Since Jan 2017 I have been paying the bedroom tax for the spare bedroom I now have since I kicked the drug using and dealing family member out.
Although I am only paying £50 a month it is £50 that would be better in my pocket than the councils pocket. I personally think that those who want to move should not pay but those who don't or refuse to move should pay for spare bedrooms, it's not as if they are going to use them.
Why should people who would move if the right property came up be penalised because of those who refuse to move no matter what?
Why do I say only those that refuse to move should pay? Well, they're some who look on that privately, or council rented home as their own home, in a way it is but after the children grow up and move out then the remaining parents might want somewhere smaller and also some savings, if they had bought a large home, as they move from a two, three or even four bedroom place to a one bedroom place, and put the rest in the bank. It's a sort of you made your bed now you lie in it ultimatum to the kids who have left home.
What do I hold responsible for the state of the housing? Well, it's one previous Conservative Leader, Margarate "The Milk Snatcher" Thatcher and her right to buy, a policy that caused chaos as people who rented thought I know with the large discounts on offer I will buy the place then sell in a few years time. Some of the houses or flats went for as little as £4000. It leads to a spiralling circle where they try to constantly move up the property ladder and with lenders offering 105% mortgages people overstretched themselves and found themselves back in the council's hands and those properties were sold at auction, sometimes for a fraction of their value and the person was then chased for the remaining value of the property. So far I have had just one person seriously interested in my place on a swapping site but I need ground floor because of disability and they have a second-floor place so that isn't on unless they can find a person for their place and do a three-way swap.
Now on to the Paedo tax, AKA TV License, a couple of years ago I cancelled the Paedo tax because I found I never watched the thing. I was paying £145.50 plus £20 for BT TV I heard they were putting the price up again so waited for my notification of their intention but it never came, I just got the monthly bill with the increases on. What did I do? Exactly what they did, I moved to a cheaper provider. They tried to get nearly £220 out of me for leaving so I contacted the name on the letters by email after I got the bill but no joy. So I contact the CEO of BT and within 14 days the bill for leaving is reduced to just £2 and as they had taken nearly 28 days to sort it out and the CEO got the same email as the person on the contact emails or letters, with a few minor changes.
All I really ask for that I would have asked them to provide the court with was a copy of the said letter with proof of postage and receipt. I knew they could provide a copy of the letter but the proof of postage and receipt were what I got them with because even if they got a proof of postage I hadn't signed for any letter so they had no proof of receipt. This is one thing I tell everyone to do who says that a company sent them a letter. Copy of letter with proof of postage and proof of receipt. This works extremely well with the likes of DWP or any company if they just pop it in the mail can they prove they posted it and more to the point can they prove you received it? If a court expects us to believe they sent the letter, what would the defence say if we say we contacted them? Can you prove you contacted us? My answer is always YES because I only use email.
The first line is: Your No License Needed claim expires soon. Please get in touch.
Why should I? There has been no change in my watching Paedo funded material. I would rather listen on the radio to the same content, at least they try and make it sound interesting when you would rather be asleep and you don't need a Paedo License.
The letter then goes on to say; Almost two years ago, you told us you didn't need a TV License at this address. As we mentioned at the time, we now need to check if your circumstances have changed.
Like feck it has! When it changes I will be 75 them the Paedo company can pay my license fee or the government until then I will not watch the Paedo channels.
On another point, the Paedo channels had a chance to go to a subscription only channel by the end of 2012 but they didn't I have a question, WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T THEY? The answer; they would have been loads who thought feck it I will just watch what is free and nothing else. Plus before the digital TV switchover, the Paedo company wisely positioned it's two channels right between the other free to air channels that relied on adverts for their funding.
That brings up another question adverts on the Paedo channel, you say it's advert free think again! They have adverts for the RADIO TIMES and also other programmes that will be shown either after the one they are about to show or later in the week. they can take up to 5 minutes off the programme so your 29-minute programme is now 24 minutes long. So advert free MY FUCKING ARSE!!
The letter goes on to say;
What you should do now.
I know what I should do now file it in the bin, the letter even had TV Licensing on the front of the envelope, I just didn't notice until I opened it. I might have put return to sender if I had noticed the Logo on the front of the envelope
Please get in touch so we can update our records. It only takes a few minutes to do one of the following:
Tell us you don't need a TV License.
Tell us you do need a TV License.
Why the fuck should I tell the paedo protectors anything? I might tell you of a change like you're, or rather the government are paying my Paedo tax now, but other than that you can go fuck yourselves.
This was signed with the fictitious name of Jackie Garswood, a customer service Manager. They are as real as Jake Hales and all the other works of fiction they put on their threat-o-grams.
So until the next instalment, it's goodbye from me.
Although I am only paying £50 a month it is £50 that would be better in my pocket than the councils pocket. I personally think that those who want to move should not pay but those who don't or refuse to move should pay for spare bedrooms, it's not as if they are going to use them.
Why should people who would move if the right property came up be penalised because of those who refuse to move no matter what?
Why do I say only those that refuse to move should pay? Well, they're some who look on that privately, or council rented home as their own home, in a way it is but after the children grow up and move out then the remaining parents might want somewhere smaller and also some savings, if they had bought a large home, as they move from a two, three or even four bedroom place to a one bedroom place, and put the rest in the bank. It's a sort of you made your bed now you lie in it ultimatum to the kids who have left home.
What do I hold responsible for the state of the housing? Well, it's one previous Conservative Leader, Margarate "The Milk Snatcher" Thatcher and her right to buy, a policy that caused chaos as people who rented thought I know with the large discounts on offer I will buy the place then sell in a few years time. Some of the houses or flats went for as little as £4000. It leads to a spiralling circle where they try to constantly move up the property ladder and with lenders offering 105% mortgages people overstretched themselves and found themselves back in the council's hands and those properties were sold at auction, sometimes for a fraction of their value and the person was then chased for the remaining value of the property. So far I have had just one person seriously interested in my place on a swapping site but I need ground floor because of disability and they have a second-floor place so that isn't on unless they can find a person for their place and do a three-way swap.
Now on to the Paedo tax, AKA TV License, a couple of years ago I cancelled the Paedo tax because I found I never watched the thing. I was paying £145.50 plus £20 for BT TV I heard they were putting the price up again so waited for my notification of their intention but it never came, I just got the monthly bill with the increases on. What did I do? Exactly what they did, I moved to a cheaper provider. They tried to get nearly £220 out of me for leaving so I contacted the name on the letters by email after I got the bill but no joy. So I contact the CEO of BT and within 14 days the bill for leaving is reduced to just £2 and as they had taken nearly 28 days to sort it out and the CEO got the same email as the person on the contact emails or letters, with a few minor changes.
All I really ask for that I would have asked them to provide the court with was a copy of the said letter with proof of postage and receipt. I knew they could provide a copy of the letter but the proof of postage and receipt were what I got them with because even if they got a proof of postage I hadn't signed for any letter so they had no proof of receipt. This is one thing I tell everyone to do who says that a company sent them a letter. Copy of letter with proof of postage and proof of receipt. This works extremely well with the likes of DWP or any company if they just pop it in the mail can they prove they posted it and more to the point can they prove you received it? If a court expects us to believe they sent the letter, what would the defence say if we say we contacted them? Can you prove you contacted us? My answer is always YES because I only use email.
The first line is: Your No License Needed claim expires soon. Please get in touch.
Why should I? There has been no change in my watching Paedo funded material. I would rather listen on the radio to the same content, at least they try and make it sound interesting when you would rather be asleep and you don't need a Paedo License.
The letter then goes on to say; Almost two years ago, you told us you didn't need a TV License at this address. As we mentioned at the time, we now need to check if your circumstances have changed.
Like feck it has! When it changes I will be 75 them the Paedo company can pay my license fee or the government until then I will not watch the Paedo channels.
On another point, the Paedo channels had a chance to go to a subscription only channel by the end of 2012 but they didn't I have a question, WHY THE FUCK DIDN'T THEY? The answer; they would have been loads who thought feck it I will just watch what is free and nothing else. Plus before the digital TV switchover, the Paedo company wisely positioned it's two channels right between the other free to air channels that relied on adverts for their funding.
That brings up another question adverts on the Paedo channel, you say it's advert free think again! They have adverts for the RADIO TIMES and also other programmes that will be shown either after the one they are about to show or later in the week. they can take up to 5 minutes off the programme so your 29-minute programme is now 24 minutes long. So advert free MY FUCKING ARSE!!
The letter goes on to say;
What you should do now.
I know what I should do now file it in the bin, the letter even had TV Licensing on the front of the envelope, I just didn't notice until I opened it. I might have put return to sender if I had noticed the Logo on the front of the envelope
Please get in touch so we can update our records. It only takes a few minutes to do one of the following:
Tell us you don't need a TV License.
Tell us you do need a TV License.
Why the fuck should I tell the paedo protectors anything? I might tell you of a change like you're, or rather the government are paying my Paedo tax now, but other than that you can go fuck yourselves.
This was signed with the fictitious name of Jackie Garswood, a customer service Manager. They are as real as Jake Hales and all the other works of fiction they put on their threat-o-grams.
So until the next instalment, it's goodbye from me.
No comments:
Post a Comment