, was to give false details.
-
Not any more they don't.
-
I haven't watched live TV (and hence not paid for a licence) for nearly 4 years, and I know people who have been Licence Free for a lot longer than that. He's wasting his time, because they won't believe him.
-
That's what they say, but does the OP have it in writing?
-
That doesn't prove you didn't have Freeview.
-
How does your solicitor plan to go about proving it
-
Why am I not surprised?
-
Cite please? Again, cite please?
-
And is the copy on the summons, exactly the same as the one you signed?
-
As he didn't give you a copy, don't be surprised if the copy that is presented in court, bears no resemblance to the version you signed. I suggest you bend over and brace yourself, because you are about to be Royally F:censored:d
-
The fact you signed it, is going to make it hard (but not impossible) to defend the case. By signing it, you have confirmed that the statements written on the form are correct. What was it that was filled in wrong? BTW. Did he/she leave you a copy of the form?
-
Did you sign the form OP?
-
If he wasn't watching/recording live TV, then he doesn't need an "accepted get out", because he's actually innocent. That is more than good enough.
-
So, between the dates stated, you did not watch/record ANY live TV broadcasts, by any means, at your address?
-
From what you said, you made a payment in May, a payment in June, and a payment in July, this year? Is that correct? These payments were in the region of £25 each? Is that correct?
Latest
Our Picks
Reclaim the right Ltd
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS