Quote:
|
Originally Posted by meglamaniac
Also, has anyone else experienced the sheer stupidity of the agency's hired grunts?
After 4 letters, each increasingly threatening, each met with a phonecall from each person in the flat to explain that they didn't have a TV (or in my case, that I wasn't using it to recieve TV), they sent a grunt round to check. Twice.
On the first occasion we rolled our eyes and let him in.
By the second time, we were fed up of wasting our money phoning them to correct their database which clearly wasn't being updated anyway, so we refused him entry until he actually bothered to go get a policeman and a warrent, which he did. While he made an arse out of himself looking round the flat (and making me explain why I didn't need a ****ing licence for the millionth time), we informed the poor police officer of the agency's inability to keep any proper record of updates. He was less than impressed, especially when the grunt phoned the office to disprove our story, and miraculously they actually did have the previous visit on record somewhere.
|
That seems rather excessive. My parents found that simply ignoring the letters makes their computers break and just start sending the same cycle of increasingly rude letters all over again. Obviously trying to help them out is what triggered their response.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Cooling
There are different burdens of proof. Depending on the type of offense. Silly little regulations, accompanied by small fines generally require proof on a balance of probabilities. Not beyond reasonable doubt.
In addition the burden in these cases generally resides with the defendant.
It is called Strict Liability. It is there to stop mentally ill people from issuing court proceedings for every parking ticket and speeding fine, asking the crown to proove it beyond reasonable doubt.
|
You're so wrong you make my head hurt.
