'CAPITA' how are they allowed to do this??

mumx3

Following on from my thread about my daughter getting a court summons, we have now found out that she should of attended court early October to face charges for a 1 month fine for not having a TV licience, even though she didn't have a TV for the month in question.

It seems that the TV guy who arrived at her door in March, working on behalf of TV liciencing, CAPITA have taken her to court, letters were apparently sent that she apparently ignored, reason being she no longer even lived at the address they were sending to and so had no idea or knowledge of anything that was going on.

How on earth can such a company be so under handed and prosecute someone without their knowledge, it is unbelievable, and has caused so many problems which are still on going as my Daughter now has to attend court to try and over turn what ever she has been charged for, it seems CAPITA can just take people to court without their knowledge.

wealdroam

mumx3 wrote: »

How on earth can such a company be so under handed and prosecute someone without their knowledge...?

I'll just try to answer that one.

If all notices went to your daughter's old address, there is no way that I can think of that allows Capita to tell the difference between letters that are being ignored and letters that are not reaching the intended recipient.
Can you think of a way?

Are you suggesting that if notices are ignored, then prosecutions should not go ahead?
Because that is what your post is implying.

Did your daughter not think it prudent to set up mail forwarding when she changed address? A rhetorical question.

Why have you started a new thread?

For the benefit of others, here is the previous instalment of this ongoing saga:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4804993

mumx3

wealdroam wrote: »

I'll just try to answer that one.

If all notices went to your daughter's old address, there is no way that I can think of that allows Capita to tell the difference between letters that are being ignored and letters that are not reaching the intended recipient.
Can you think of a way?

Are you suggesting that if notices are ignored, then prosecutions should not go ahead?
Because that is what your post is implying.

Did your daughter not think it prudent to set up mail forwarding when she changed address? A rhetorical question.

Why have you started a new thread?

For the benefit of others, here is the previous instalment of this ongoing saga:

https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/4804993

I think it may of been perhaps a good idea that a letter/ as important as a court appearance would of warrantied a signed for letter? also maybe a phone call to ask why the letters were going unanswered,??? also she had no need to set up a forwarding address as it was a student house and she was not expecting anything of any importance.

I've posted this thread in the hope that maybe someone would of answered with some advice as we are all very worried the implications of what has happened,

Sorry for starting a new thread,!!!!!!?????!!!

OlliesDad

mumx3 wrote: »

I think it may of been perhaps a good idea that a letter/ as important as a court appearance would of warrantied a signed for letter? also maybe a phone call to ask why the letters were going unanswered,??? also she had no need to set up a forwarding address as it was a student house and she was not expecting anything of any importance.

I've posted this thread in the hope that maybe someone would of answered with some advice as we are all very worried the implications of what has happened,

Sorry for starting a new thread,!!!!!!?????!!!

There is a process in place in these situations (and it sounds like you are following it if she can have her case heard again in court).

Ultimately if she did not have a TV license on the day in question when the officer called, but was using a TV (even if it was only for a day) then she is guilty of an offence.

bod1467

mumx3 wrote: »

I think it may of been perhaps a good idea that a letter/ as important as a court appearance would of warrantied a signed for letter?

Interpretations Act 1978 - a notice/letter, if correctly addressed, is deemed "served" once the relevant number of working days have elapsed for the service used. For 1st class this is 2 working days.

In many cases people won't sign for documents, thus negating the relevance of that service. Using normal post (and getting proof of posting) meets legal requirements. If the sender can prove it was sent, the recipient must then prove they didn't receive it.

vaio

The whole process can be reset to the start if she makes a statutory declaration that she didn't receive the letters because she had moved.

Her local magistrates court will giver her all the info she needs to get one done.

Once she has done one then Crapita can either forget it or restart the process from the begining

mumx3

vaio wrote: »

The whole process can be reset to the start if she makes a statutory declaration that she didn't receive the letters because she had moved.

Her local magistrates court will giver her all the info she needs to get one done.

Once she has done one then Crapita can either forget it or restart the process from the begining

Thank you, yes i agree, I think they should change their name to what you suggest,

SidP

mumx3 wrote: »

Thank you, yes i agree, I think they should change their name to what you suggest,

Crapita is how Private Eye have referred to this company for as long as I've been reading it. So, don't worry, you're not the only person they're being crappy to. This organisation is as corrupt as they come.

Take a deep breath, let it out slowly, and believe me when I say you've got nothing to worry about. The hardest part is knowing how best to get your point of view heard, and it looks as though Vaio has you sorted there.

There's always some way of responding to legal proceedings such as these, you just have to find it.

I won't wish you luck, because I don't think you'll need it