Re: Court summons TV licence
I see your point now and reasoning now.
Regarding comparison of miss-payment to insurance policy - I see your point, as there is a good and justified reason as to why you need insurance (in event your in a road traffic accident, especially where other parties are injured etc). But the same can not be said for the need to have a TV license, nor are the potential consequences of missing a license fee payment the same as the potential consequences of being in a road traffic accident.
You could also compare this to defaulted payment on a credit card, where once the default is remedied its deemed to not have occured and no further action can be taken. Yes credit defaults are civil law, where as license fee is for now under criminal - Though its likely to be dealt with under civil law in the near future.
Off course we both agree they are being heavy handed here after they already accepted the OP's payment to bring her account up to date, seems ridiculous as to why they could spend more money taking the OP to court for a measly £12 (which they have already paid), when the right and just thing to do would be to simply treat it as though the breach of license never occurred, as it had clearly been remedied at no loss or damage to the BBC.
Originally posted by stevemLS
View Post
Regarding comparison of miss-payment to insurance policy - I see your point, as there is a good and justified reason as to why you need insurance (in event your in a road traffic accident, especially where other parties are injured etc). But the same can not be said for the need to have a TV license, nor are the potential consequences of missing a license fee payment the same as the potential consequences of being in a road traffic accident.
You could also compare this to defaulted payment on a credit card, where once the default is remedied its deemed to not have occured and no further action can be taken. Yes credit defaults are civil law, where as license fee is for now under criminal - Though its likely to be dealt with under civil law in the near future.
Off course we both agree they are being heavy handed here after they already accepted the OP's payment to bring her account up to date, seems ridiculous as to why they could spend more money taking the OP to court for a measly £12 (which they have already paid), when the right and just thing to do would be to simply treat it as though the breach of license never occurred, as it had clearly been remedied at no loss or damage to the BBC.
Comment