False name, my address. Metrolink fare dodger?

[Judge Dread]

I live at an address here in Hull which is a "road". Shortly after moving in 1972 I started to receive mail address to the same number and name as mine but addressed to a "street". I would return this mail as "not known here, try "street"!

When I received mail from a trades union addressed to "street", I returned it to that union with a note suggesting my union could get the right address for me, why couldn't they for their members. All seemed to settle down until about 1995 when a bailiff and two police officers arrived at my door with an arrest warrant for a gentleman. My wife told them I was in court that day, sitting on the bench and in any event, the person they wanted did not, and had not ever lived at this address. She asked to see the warrant and informed the bailiff that it was made out to the "street"! She then pointed out to the police officers that they should have  known that .

The following day I was in court again and I told our chief Clark of the events of the previous day and his comment was "Leave this to me sir, I shall cause the maximum possible amount of embarrassment here"!    

Edited August 18, 2018 by Judge Dread

[caradoc]

My own experience of institutional incompetence was some years ago when, following local government re-organisation, I was accused of not paying council tax. I advised them they were wrong, even sent a copy of my bank statement showing the direct debit to them, but they failed to investigate and then sent me a red letter threatening me with bailiffs ! Only when my local MP got involved did they bother to check and find that my payments were being credited to another person's account. Needless to say no apology was forthcoming. The mistake I could accept, what was unforgiveable was their total refusal to accept that the error could possibly be theirs. From some of the responses here that doesn't seem to be an unusual scenario.

[hayfield]

My own experience of institutional incompetence was some years ago when, following local government re-organisation, I was accused of not paying council tax. I advised them they were wrong, even sent a copy of my bank statement showing the direct debit to them, but they failed to investigate and then sent me a red letter threatening me with bailiffs ! Only when my local MP got involved did they bother to check and find that my payments were being credited to another person's account. Needless to say no apology was forthcoming. The mistake I could accept, what was unforgiveable was their total refusal to accept that the error could possibly be theirs. From some of the responses here that doesn't seem to be an unusual scenario.

 

 

Whilst supporting you and not trying to defend the indefensible. Those tasked with the job of chasing up debts must to a certain extent get immune to those refusing to pay and the excuses they come up with from "they have paid" to "its not my debt" that when someone has actually paid or their organization has made an error fail to do due diligence in checking out the facts. Depending on the amount of aggravation caused, I would have taken it further. Especially when its from either the Public sector or one of the utilities. 

[jjb1970]

Don't ignore it, things can escalate quickly and although you should ultimately be OK the stress levels will increase steadily.

 

The problem, as you have said, is that very often these entities make it difficult to contact anybody in a position to act and it is easy to end up in a dreadful circular round of just being shunted off to somebody else who can't do anything. Hence although I'd give them the opportunity to act reasonably, don't be afraid to follow up some of the suggestions with regards writing to your MP etc. Once when I had an issue with BAA and was getting nowhere I wrote a letter to their CEO and much to my surprise got a very apologetic response and it was all sorted very quickly.

[Free At Last]

What is the problem if it is not you they are after, why act on behalf of someone who may not exist?

Let the named person worry about it.

 

Here are over 100 letters addressed to T.H.E. Occupier from TVLA, most of them unopened and as many have been thrown away. According to them I have been under investigation for about 10 years. Some are threatening me with court action. I am waiting to give them back to THE MAN they keep threatening me with if he ever turns up.

I'll just keep on ignoring them. I wonder how much all this costs the licence payers.

Edited August 16, 2018 by Free At Last

[phil-b259]

Hi Phil,

 

I was only giving possible ideas should a sensible letter not work and I was not clear in this, however;

 

My charming local council once sent me a letter demanding to know why I had parked a car outside my house.

 

• The car was not my car to start with.
• If you read their so called evidence, which was a copy of the notice left upon the car in question the council would have seen that the traffic warden had written no.4 crossed it out and then written no.2 which was confused with my house no.42.
• I sent my polite letter of explanation citing the above and would they please correct their records which may be checked through the DVLA.
• I I telephoned the council after they resent the letter to further explain their mistake and to make more thorough enquiries to establish the actual problem.
• I ended up with a court summons for not only having a car that was not mine parked outside someone else's house but for ignoring their correspondance.
• I took the both the council letters and summons to the court in an attempt to explain what had been sent and what I had done about it, only to be told that I should have spoken to the council about the matter and that should I have done so the summons would not have been issued.
• A letter to my MP finally sorted it out, not that his response gave me any confidence, I feel more that the agencies involved didn't want any paperwork coming their way.

Bitter experience tells me why I wrote the above for when such corporate entities decide not to listen they just don't listen. I was shocked at the appalling attitude of the above mentioned agencies that are hell bent on riving money from you despite it being their mistake. I dread to think how much defending myself in court would have cost me because of their mistake no doubt I would have been quite out of pocket for their clerical error.

 

Regards,

 

Gibbo.

I have had two DVLA communications sent to my address in error (one being a V5 registration document made out to someone else but with my address on it and another thanking someone else for letting the DVLA of a change of address) over the past few years.

 

On both occasions a quick e-mail to the DVLA saw them write back to me and confirm my address was no longer linked to the relevant vhicle / person.

 

While not everyone may be so lucky in their efforts, it is important to at least give officialdom a chance.

Edited August 16, 2018 by phil-b259

[Gibbo675]

What is the problem if it is not you they are after, why act on behalf of someone who may not exist?

Let the named person worry about it.

 

Here are over 100 letters addressed to T.H.E. Occupier from TVLA, most of them unopened and as many have been thrown away. According to them I have been under investigation for about 10 years. Some are threatening me with court action. I am waiting to give them back to THE MAN they keep threatening me with if he ever turns up.

I'll just keep on ignoring them. I wonder how much all this costs the licence payers.

TVLA 2.jpg

It costs them nothing at all for all the so called money is "magiked" out of thin air. Do try explaining that to most folk though although I guess you have already tried that trick and mostly failed.

 

The BBC is an off shoot of the Tavistock Institute and has strong connections to the Fabian Society both excellent reasons not to pay for such apaling filth.

 

Beware the illusion created by the idiot lantern !

[phil-b259]

It costs them nothing at all for all the so called money is "magiked" out of thin air. Do try explaining that to most folk though although I guess you have already tried that trick and mostly failed.

 

The BBC is an off shoot of the Tavistock Institute and has strong connections to the Fabian Society both excellent reasons not to pay for such apaling filth.

 

Beware the illusion created by the idiot lantern !

TV leicencing systems work on the perhaps not unreasonable assumption in this day and age that most folk have one or more Televisions in their residences these days so assume any address that doesn’t have a leicencing must be trying to doge paying. While something of a pain, the bigger issue with this approach (or it was a few years ago when an elderly relative died and there was considerable delay until their property was sold) is that the leicencing computer could not be told that there was no need for a TV leicence at the address- all that could be done was to ‘suspend’ the process for 6 months after which the bully boy letters would automatically resume.

 

However I should also point out that given the frankly appalling quality of the TV / radio produced by purely commercial entities, whatever it’s suposed bias / agenda may be, the country as a whole is far better off with the BBC than it would be without it and as such I have no qualms in paying for a leicence even though I rarely partake of BBC services.

Edited August 17, 2018 by phil-b259

[Fenman]

...

The BBC is an off shoot of the Tavistock Institute and has strong connections to the Fabian Society both excellent reasons not to pay for such apaling filth.

...

 

 

That's one of the more inventive conspiracy theories I've seen (and I haven't heard the Tavie being cited as a centre of evil since that lovely 1980s comedy A Very Peculiar Practice, when the gloriously insane professor played by Timothy West, apparently having the time of his life, was convinced that the Tavie was out to get him).

 

Paul

Edited August 17, 2018 by Fenman

[Nick C]

Whilst supporting you and not trying to defend the indefensible. Those tasked with the job of chasing up debts must to a certain extent get immune to those refusing to pay and the excuses they come up with from "they have paid" to "its not my debt" that when someone has actually paid or their organization has made an error fail to do due diligence in checking out the facts. Depending on the amount of aggravation caused, I would have taken it further. Especially when its from either the Public sector or one of the utilities. 

 

That's no excuse for not acknowledging the mistake and apologising for it though, is it? It doesn't take a lot of effort to write a letter saying "We're sorry for the inconvenience this caused you"

 

TV leicencing systems work on the perhaps not unreasonable assumption in this day and age that most folk have one or more Televisions in their residences these days so assume any address that doesn’t have a leicencing must be trying to doge paying. While something of a pain, the bigger issue with this approach (or it was a few years ago when an elderly relative died and there was considerable delay until their property was sold) is that the leicencing computer could not be told that there was no need for a TV leicence at the address- all that could be done was to ‘suspend’ the process for 6 months after which the bully boy letters would automatically resume.

 

However I should also point out that given the frankly appalling quality of the TV / radio produced by purely commercial entities, whatever it’s suposed bias / agenda may be, the country as a whole is far better off with the BBC than it would be without it and as such I have no qualms in paying for a leicence even though I rarely partake of BBC services.

 

AKA guilty unless proven innocent, which is the reverse of how our legal system works... We don't have a TV, therefore we don't have a licence. We do, however, support the BBC by buying their DVDs...

[Enterprisingwestern]

TV leicencing systems work on the perhaps not unreasonable assumption in this day and age that most folk have one or more Televisions in their residences these days so assume any address that doesn’t have a leicencing must be trying to doge paying. While something of a pain, the bigger issue with this approach (or it was a few years ago when an elderly relative died and there was considerable delay until their property was sold) is that the leicencing computer could not be told that there was no need for a TV leicence at the address- all that could be done was to ‘suspend’ the process for 6 months after which the bully boy letters would automatically resume.

 

However I should also point out that given the frankly appalling quality of the TV / radio produced by purely commercial entities, whatever it’s suposed bias / agenda may be, the country as a whole is far better off with the BBC than it would be without it and as such I have no qualms in paying for a leicence even though I rarely partake of BBC services.

 

For the months before I emigrated and was spending less and less time in England, I had already packed all my non essential belongings ready for the impending move, including televisions. I cancelled my direct debit and informed the TVLA that I no longer required their services. On my return there would always be numerous of the "threatening" style letters awaiting on the doormat, and despite me contacting the TVLA to explain the situation still they came.

My answer, as the letters always came with the impending visit of "the boys", was to ring up the TVLA and demand a visit from them to prove my point. After a "robust" phone call to some distant operative requesting said visit, the letters magically dried up.

 

Mike.

[hayfield]

TV leicencing systems work on the perhaps not unreasonable assumption in this day and age that most folk have one or more Televisions in their residences these days so assume any address that doesn’t have a leicencing must be trying to doge paying. While something of a pain, the bigger issue with this approach (or it was a few years ago when an elderly relative died and there was considerable delay until their property was sold) is that the leicencing computer could not be told that there was no need for a TV leicence at the address- all that could be done was to ‘suspend’ the process for 6 months after which the bully boy letters would automatically resume.

 

However I should also point out that given the frankly appalling quality of the TV / radio produced by purely commercial entities, whatever it’s suposed bias / agenda may be, the country as a whole is far better off with the BBC than it would be without it and as such I have no qualms in paying for a leicence even though I rarely partake of BBC services.

 

 

For years now it has been law that when a TV is bought the name and address of the buyer is sent to the BBC licensing dept, that is where they get their info from 

[hayfield]

That's no excuse for not acknowledging the mistake and apologising for it though, is it? It doesn't take a lot of effort to write a letter saying "We're sorry for the inconvenience this caused you"

 

 

AKA guilty unless proven innocent, which is the reverse of how our legal system works... We don't have a TV, therefore we don't have a licence. We do, however, support the BBC by buying their DVDs...

 I thought that was the drift I was saying

[Reorte]

For years now it has been law that when a TV is bought the name and address of the buyer is sent to the BBC licensing dept, that is where they get their info from 

Easy enough to get around that for anyone intent on not paying the licence, as well as ignoring the fact that people move house. Sounds like another of those laws derived from "we think something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do it."

[alastairq]

Interesting thread. By not having a return address on the letter or a contact number where you can dispute a claim its almost like bully boy tactics . Threatening letter, pay us the money or take the consequences .Where an MP might be useful is to petition for a change in the law that all such letters should have a clear right of redress.

 

I think all government departments should be liable to a 'right-of-redress'!!!!

 

[Especially those like the child support agency [as-was]....]

 

From experience [not with the above]....I fully understand that the 'human element' in any large organisation , is usually working from some sort of 'script'.    If the responses don't fit the script, then the whole issue reverts back to page one.

 

This lack of flexibility I find abhorrent...especially when the 'issue' is not in any way, of my making!    

 

I also realise that, in many of these money-grabbing exercises, the companies or agencies concerned work on the basis of, a certain percentage of such claims will be paid up, regardless of the facts. {Or, they appear to be]

 

From a personal view, i have successfully  managed to stop debt collectors from harassing me for something a long-gone previous tenant owed, by getting Google to remove their company name from my address on Google maps!!

 

I have little sympathy for these companies..They have the means to ascertain whether someone does, or does not, live at an address, without ever having to leave the office.

 

What the doorstep visits do have in their favour is the 'off-chance' scenario.    

[BoD]

For years now it has been law that when a TV is bought the name and address of the buyer is sent to the BBC licensing dept, that is where they get their info from

 

You could always give them a false name and the OP's address.

[hayfield]

 Back to the topic, whilst I totally agree that those who owe monies should be found and made to pay. It is totally wrong that innocent people should have to be forced into proving its not their liability, surely goes against the principal innocent until proved guilty 

[Reorte]

 Back to the topic, whilst I totally agree that those who owe monies should be found and made to pay. It is totally wrong that innocent people should have to be forced into proving its not their liability, surely goes against the principal innocent until proved guilty 

If it came to court it probably would be up to them to prove guilt but they'd not unreasonably prefer to get payment before having to take things to court and being aggressive may be seen to be more successful. It's the easy (for them) option - keep on and expect the non-payers will cave first, investigating and checking costs money, and not care if a few innocent get a lot of hassle from that; they can afford the odd court case if they get enough to pay up.

 

That said, this is in contrast to me limited experience of dealing with the tax people, who when I have had to call them have seemed both knowledgeable and helpful, so I suppose they see that as being a more successful approach to getting people to pay.

[Free At Last]

...and if the letter is not addressed to you it is not you who has to prove your innocence.

[eastglosmog]

For years now it has been law that when a TV is bought the name and address of the buyer is sent to the BBC licensing dept, that is where they get their info from 

You're a bit out of date there, Hayfield - it has not been a legal requirement for 3-4 years at least, whatever shops may try and tell you.

Like Free at last I don't have a TV (indeed, never have had one) and get periodic threats from the BBC's minions (aka Capita) wanting to know why my non-existent TV is not licensed.  The paper they periodically send round is quite good for lining my cats litter tray, so I am glad they keep on sending it!

Edited August 17, 2018 by eastglosmog

[57xx]

For years now it has been law that when a TV is bought the name and address of the buyer is sent to the BBC licensing dept, that is where they get their info from 

 

You're a bit out of date there, Hayfield - it has not been a legal requirement for 3-4 years at least, whatever shops may try and tell you.

 

 

It's been over 5 years now since that stopped. I can remember in an old job when the report that was sent to Capita (not direct to the BBC...) was found to be failing and was then discovered to have been so for several weeks. People were running round in a panic as it was a known legal requirement to send this info, but no one in IT had been told of the change in the law about 6 months previously and the report was left churning away until it failed!

[Mallard60022]

It costs them nothing at all for all the so called money is "magiked" out of thin air. Do try explaining that to most folk though although I guess you have already tried that trick and mostly failed.

 

The BBC is an off shoot of the Tavistock Institute and has strong connections to the Fabian Society both excellent reasons not to pay for such apaling filth.

 

Beware the illusion created by the idiot lantern !

Evidence please as this is worth investigating.

P.

[hayfield]

Which ever branch of the political spectrum people come from, the BBC is accused of supporting the other side. 

[runs as required]

Wife is a graduate of the Tavi (paid for by an EU mid career re-training fund of some kind) - I'll ask her for evidence.

dh

[Big James]

We had this. My partners Mum who was living with us at the time run up quite a lot of debts and then moved to Spain without informing them. Plus didn’t tell us about the debts. We only found out when we started getting threatening letters and visit to the bailiffs. In the end we had to go up citizens advice to help us. They told us to get a photocopy of us living there, then find proof she was living in Spain and then post the whole lot of to the debters. Which we did. Seemed to sort the problem out as we never heard anything back about it ever again.

 

Big James