Personal details

[SaabMan]

Let me guess, does it involve that legal foo called "freeman on the land" or similar?

 

Good guess.

Actually no, it was a terrible guess.

If i ever get a visit from a tv man i just tell him or her i dont need a licence.

When they ask why i reply with a simple "because i dont".

They ask me my name. I sometimes give it.

They know who i am yet no court papers no "proof" from the detector van.

The "law" is nothing of the sort otherwise id have been fined years ago.

 

[Obelix]

Good guess.

Actually no, it was a terrible guess.

If i ever get a visit from a tv man i just tell him or her i dont need a licence.

When they ask why i reply with a simple "because i dont".

They ask me my name. I sometimes give it.

They know who i am yet no court papers no "proof" from the detector van.

The "law" is nothing of the sort otherwise id have been fined years ago.

 

 

Of course if they happen to hear the TV though they then have enough for a search warrant from the local beak so if you are watching broadcast TV I would get a licence.

[molly-61]

right folks ive been in a shop today where personal details from a customer was being taken. now this person was rathet uncomfortable divulging such information. This person was in a wheel chair and was consierably lower down than the counter that the assistant was shouting this poor womans details back out to her from. As this woman was leaviing the shop she turned to another lady in the queue an said I hope i dont get followed home now...so when vulnerable feel obligated to give such detail that it worries them, its wrong......

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

[onewheeldave]

Let me guess, does it involve that legal foo called "freeman on the land" or similar?

 

"freeman on the land" stuff is not necessary.

 

If any TV license reps knock on your door you can simply tell them you're not interested in whatever it is they want to discuss and close the door.

[muddycoffee]

Was it a TV or related equipment? They pass it to TV licensing

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android

 

 

The law has recently changed about this and it is not mandatory for a retailer to do this any longer.

[SaabMan]

Of course if they happen to hear the TV though they then have enough for a search warrant from the local beak so if you are watching broadcast TV I would get a licence.

 

Really?

You think?

Ha, you know very little. The last few times i got a visit i deliberatly turn the tv up so it CAN be heard.

[jaycee331]

I work part time in a shop and there are certain products we need to ask name and address etc for.

 

To be honest I think you're all paranoid, nobody cares who you are, nobody cares where you live.

 

It's a bit arrogant to assume that anybody in that shop would have an interest in your name and address, and so what, so what if they did overhear it? What are they going to do with your name and address? Post you a letter?.

 

What could I do with that information? Nothing of consequence.

 

Staff don't ask your details because they want to know where you live, they ask because the systems dictate it, and if you have a problem with giving the information, the transaction won't be processed and you can go and buy it somewhere else.

 

Simple.

 

Dear oh dear. So you work in retail, and don't have the first clue about the law, data protection and the incompatibility between that and the policies of a retail store - and you're the one calling people arrogant? You are judging the issue using independant common sense instead of looking at what the law says. Which makes you 100% part of the problem I'm afraid. I'm very familiar with the issue having seen it debated before on other sites.

 

Basically, many stores have a policy that insists that the employee must capture the name and address of a customer requiring a refund. They do this to try and catch people abusing or frauding the refund system. Fine in itself, but not fine when it is an infringement of consumer rights. I didn't write the law so that's their problem, not mine.

 

SUCH POLICY IS A VIOLATION OF CONSUMER RIGHTS. As others have said, consumers have the right, without such condition, to return faulty goods for an immediate refund. Any store that refuses to process a faulty return because the customer refuses to give their name and address are in breach of the Sale of Goods Act - it stipulates NO SUCH CONDITION.

 

Paranoid, nothing to hide blah blah blah. Not the point at all. It's a basic point of law and negligent business practice. Everyone should challenge this, everywhere.

 

p.s. Any business who collect any personally identifable information from customers, must have registered itself with the Information Commissioners Office as a data processor. Data is being collected illegally if not.

[Cyclone]

Go do some research.

Theres a huge difference between what you think to be the case and what is actualy the case.

 

Then come back and tell me why i and other epople who post on here openly admit to not having a tv licences and openly admit to watching tv and yet havent been taken to court and havent been issued with a fine.

 

Ill pop back for that one though, im guessing its going to take a while

 

If you think there's something I don't know about the law then you can spell it out.

I'd guess that the TV Licensing authority doesn't monitor SF to see who's claiming what about TV Licenses. It would be a large waste of their time to get a court order to identify you only to find out that you have a TVL or that you don't have a TV.

[Cyclone]

Good guess.

Actually no, it was a terrible guess.

If i ever get a visit from a tv man i just tell him or her i dont need a licence.

When they ask why i reply with a simple "because i dont".

They ask me my name. I sometimes give it.

They know who i am yet no court papers no "proof" from the detector van.

The "law" is nothing of the sort otherwise id have been fined years ago.

 

 

There is no detector van, the proof they need would be to witness the TV displaying a broadcast.

If they can't get that proof then they aren't likely to take you to court.

[onewheeldave]

Dear oh dear. So you work in retail, and don't have the first clue about the law, data protection and the incompatibility between that and the policies of a retail store - and you're the one calling people arrogant? You are judging the issue using independant common sense instead of looking at what the law says. Which makes you 100% part of the problem I'm afraid. I'm very familiar with the issue having seen it debated before on other sites.

 

Basically, many stores have a policy that insists that the employee must capture the name and address of a customer requiring a refund. They do this to try and catch people abusing or frauding the refund system. Fine in itself, but not fine when it is an infringement of consumer rights. I didn't write the law so that's their problem, not mine.

 

SUCH POLICY IS A VIOLATION OF CONSUMER RIGHTS. As others have said, consumers have the right, without such condition, to return faulty goods for an immediate refund. Any store that refuses to process a faulty return because the customer refuses to give their name and address are in breach of the Sale of Goods Act - it stipulates NO SUCH CONDITION.

 

Paranoid, nothing to hide blah blah blah. Not the point at all. It's a basic point of law and negligent business practice. Everyone should challenge this, everywhere.

 

p.s. Any business who collect any personally identifable information from customers, must have registered itself with the Information Commissioners Office as a data processor. Data is being collected illegally if not.

 

Thanks for the clarification- too much of this kind of stuff goes on simply cos of widespread misunderstanding amongst the public.

 

Do you happen to know if it's feasable to take any kind of legal action for any time wasted in dealing with stores who continue to perpetuate this myth? (or for the kind of emotional distress caused to the disabled person mentioned in this post)?-

 

right folks ive been in a shop today where personal details from a customer was being taken. now this person was rathet uncomfortable divulging such information. This person was in a wheel chair and was consierably lower down than the counter that the assistant was shouting this poor womans details back out to her from. As this woman was leaviing the shop she turned to another lady in the queue an said I hope i dont get followed home now...so when vulnerable feel obligated to give such detail that it worries them, its wrong......

 

 

Posted from Sheffieldforum.co.uk App for Android