Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • MSE Archna
    • By MSE Archna 18th Mar 08, 11:39 AM
    • 1,874Posts
    • 6,140Thanks
    MSE Archna
    TV Licence article Discussion
    • #1
    • 18th Mar 08, 11:39 AM
    TV Licence article Discussion 18th Mar 08 at 11:39 AM


    This thread is specifically to discuss the the


    To discuss or ask a question about this article: click reply
    Last edited by MSE Researcher; 14-06-2010 at 4:08 PM.
    Report inappropriate posts: forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com




Page 138
    • mbmonty
    • By mbmonty 16th Apr 18, 4:14 PM
    • 138 Posts
    • 82 Thanks
    mbmonty
    As someone who has to deliver these evil letters (I work for Royal Mail), I can assure you that if there's no name it's meant for the current occupier (you in this case) or property owner (if the place is unoccupied). Should you get any mail addressed to someone who doesn't live there you should put a line through the address and write 'gone away' or 'not known at the address' on the envelope before putting it back into a postbox. If it's simply been put through your letterbox by accident you should either push it through where it was meant for or put it back in a mailbox without writing on it. Withholding mail (which you are if you don't do this) is actually an offence you can be charged with, although that's unlikely to happen.
    Originally posted by cw18
    Not wishing to pick an argumnet, but my understanding is that it is only an offence to interfere with the Royal Mail (some ancient law hardly ever enforced) and once you put it through the door your job is done and there can be no further interference.

    There is also no duty of care for the occupant to do anything to forward or return mail, it is up to previous occupants to avail themselves of the excellent RM Redirect. It would be an offence to try to cash someone elses cheque etc.

    I regularly open mail addressed to previous occupants and it is a good job I do, two of them (I suspect the same person) have opened catalogue accounts at my address and taken out a contract with vodafone. These later escalted into debts, I did contact the companies and gave them the date previous occupants left and they confirmed these accounts were opened well after.

    BTW for the first six months I did return to sender and called the plethora of debt collection companies, they all ignored me except NPower who had some process I had to follow. They had some scam going on with 3 power companies all the bills were within the same period but in different names, plus the actual one who was the one I was supposed to use. I found out later that there is a database every energy provider has and so you can call them to find who the current supplier is.

    As far as I am concerned, as long as it is not mail for another property, what comes through my door is MINE! I do not anticipate being arrested any time soon and I shred most of them now. It is interesting that there must be about 50 debts attributed to former tenants and yet I have never had a debt collector at my door for any of them.
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 16th Apr 18, 4:44 PM
    • 10,701 Posts
    • 10,990 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    As far as I am concerned, as long as it is not mail for another property, what comes through my door is MINE! I do not anticipate being arrested any time soon and I shred most of them now.
    Originally posted by mbmonty
    Technically it is an offence to interfere with the Mail. Opening other people's mail and destroying it would both be covered by that, I think. I appreciate that overall you are saying that the law is out of step with the practicalities, but, well... you know.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • cw18
    • By cw18 16th Apr 18, 6:16 PM
    • 7,967 Posts
    • 85,386 Thanks
    cw18
    Not wishing to pick an argumnet, but my understanding is that it is only an offence to interfere with the Royal Mail (some ancient law hardly ever enforced) and once you put it through the door your job is done and there can be no further interference.
    Originally posted by mbmonty
    My understanding is that is IS an offence, however.....

    Incredibly rare
    A Royal Mail spokesman admits it's unlikely prosecutions could be brought, simply because of the difficulty of getting evidence. Furthermore, he's not aware of anyone having been prosecuted for throwing misdelivered mail away.
    The reported cases of prosecutions for tampering with the mail are incredibly rare, and involve rogue postmen.
    Cheryl
    Groceries : May £11.97 / £120 Apr £137.78 / £100 Mar £99.55 / £100.Feb £85.02 / £80.Jan £112.15 / £130. Annual £446.47 / £1200

    • Bedsit Bob
    • By Bedsit Bob 16th Apr 18, 9:14 PM
    • 10,334 Posts
    • 56,052 Thanks
    Bedsit Bob
    Technically it is an offence to interfere with the Mail. Opening other people's mail and destroying it would both be covered by that, I think.
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    It's a bit more complicated than that.

    (3) A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a personís detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.
    by Postal Services Act 2000 Section 84
    1984 WAS NOT AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL.

    Amount I have so far denied the BBC - £1308

    You can't be a Christian AND a Socialist.
    • mbmonty
    • By mbmonty 17th Apr 18, 12:22 AM
    • 138 Posts
    • 82 Thanks
    mbmonty
    appreciate your honest opinion & advice, indeed!
    it is really shocking though, that even if paying for a service provider to use broadband, some other "crafty" "authorities" feel the right to rip you off for any nonsense reason they call it..
    Anyway, hopefully will sort it out now by this and ignoring these mails, however am a bit uncertain in case my agent (advertising the property via the landlord) notices this that at the end of my tenancy with them and in case moving elsewhere, they try to withhold the deposit for the flat before I pay in the license fee...
    Can they do that? Are they normally also notified by TVL on my broadband subspription or outstanding payment obligation towards TVL?
    It might be a bit too unealistic, but you never know...or do you?
    Originally posted by krixike
    I am sorry this has worried you so much, there is a very simple rule when it comes to TVL

    DO NOT ENGAGE

    Do not answer door to them

    Do not answer any questions or confirm or deny, SAY NOTHING

    Do NOT say it is OK for them to film you (as she does in video below)

    They are known to behave in a bad way, trying to incriminate disabled people with mental health conditions and selling them a licence even when they do not need one (TV was old analogue CRT type and not even capable of live TV).

    They are also really rude, you open the door and instead of saying Good Morning they open with ARE YOU THE OCCUPIER and if you ask them who they are they just repeat the same.

    They are easy to spot, they have a little black folder with all their silly forms and a silly device.

    They have no right of entry, in fact nobody does without a warrant, so unless you owe the Council money for one of their parking fines or you do not pay your poll tax you can tell anybody to Foxtrot Oscar.

    So you have NOTHING to worry about, you do not need to explain yourself or use ccleaner to clear your laptop because even if you let them in, they have no right to go trawling through your laptop.

    To get a warrant they have to prove they have grounds, this usually means they see a TV through the window showing Eastenders at the time when Eastenders is transmitted live. They have been known to lie to a Court and been caught doing it.

    That is why their name is mud, they are scum.

    Have a look at a few videos of the TVL Goons on YouTube and you will see you have nothing to worry about. In this one she gets rid of him but she should not have authorised him to film her, her porch is not a public place and he has no right to film her, see how he then tried to get her to admit even her name.

    If you just do not open the door or slam the door in their face they will go.



    More here:

    https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tv+license+goons
    • mbmonty
    • By mbmonty 17th Apr 18, 12:34 AM
    • 138 Posts
    • 82 Thanks
    mbmonty
    It is a good concept. However, I had a depressing run in with tv Licensing before when I moved into a new flat...
    The old people had not paid and I had to first deal with the threatening letters I only opened when they were addressed to the occupier... So I had the threat of court action and bailiffs to put off as I wasn't me who owed them .. Then they started on me, I had not even got a TV before the letters started arriving, so I thought it would be a matter of waiting until I actually got one before paying for a license! However I received more letters saying they have to come round and check, which I wasn't happy about as I did not know exactly when I was going to get a TV, I was out all day from morning to night, and I would have thought they would take my word as I explained I would start to pay for a licence when I got my TV.but the letters kept coming.. In the end I got so fed up I just paid, it turned out two months for no reason and a sarky "thankyou for realising that, after all, you do need a licence" note from them.. .. It's all on direct debit and I can't face the hassle of going through that again!
    Maybe I am just not suited for Money Savings after all!!
    Originally posted by NewSaver2018
    CANCEL YOUR DIRECT DEBIT IMMEDIATELY

    If you want to waste money send it to me or donate it to a worthy charity.

    Mind you I know a few people who work for Crapita at quite high level and there is a feeling that they are on borrowed time.

    Apparently moral is really low, those that are staying are people are waiting for bonuses and plan to leave soon after.

    They told me that there is a restructuring plan in place, but people critical to the delivery and payment of their IT projects are being let go.

    We have seen this before, it usually results in clients not paying, so company ends up in an even worse position.

    Nobody in their right mind would lend them money as it would be throwing good money after bad, there has been talk of Government bail out but not possible because of EU Law.

    If they do go under it will be interesting to see if TVL is spun off or sold.
    Last edited by mbmonty; 17-04-2018 at 2:19 PM.
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 17th Apr 18, 9:07 AM
    • 10,701 Posts
    • 10,990 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    If they do go under it will be interesting to see if TVL is spun off or sold.
    Originally posted by mbmonty
    I think that the options for TVL are possibly more limited than that. The BBC owns the TV Licensing brand name, as well as the designs of the databases that hold the data, and the data itself. Therefore most of the intellectual property (such as it is) of TV Licensing is owned by the BBC, and is therefore not available to be used as an asset in any private dealings by Capita. (Or at least should not be).

    If Capita go bust, I think that the BBC will engage another of the outsourcing drudgery companies. I imagine there will be a period of a few months during which the new company will bring its services online. They may also TUPE existing staff from Capita into the new TV Licensing regime.

    The bigger picture, though, is that I would hope that both the public spectacle of the changeover, and the practical details will mean that the moral, legal and practical inadequacies of the TV Licensing approach come under new scrutiny, leading potentially to reform.

    In particular, I'd like to see:-

    - Communication that was honest and transparent, and sent at a more rational frequency than the existing monthly missives which are a pointless waste of resources.

    - Legal compliance with the letter and the spirit of all relevant legislation and legal principles.

    - Proper consideration of what steps need to be taken by the Courts to ensure justice in every TV Licensing case.

    - Removal of cash incentives from TVL doorsteppers.

    - Removal of pointless contracts with third parties to hand-deliver TVL calling cards.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 17th Apr 18, 9:15 AM
    • 10,701 Posts
    • 10,990 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    The old people had not paid and I had to first deal with the threatening letters I only opened when they were addressed to the occupier... So I had the threat of court action and bailiffs to put off as I wasn't me who owed them .. Then they started on me, I had not even got a TV before the letters started arriving, so I thought it would be a matter of waiting until I actually got one before paying for a license! However I received more letters saying they have to come round and check, which I wasn't happy about as I did not know exactly when I was going to get a TV... In the end I got so fed up I just paid, it turned out two months for no reason...
    Originally posted by NewSaver2018
    I can imagine that if you've just moved in to a new property that the TVL letters must feel very timely and personal to your situation. The only problem is - they aren't. The letters concerned are sent in their millions (around 90 million a year), and the personalised details are simply the tools of the mass marketing arsenal.

    "Scam" tends to be an overused word on MSE (though you can understand why). However, TV Licensing is a scam (of a kind). Although in your case, you lost money through it, most people don't lose out financially. However, the TVL scam is about something arguably more valuable - citizens' rights. The right to honest communications from public authorities, for example.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • JimmyTheWig
    • By JimmyTheWig 17th Apr 18, 3:49 PM
    • 11,715 Posts
    • 11,293 Thanks
    JimmyTheWig
    Have you any ideas about how to square the circle on international streaming of TV channels? If TVL are going to mess people around on this (and those people are often working with less experience of the English language or British bureaucrats) what are we/MSE supposed to do in providing advice on the issue - other than the patchy and cautious response I've already given?
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    If it was a situation I was in, then I'd call and describe my situation and ask them to confirm that I didn't need a licence. If they said I did then I would ask them to clarify on what basis.
    If they were unable to clarify, or their response went against my reading of the law, then I would escalate through their complaints procedures.
    But I understand that that is an awful lot of hassle, that many people wouldn't be prepared to do.
    • JimmyTheWig
    • By JimmyTheWig 17th Apr 18, 3:52 PM
    • 11,715 Posts
    • 11,293 Thanks
    JimmyTheWig
    The loophole is to watch as much as you are allowed to without needing a licence.
    Originally posted by JimmyTheWig
    That's not a loophole.

    It's simply operating within the law.
    Originally posted by Bedsit Bob
    It's within the letter of the law but against the spirit of the law. Which is what I would define as a loophole.
    Loopholes must be within the law / rules to be a loophole, otherwise they'd be illegal / fraudulent.
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 17th Apr 18, 4:34 PM
    • 10,701 Posts
    • 10,990 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    It's within the letter of the law but against the spirit of the law. Which is what I would define as a loophole.
    Loopholes must be within the law / rules to be a loophole, otherwise they'd be illegal / fraudulent.
    Originally posted by JimmyTheWig
    If we're still talking about the option to watch, say DVDs on a TV without requiring a Licence to do so, then that is what is technically known as a Lacuna. (Which is what the law calls the things that most people know as a "loophole").

    Literally, lacuna means "gap". So it is a gap in the law (where no law applies) that is presumed intentional.

    A loophole, by contrast is technically an unintended issue with the law, and I don't believe for one moment (given the sheer amount of detail involved) that the "non-Broadcast" lacuna is/was anything other than intentional.

    The way our law is constructed requires a distinction between what requires a Licence and what doesn't, and what we have is simply the latest iteration on that distinction. Other jurisdictions (most notably Ireland) don't require that kind of distinction because their laws are structured differently. In Ireland, all TV type displays require a Licence, but there is an exemption for small screens.

    The other thing, whilst I'm writing a long post, is that if anyone here is straying from the spirit of the law, it is the BBC and TV Licensing.
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 17-04-2018 at 6:00 PM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • LeeUK
    • By LeeUK 17th Apr 18, 5:08 PM
    • 6,034 Posts
    • 2,744 Thanks
    LeeUK
    The amount of letters TVL have sent me over the years the postage alone would have covered at least one years worth of licence.
    • Bedsit Bob
    • By Bedsit Bob 17th Apr 18, 8:55 PM
    • 10,334 Posts
    • 56,052 Thanks
    Bedsit Bob
    In particular, I'd like to see:-

    - Communication that was honest and transparent, and sent at a more rational frequency than the existing monthly missives which are a pointless waste of resources.

    - Legal compliance with the letter and the spirit of all relevant legislation and legal principles.

    - Proper consideration of what steps need to be taken by the Courts to ensure justice in every TV Licensing case.

    - Removal of cash incentives from TVL doorsteppers.

    - Removal of pointless contracts with third parties to hand-deliver TVL calling cards.
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    To borrow a line from Buddy Holly, That'll be the day.
    1984 WAS NOT AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL.

    Amount I have so far denied the BBC - £1308

    You can't be a Christian AND a Socialist.
    • JimmyTheWig
    • By JimmyTheWig 18th Apr 18, 9:41 AM
    • 11,715 Posts
    • 11,293 Thanks
    JimmyTheWig
    If we're still talking about the option to watch, say DVDs on a TV without requiring a Licence to do so, then that is what is technically known as a Lacuna. (Which is what the law calls the things that most people know as a "loophole").

    Literally, lacuna means "gap". So it is a gap in the law (where no law applies) that is presumed intentional.

    A loophole, by contrast is technically an unintended issue with the law, and I don't believe for one moment (given the sheer amount of detail involved) that the "non-Broadcast" lacuna is/was anything other than intentional.
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    A fair point. And an interesting one.
    I'll accept, then, that I meant a Lacuna or a gap.
    Do you agree, though, that using a VPN to hide your browser history isn't a loophole or a Lacuna?
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 18th Apr 18, 11:50 AM
    • 10,701 Posts
    • 10,990 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    Do you agree, though, that using a VPN to hide your browser history isn't a loophole or a Lacuna?
    Originally posted by JimmyTheWig
    TBH, from my point of view, it's irrelevant. If you are legally Licence-free, it won't stop TV Licensing from harassing you, and if you are an evader, it won't stop them from prosecuting you. It's not illegal to do, though, and there are no "conspiracy" or "aiding and abetting" offences related to Licence Fee evasion, despite some of the rants you may see on the Internet suggesting that there are.

    As I've said fairly often on these threads, most TVL prosecutions are based upon confession evidence - documented through fair or foul means depending on the householder's legal knowledge, their physical heft and the demeanour and desperation of the TVL person.

    The policy of the BBC is that the TVL interview-under-caution-on-the-doorstep is fundamentally an adversarial encounter. (I've not seen it stated anywhere conclusively in PACE that this is not the case, though all the case law and the minutiae of the codes suggests that it is not). The upshot of which is that TVL staff are given a lot of (too much) discretion in being able to do whatever is necessary to document a confession. That certainly includes bullying and deceit, for which there is ample evidence.

    At the same time, the law can protect those who know their rights. For example: I seem to have successfully triggered a permanent ban of TVL from my premises by the BBC, even though they say elsewhere (and often) that such a thing is not even possible. I've done that by little more than being an assertive nuisance, whilst carrying on my life free of the Licence, watching video-on-demand and catch-up. At present, the only practical anti-TVL measures that I have taken are the detuning of my TV, lack of aerial connection, and the deletion of the iPlayer app. I used to have an IP block on BBC addresses, but have deleted that now that iPlayer requires a BBC ID.

    So, we have the unfortunate situation where an innocent householder can be prosecuted by not standing up for themselves (and sometimes even if they do), whilst an Evader can evade with impunity by applying their legal rights (the application, if not the objective, being totally acceptable).

    This is what happens when a organisation operates for its own interests rather than the public interest.
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 18-04-2018 at 1:02 PM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • mbmonty
    • By mbmonty 18th Apr 18, 1:09 PM
    • 138 Posts
    • 82 Thanks
    mbmonty
    I was visiting a female friend in a temporary housing facilty not long ago, whilst I was waiting in reception a very tall TVL goon and his "assistant" got into a secure area by flashing his pass.

    I took issue with this and raised it with the manager as everyone there had been deemed as vulnerable under provisions of Housing Act, the way the rooms are laid out means the door opens right onto a bedroom.

    Whilst there a chap from singles side heard conversation and told me he had been harassed by the same TVL Goon, said he would not identify himself and pushed himself into doorway so he could not shut his door.

    I encouraged him to make a formal complaint there and then, while I was waiting a lady came into reception saying the goon had been agressive to her, put his foot in her door and was very intimidating.

    The manager asked her to make complaint, they had CCTV (the whole place is covered).

    Later the Housing Association running the centre decided on a blanket ban on all TVL staff, they told them they could leave any comms for a particular room in reception and no access would be provided to secure areas.

    Apparently TVL complained to head office but they have kept the ban in force.

    I considered this to be a great result, I did not know that goon but I have met loads over the years, even when I registered /NoTV so now I do not bother to register, I figure they will come anyway.
    • pineapple
    • By pineapple 18th Apr 18, 3:45 PM
    • 6,273 Posts
    • 30,084 Thanks
    pineapple
    My understanding is that is IS an offence, however.....

    Incredibly rare
    A Royal Mail spokesman admits it's unlikely prosecutions could be brought, simply because of the difficulty of getting evidence. Furthermore, he's not aware of anyone having been prosecuted for throwing misdelivered mail away.
    The reported cases of prosecutions for tampering with the mail are incredibly rare, and involve rogue postmen.
    Originally posted by cw18
    A couple of years back I rented for a few months and was opening the mail one day when I opened mail in error addressed to a previous tenant. I should imagine this happens quite often especially given the increase in renters. Nor would I be surprised if many just ditched anything opened in error. It's a bit embarrassing if you have inadvertently seen private information. I should imagine that this sort of thing would be very difficult to police and prosecute.
    Normally I would sellotape back up and return to sender with a note on the envelope. However it was a debt collection agency and I realised I had sent several of these back unopened marked 'addressee not known'.
    Was glad I had opened it. I rung the agency and that was the last of it. Might have had bailiffs at the door otherwise
    Also in the same property I received the summary of a case meeting relating to the mental health of a neighbour - the envelope had been wrongly addressed. Rather than hand it to him and embarrass us both, I patched it up and returned it to the sender with a note of the correct address so that they could re-send.
    Last edited by pineapple; 18-04-2018 at 3:59 PM.
    • Bedsit Bob
    • By Bedsit Bob 18th Apr 18, 9:25 PM
    • 10,334 Posts
    • 56,052 Thanks
    Bedsit Bob
    I rung the agency and that was the last of it.
    Originally posted by pineapple
    Many moons (and one address) ago, I rang a DCA, who had sent a letter to a previous tenant, to tell them he no longer lived there.

    The guy on the other end wouldn't listen, and snarled "You're lying. I know you're the person we're looking for!"

    I just put the phone down.
    1984 WAS NOT AN INSTRUCTION MANUAL.

    Amount I have so far denied the BBC - £1308

    You can't be a Christian AND a Socialist.
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 18th Apr 18, 10:16 PM
    • 2,085 Posts
    • 2,864 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    Sorry Bob, but I've never even had a colour TV, so have no idea how much I've saved, although obviously that wasn't the motivation!

    So obviously I'd have no problems with a visit. As they don't know my name I'd just react as I would to any other such visitor at my door and tell them we're not interested and close the door.

    I'd be fascinated to know what wording or script they use in such circumstances, as they have nothing to go by. "Can I see your TV licence" and similar are very stupid ones to which we both know the answer. "We have reason to believe you are watching TV without a licence" would be a lie.

    Having mail addressed to 'The Occupier' makes sorting of junk mail a lot easier..

    Incidentally, the previous occupant to me left many debts with resulting mail following on for 3 years, all of which I RTS. I only had to open one mail which didn't have a return address on it; it was a court summons for non payment of a rail fare, and he'd given his old address. A quick call and the matter was sorted as far as I was concerned.
    Last edited by silverwhistle; 18-04-2018 at 10:17 PM. Reason: typo
    • pineapple
    • By pineapple 19th Apr 18, 7:32 PM
    • 6,273 Posts
    • 30,084 Thanks
    pineapple
    Many moons (and one address) ago, I rang a DCA, who had sent a letter to a previous tenant, to tell them he no longer lived there.

    The guy on the other end wouldn't listen, and snarled "You're lying. I know you're the person we're looking for!"

    I just put the phone down.
    Originally posted by Bedsit Bob
    Maybe you just sound dodgy!
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

4,248Posts Today

8,326Users online

Martin's Twitter