# Anyone see a way of claiming against TiVo for loss of service?



## rwtomkins (Jul 14, 2003)

Just before I chuck my TiVo in the skip, I wondered if anyone could see a way of claiming against the company for breaching its agreement with lifetime subscribers? They promised a service for the lifetime of the machine and they're breaking that agreement so in legal terms it seems pretty clear to me they don't have a leg to stand on. (I realise there was get-out clause in the terms and conditions but I think any UK court would see it as unreasonable and therefore void.)

These days it's extremely cheap and simple to obtain redress against companies and individuals through the government's Money Claim Online service, part of Her Majesty's Courts Service:

https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk/web/mcol/welcome

However the problem it seems to me is that TiVo Inc. does not have a legal presence in the UK any longer and HMCS needs someone to serve the papers on.

Does anyone see a way around this?

I would be claiming a refund of the sum paid for the lifetime subscription, that being my rough estimate of what I've lost through the discontinuation of the promised service (ie the residual value of machine if the service were still running plus the residual value of the subscription if the service were still running.) Plus of course the cost of filing the claim, which is normally awarded to the successful claimant.

Can I courteously request that we keep this on topic and NOT get into more arguments about whether a claim is justified? This thread is purely for the purposes of exchanging practical advice among people _who have already decided_ they'd like to make a claim.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

From their guidance:



> The address of the person(s) you are suing is within England and Wales and contains a valid postcode


So that'll be a no then.

Saved you £25.


----------



## spitfires (Dec 19, 2006)

> This Agreement will be governed by the laws of the State of California


UK Courts have no jurisdiction. You will need to get yourself a California lawyer.



> This thread is purely for the purposes of exchanging practical advice among people who have already decided they'd like to make a claim.


A do-it-yourself claim is going to get you nowhere. Fast. If you are serious about this then you will need to find yourself a proper lawyer rather than asking on here for rhetoric and hyperbole.

.


----------



## rwtomkins (Jul 14, 2003)

TCM2007 said:


> From their guidance:
> 
> So that'll be a no then.
> 
> Saved you £25.


You're just repeating what I already said in my OP. I've already identified this as a problem and I'm asking for ways around it, not for people simply to repeat that there's a problem.

The first step obviously will be to find an address in the UK where the papers can be served. While this is a problem I don't think it's necessarily a big one. We simply need to know which company took on TiVo's ongoing legal responsibilities in the UK after the company decided to stop selling any more machines. Someone in the UK continued to provide the EPG service, someone continued to collect monthly subs and someone continued to sell UK lifetime subscriptions right up until a few weeks or months ago. I suggest we start by going after that company, presumably BSkyB. Do others agree or does anyone have a better idea?

Reminder - this thread is for people who want to make a claim against TiVo (or its successor). Please don't post here if all you want to do is rubbish the idea.


----------



## rwtomkins (Jul 14, 2003)

spitfires said:


> A do-it-yourself claim is going to get you nowhere. Fast. If you are serious about this then you will need to find yourself a proper lawyer rather than asking on here for rhetoric and hyperbole.


Not true. That's the whole purpose of Money Claim Online - to provide cheap, simple legal remedies for ordinary people who can't afford expensive lawyers.

Reminder - this thread is for people who want to make a claim against TiVo (or its successor). Please don't post here if all you want to do is rubbish the idea.


----------



## alek (May 22, 2008)

Try your local citizens advice bureau

Alek


----------



## Karnak (Jan 13, 2003)

Pointed out in many other threads but there is a clause in the contract that says they can discontinue the service with 30 days notice.

They are covered. Give it up.


----------



## spitfires (Dec 19, 2006)

rwtomkins said:


> Not true. That's the whole purpose of Money Claim Online - to provide cheap, simple legal remedies for ordinary people who can't afford expensive lawyers.


The first thing you will need to do is to (try and) get jurisdiction switched from the California Law to UK Law. For that you will need a lawyer.

You are not going to be able to do anything "on the cheap" here.

Money Claim Online is simply a front-end to the UK Small Claims Court. This is only applicable to UK based companies. Your contract for service was with TiVo Inc (*not* BSkyB, Thomson or anyone else - they were merely subcontractors to TiVo), so your redress is against TiVo Inc. The Small Claims Service will not cover that.

Sorry if that is not what you want to hear but it's a fact, deal with it. Don't waste your money.



rwtomkins said:


> spitfires said:
> 
> 
> > [...]
> ...


Sorry for trying to be helpful.


----------



## steveroe (Oct 29, 2002)

Companies house records indicate the following:

TIVO (UK) LIMITED
5 NEW STREET SQUARE
LONDON
EC4A 3TW
Company No. 04056501

Dellam.com can sell you documents to verify if this is the right company.

One of the documents they list is a "Directors Change of Particulars - Matthew Perry Zinn - 16 November 2010". A google search for his name plus "Tivo" shows us one of Tivo's employees goes by that name.

Can someone who was paying a monthly subscription until they stopped taking payment please check who that payment went to?

Does anyone still have a copy of their letter from Tivo from they signed up to the service, what company is listed on the letter?

Good luck (you're going to need it!)


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

steveroe said:


> Can someone who was paying a monthly subscription until they stopped taking payment please check who that payment went to?


Showing as just "Tivo" on my statements.



> Does anyone still have a copy of their letter from Tivo from they signed up to the service, what company is listed on the letter?


Thought I had, but obviously must have thrown it. Sorry.



> Good luck (you're going to need it!)


Indeed. I hope rwtompkins gets back to us with what he/she is told. I could do with laugh


----------



## Muttley1900 (Dec 23, 2008)

steveroe said:


> Does anyone still have a copy of their letter from Tivo from they signed up to the service, what company is listed on the letter?


Addresses on my sign up letter are:

Contact Us at TiVo Customer Services, PO Box 123, Livingston, West Lothian, EH54 7DS

TiVo UK Registerd Office: Carmelite House, 50 Victoria Embankment, Blackfriers, London, EC4Y 0DX. Registered in England Number: 4056501

J.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Matthew Perry Zinn is Tivo Inc's in-house lawyer in Alviso.

The New Street Square address is Taylor Wessing, a firm of lawyers.

I suppose you could give them a laugh.

I wonder which of the points (jurisdiction; the service agreement allowing service termination; the service agreement allowing service variation; the service agreement not defining what a lifetime sub is; the fact that thinking TiVo are obliged to provide the service forever for a £199 payment fails a common sense test; the lack of damages since the benefit received massively outweighs the payment made) they would use?


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Muttley1900 said:


> Addresses on my sign up letter are:
> 
> Contact Us at TiVo Customer Services, PO Box 123, Livingston, West Lothian, EH54 7DS


Sky.



> TiVo UK Registerd Office: Carmelite House, 50 Victoria Embankment, Blackfriers, London, EC4Y 0DX. Registered in England Number: 4056501
> 
> J.


Their old address.


----------



## steveroe (Oct 29, 2002)

cwaring said:


> Indeed. Do get back to us with what they tell you. I could do with laugh


Just passing on information to the OP, I have no intention of launching legal action


----------



## spitfires (Dec 19, 2006)

rwtomkins said:


> I would be claiming a refund of the sum paid for the lifetime subscription, that being my rough estimate of what I've lost through the discontinuation of the promised service (ie *the residual value of machine if the service were still running* plus the residual value of the subscription if the service were still running.)


So you claiming for "damages" then? Sorry can't do that through the Small Claims Court. The SCC is only for tangible "losses".

What value do you arrive at for


> the residual value of the subscription if the service were still running


It's a serious question - what is the residual value of your subscription?

This (plus costs) is the only amount you can claim for through MCO/SCC.


----------



## Jo.Cassady (Jul 21, 2002)

rwtomkins said:


> Just before I chuck my TiVo in the skip, I wondered if anyone could see a way of claiming against the company for breaching its agreement with lifetime subscribers? They promised a service for the lifetime of the machine and they're breaking that agreement so in legal terms it seems pretty clear to me they don't have a leg to stand on. (I realise there was get-out clause in the terms and conditions but I think any UK court would see it as unreasonable and therefore void.)
> 
> These days it's extremely cheap and simple to obtain redress against companies and individuals through the government's Money Claim Online service, part of Her Majesty's Courts Service:
> 
> ...


Hey man, there are TiVo employees, apologists and trolls making silly comments to try and discourage people from expressing their outrage. (see the other thread about the TiVo bricking scandal)

They didn't break the letter of the agreement (legally) but they broke the _spirit_ and created a lot of bad will.


----------



## mikerr (Jun 2, 2005)

Jo.Cassady said:


> Hey man, there are *TiVo employees*, apologists and trolls making silly comments to try and discourage people from expressing their outrage. (see the other thread )


No tivo employees have responded?!- maybe you're confused by my sig - just sell upgrades - not employed by TiVo here.

It would be nice if an employee _did_ make a post here on the UK forum - they have in the past when suggestions were turned off - although they actually fixed the issue in the end.



> They didn't break the letter of the agreement (legally) but they broke the _spirit_ and created a lot of bad will.


No law against breaking "the spirit of the agreement" and a "reasonable lifetime" of a consumer device like tivo isn't as long as ten years anyway - five years, tops. As others have said, we got *8 years service after they ceased selling TiVos* - have to happy with that IMO. Although obviously we'd all have liked it to continue.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

steveroe said:


> Just passing on information to the OP, I have no intention of launching legal action


My sincere apologies.  That was supposed to be aimed at the OP. Original post now altered to reflect this.



Jo.Cassady said:


> Hey man, there are TiVo employees, apologists and trolls making *silly comments*....


Actually, we're just using logic and common sense


----------



## Trinitron (Jan 20, 2003)

TCM2007 said:


> the service agreement not defining what a lifetime sub is


I thought we had established that it did define a lifetime sub in clause 14:


> A "Product Lifetime Subscription" to the TiVo service covers the life of the TiVo DVR you buy  not the life of the subscriber.


Unfortunately for our armchair lawyers, the same clause also provides for


> The subscription remains in effect [...] if you upgrade your TiVo DVR to increase storage capacity (though such upgrades, if not performed by TiVo or a TiVo-authorized third party, will void the warranty on your TiVo DVR and constitute a breach of this Agreement).


and finally


> In addition, TiVo reserves the right to terminate your account and this Agreement for any other reason or no reason if TiVo gives you at least 30 days advance notice of such termination.


----------



## Trinitron (Jan 20, 2003)

rwtomkins said:


> I would be claiming a refund of the sum paid for the lifetime subscription, that being my rough estimate of what I've lost through the discontinuation of the promised service (ie the residual value of machine if the service were still running plus the residual value of the subscription if the service were still running.)


Serious question #1: Do you really expect your 8+ year old TiVo box to continue for a similar period?

Serious question #2: How many lifetime boxes are out there that have not been modified in any way?

A reasonable lifespan for consumer electric equipment is reckoned to be 2-6 years. EU law puts the standard warranty period at 2 years. Under UK law, buyers in England and Wales can get a partial refund or full repair up to six years after the purchase was made (five years from discovery in Scotland).


----------



## rwtomkins (Jul 14, 2003)

steveroe said:


> Companies house records indicate the following:
> 
> TIVO (UK) LIMITED
> 5 NEW STREET SQUARE
> ...


That's fantastic, thanks so much steveroe and also to the others who have made helpful and constructive comments. This address is only a couple of minutes' walk away from me so I'll go round and have a look when I have a minute. Same with TiVo's old Blackfriars address - that too is only a few minutes' walk away so it will be fun to have a look.


----------



## Steve_K (May 5, 2001)

as I've posted elsewhere, I believe it's more likely than not that there is a legal claim for loss of promised service. 

Small claims court is likely to not help though as there's a number of complex points to argue. 

But I'm no expert however I'm still up for contributing to a pool if we do want to get some decent legal advice.

bear in mind it's not unlikely that the actual UK company sue-able is Sky and that brings up another difficulty. They might lose and then cancel any Sky services we receive.

Pyrrhic victories are just not worth it and TiVo should bear that in mind too, a lot of people now know they don't keep their word.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Trinitron said:


> I thought we had established that it did define a lifetime sub in clause 14


That's not a definition; it just clarifies that it means the box and not the owner.

There's no further definition of what benefits are gained by a lifetime subscriber.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

rwtomkins said:


> That's fantastic, thanks so much steveroe and also to the others who have made helpful and constructive comments. This address is only a couple of minutes' walk away from me so I'll go round and have a look when I have a minute. Same with TiVo's old Blackfriars address - that too is only a few minutes' walk away so it will be fun to have a look.


It's the address of a legal firm, who are presumably acting as the registrar/company secretary. Don't expect to see a TiVo sign outside.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Steve_K said:


> as I've posted elsewhere, I believe it's more likely than not that there is a legal claim for loss of promised service.


Even if you were to win, the maximum possible award would be £199, and that would be reduced by the value of the service actually received. At the rate of £120 a year, that being the cost of the service to buy, you'll owe them money. 

I seriously suggest to take a deep breath and think this through!


----------



## Jo.Cassady (Jul 21, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> Even if you were to win, the maximum possible award would be £199, and that would be reduced by the value of the service actually received. At the rate of £120 a year, that being the cost of the service to buy, you'll owe them money.
> 
> I seriously suggest to take a deep breath and think this through!


Nonsense.

I want £200 +*compound interest* from the year 2003. I _might_ just settle for that. Also, I want them to refund the full cost of my TiVo unit. They have to give it to me on a plate, I'm not jumping through hoops to get it.


----------



## Jo.Cassady (Jul 21, 2002)

Steve_K said:


> as I've posted elsewhere, I believe it's more likely than not that there is a legal claim for loss of promised service.
> 
> Small claims court is likely to not help though as there's a number of complex points to argue.
> 
> ...


Class action law-suit? Even if we lose, it's worth getting TiVo negative press. They certainly deserve it!


----------



## Jo.Cassady (Jul 21, 2002)

rwtomkins said:


> Can I courteously request that we keep this on topic and NOT get into more arguments about whether a claim is justified? This thread is purely for the purposes of exchanging practical advice among people _who have already decided_ they'd like to make a claim.


Well said, good sir.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

You just lost the tiniest amount of credibility you migth have had. You are clearly barking.

Knock yourself out trying to get anyone to take you seriously.

_(The above posts were edited after I posted this)_


----------



## Jo.Cassady (Jul 21, 2002)

Did you not see what the honourable rwtomkins said? 

Please, leave us alone to discuss how best to deal with the profiteering TiVo exec(s) that made this decision.


----------



## Jo.Cassady (Jul 21, 2002)

mikerr said:


> No law against breaking "the spirit of the agreement" and a "reasonable lifetime" of a consumer device like tivo isn't as long as ten years anyway - five years, tops. As others have said, we got *8 years service after they ceased selling TiVos* - have to happy with that IMO. Although obviously we'd all have liked it to continue.


They just have that dirty reputation to deal with, now.

Yes, mate, when they took our £200 of us, they raked in £6 million + (in a very short time frame). They could pay for the EPG service, just on the _interest_ on that cash bonanza.

Charlatans!


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Jo.Cassady said:


> They just have that dirty reputation to deal with, now.
> 
> Yes, mate, when they took our £200 of us, they raked in £6 million + (in a very short time frame). They could pay for the EPG service, just on the _interest_ on that cash bonanza.


Did you not see what the honourable rwtomkins said?

We don't know what the economics of running the TiVo service are, but it's curious you believe that with 20,000 odd subscribers they would make a profit. You'd imagine if that were the case with around 4,000,0000 subscribers in the States they would be insanely profitable. Hint: TiVo inc loses millions of dollars a month.


----------



## Steve_K (May 5, 2001)

TCM2007 said:


> Even if you were to win, the maximum possible award would be £199, and that would be reduced by the value of the service actually received. At the rate of £120 a year, that being the cost of the service to buy, you'll owe them money.  . . .


You are Thomas S. Rogers and I claim my £5

Why post such heads they win, tails we lose thinking as being the basis of fair assessment? A deal is a deal, a contract, it doesn't matter how the seller decides to value the offer then or later.

A more likely valuation is £199 minus the % of box lifetime left. Would be hard to argue for more than £100 and £50 would be much more likely on an estimation of 3 or 4 years average box life left.



TCM2007 said:


> . . . I seriously suggest to take a deep breath and think this through!


I believe you'll find that's what I've posted already. It isn't worth taking this to court given the likely difficulties



Jo Cassady said:


> . . Class action law-suit? . . .


imho not a chance.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Steve_K said:


> A more likely valuation is £199 minus the % of box lifetime left.


Cost minus value of goods received is the conventional way to calculate compensation in consumer law cases.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Jo.Cassady said:


> I want £200 +*compound interest* from the year 2003. I _might_ just settle for that. Also, I want them to refund the full cost of my TiVo unit. They have to give it to me on a plate, I'm not jumping through hoops to get it.


Odd, since you eBayed it in 2006:



Jo.Cassady said:


> Hi. I eBayed my TiVo when it kept getting errors (sold it on ebay - mentioned the problem. I stayed in touch with the buyer who said that swapping the hard drive solved the problem (people here had recommended this , but I'm no techie and I hate computers .. well all the geeky stuff anyway)
> 
> I got a sony rdr hx510
> 
> Man how I miss tivo. So much.


So you were wanting to claim for a brand new TiVo from 2003 when you actually own a second hand one from 2006. Good job you haven't put a claim in - that could look like fraud.

BTW if your little misremembering had occurred in court, you could easily have had TiVo's costs ordered against you, or worse. I reckon you owe me a pint.


----------



## pteronaut (Dec 26, 2009)

When the lifetime of the TiVo DVR is being described, is it rigidly held down as whilst the components of DVR (with any modifications being limited to TiVo inc authorised replacement parts) continue to function, or for as long as TiVo considers it financialy viable and/ or is legally able to provide service to the DVR. or a combination of both?


----------



## Steve_K (May 5, 2001)

TCM2007 said:


> Cost minus value of goods received is the conventional way to calculate compensation in consumer law cases.


Yes and that would be £200 over the life of the box not the arbitrary TAM rate.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Steve_K said:


> Yes and that would be £200 over the life of the box not the arbitrary TAM rate.


That would a point to dispute, but since the excact same service is on sale, and being bought, at £10 a month it would take a good lawyer to claim that its value wasn't £10 a month.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

pteronaut said:


> When the lifetime of the TiVo DVR is being described, is it rigidly held down as whilst the components of DVR (with any modifications being limited to TiVo inc authorised replacement parts) continue to function, or for as long as TiVo considers it financialy viable and/ or is legally able to provide service to the DVR. or a combination of both?


Both.


----------



## Karnak (Jan 13, 2003)

Dear god some of you are deluded.


----------



## spitfires (Dec 19, 2006)

Jo.Cassady said:


> I want £200 +*compound interest* from the year 2003. I _might_ just settle for that. Also, I want them to refund the full cost of my TiVo unit.


You have seriously lost the plot. It is plain to anyone on the Clapham omnibus that it is YOU who have no grasp at all of economics.

Enough talking - you people who think you have a legal claim against TiVo/BSkyB/Virgin Media/whoever should just stop talking and get on with it.

If you are convinced you have a claim then just do it.


----------



## spitfires (Dec 19, 2006)

Oh I missed this bit


Jo.Cassady said:


> They have to give it to me on a plate, I'm not jumping through hoops to get it.


My bad - seems you're just an inane troll.


----------



## spitfires (Dec 19, 2006)

spitfires said:


> Enough talking - you people who think you have a legal claim against TiVo/BSkyB/Virgin Media/whoever should just stop talking and get on with it.
> 
> If you are convinced you have a claim then just do it.


Alternatively if all you want to do is complain about it, then you are complaining in the wrong place. Whinging on here is going to have zero effect. AFAIK TiVo have ignored _all_ our e-mails/posts/blogs/etc. For reasons discussed in other threads Virgin Media aren't bothered. Any complaining on _this_ forum is pointless.

If you want to make some noise then I suggest you do it in the US-centric forums where US S1 Lifers hang out. _They_ are the only ones who can have any impact on TiVo. Go to the Coffee House or wherever and complain there (where TiVo _might_ just be reading - they're certainly not going to see anything you write here).

.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Commenting on your own posts is the first sign of madness...


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Jo.Cassady said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> I want £200 +*compound interest* from the year 2003. I _might_ just settle for that. Also, I want them to refund the full cost of my TiVo unit. They have to give it to me on a plate, I'm not jumping through hoops to get it.


Looking a bit closer, you bought your TiVo already lifetimed from eBay. You've never actually paid a single penny to TiVo either for the machine, or the service. Yet you feel you have a claim against them.

And you're not even using it; you put it up for sale before the EPG announcement! (http://www.tivocommunity.com/tivo-vb/showthread.php?t=460662)

Curiouser and curiouser.

I also note your TiVo has been modified with a cachecard, once again invalidating the terms of service.

rwtomkins, should you decide to pursue any action, I'd strongly suggest you don't include Jo.Cassady as they would be a major liability.

Looks like they are just hoping they can carpetbag a few quid out of TiVo to shut them up.


----------



## LarryDavid (Jan 4, 2007)

FWIW just got this back in an email from consumer direct (where I was pointed when I enquired on the trading standards site). It look's template-y but seems to have the details so I think someone has at least given it some cursory thought.

It might give you a bit of hope if you want to get your £200 quid back from TiVo (or whoever), although from the wording, you might have trouble arguing you have suffered 'losses'. Personally speaking I'm not after getting money back, I just want the service to continue.

Here's the response in full



> Dear Mr X,
> Thank you for your enquiry to Consumer Direct dated XXXX. Your reference number for this case is XX XXXXXX and should be quoted in all further correspondence regarding this case.
> 
> When purchasing goods from a trader, you will have rights under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 as amended. This legislation states that goods supplied by businesses must be of satisfactory quality and fit for purpose. This means that they must be free from minor defects and durable, amongst other things. Where this is not the case, the seller of the goods can be held in breach of contract and may have to offer a remedy to the consumer.
> ...


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Jo.Cassady said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> I want £200 +*compound interest* from the year 2003. I _might_ just settle for that. Also, I want them to refund the full cost of my TiVo unit. They have to give it to me on a plate, I'm not jumping through hoops to get it.


Biggest load of cobblers I have read on this forum; *EVER*.



Jo.Cassady said:


> They just have that dirty reputation to deal with, now.


Given that it's only a couple of people on here, I suspect they won't be giving it _any_ thought whatsosver.

ETA: 
Having just read all the other replies since around midnight, I find it completely ironic that Jo 'ignored' me a long time ago, given that the facts now in evidence; given that (s)he seems to be the troll


----------



## LarryDavid (Jan 4, 2007)

> Looking a bit closer, you bought your TiVo already lifetimed from eBay. You've never actually paid a single penny to TiVo either for the machine, or the service. Yet you feel you have a claim against them.


To be fair, I believe (because I don't have a copy of them handy) that somewhere in the terms it explicitly stated that the lifetime sub does in fact go with the box? If so where you bought it from is a bit irrelevant really. TiVo have still had the £200 for that sub.

Does modding specifically invalidate the subscription? Surely it only invalidates the warranty on the box?

All a bit academic I know bit still curious.

[edit]Corrected bad wording[/edit]


----------



## Paul_J (Jan 9, 2001)

I did buy my TiVo when they first came out, I paid for a lifetime sub a year later. I am unhappy about the service ending but I feel it has been great value for money. I just want to keep it going as it works fine and I cant see a better replacement on the market.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

LarryDavid said:


> To be fair, I believe (because I don't have a copy of them handy) that somewhere in the terms it explicitly stated that the lifetime sub does in fact go with the box? If so where you bought it from is a bit irrelevant really. TiVo have still had the £200 for that sub.
> 
> Does modding specifically invalidate the subscription? Surely it only invalidates the warranty on the box?
> 
> ...


Buying a secondhand lifetimed TiVo is fine, and the sub transfers with the box. But claiming the full £200 back, with interest, when you have never paid it is not fine.

Yes, modding is a breach of the service agreement.


----------



## Trinitron (Jan 20, 2003)

LarryDavid said:


> FWIW just got this back in an email from consumer direct (where I was pointed when I enquired on the trading standards site). It look's template-y but seems to have the details so I think someone has at least given it some cursory thought.
> 
> It might give you a bit of hope if you want to get your £200 quid back from TiVo (or whoever), although from the wording, you might have trouble arguing you have suffered 'losses'. Personally speaking I'm not after getting money back, I just want the service to continue.


That's the problem here. Some people want financial compensation for being 'ripped off' after 8 years of service, others like you want the service to continue.

There is a tiny chance of making the first type of claim stick - though as your letter says, even SoGA claims would now be out of time! - but compensation would be the proportion of value remaining in the lifetime subscription.

Getting TiVo to change their mind on pulling the UK service would be much harder and pretty much unenforceable in law.


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)

> Your rights under the Sale of Goods Act 1979 will last for up to 6 years from the date of purchase.


Ooops.


----------



## Karnak (Jan 13, 2003)

ColinYounger said:


> Ooops.


tee hee


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Oh dear. Another 'brick' in the wall


----------



## Jo.Cassady (Jul 21, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> Odd, since you eBayed it in 2006:
> 
> So you were wanting to claim for a brand new TiVo from 2003 when you actually own a second hand one from 2006. Good job you haven't put a claim in - that could look like fraud.
> 
> BTW if your little misremembering had occurred in court, you could easily have had TiVo's costs ordered against you, or worse. I reckon you owe me a pint.


Lol, that's hysterical; my post history also includes my flatmate, brother and former flatmate. So, thats at least three people. You're really clutching at straws, looking for technicalities to get me on.

There's no legal claim against TiVo, just a moral one. They will be known, to some, as the reprehensible company that misleads its customers.


----------



## Karnak (Jan 13, 2003)

You share your forum accounts with people... how very odd.

Also, you admit there's no legal claim against TiVo but you're encouraging the guy who started this thread and still want TiVo to pay you ££££lots just because you feel you have a 'moral claim' against them.

sigh


----------



## GWR71 (Feb 22, 2011)

Jo.Cassady said:


> You're really clutching at straws, looking for technicalities to get me on


So, not at all like *your* position with regard to TiVo, then.

Ahem.



> There's no legal claim against TiVo, just a moral one. They will be known, to some, as the reprehensible company that misleads its customers


Mmmmm. So utterly reprehensible (not to say morally bankrupt) that they kept the UK S1 service running for a further eight years after shutting down their UK operation, when the logical business decision was to cut it off and just walk away in 2003.


----------



## rwtomkins (Jul 14, 2003)

Reminder: this thread is NOT for people to discuss whether or not a claim against TiVo is justified. Please use a different thread or start one of your own if you want to discuss this. If you come on here just to sneer at the idea of making a claim, you're threadcrapping.

This thread is specifically for people who (rightly or wrongly) feel a claim is justified and want to exchange helpful and constructive ideas for pursuing one.

Now, as we were saying.

I think there's an easy way of deciding on the value of a claim. The value of anything is what people are prepared for it and on eBay there was a steady market in used TiVos with lifetime subscriptions before TiVo announced that it was pulling the plug on the service. Can someone say roughly what the going rate was for a TiVo in good condition with a lifetime subscription a couple of months ago?

I realise the sum we are talking about is not very large and for a lot of people it simply isn't worthwhile. My personal feeling however is that it's worth taking a stand because every time a company gets away with behaving badly towards its customers, it encourages that company and other companies to behave even more badly next time.

It won't bother me at all if a claim doesn't succeed- I'm not planning to invest much time or effort in it, and certainly not much money. I'll be perfectly happy just to see TiVo sweat a bit.

I think the first step in any event is to write to TiVo asking for compensation since it's pointless making any sort of claim without giving them an opportunity to make amends. Obviously they won't respond positively but they have to be given the opportunity. Also, if the possibility of a legal claim is mentioned, they will have to consult their lawyers which if it only takes an hour or two of a lawyer's time, will probably cost them more in lawyer's fees than it would to settle!

I would probably write to the CEO whoever that is but if anyone has a better idea, please pass it on.

I'm not particularly thinking of a co-ordinated action at this stage. In fact I think it would be better if as many people as possible wrote individually with their claims in order to maximise the nuisance value and the cost in management time/lawyers' fees. I know it's very un-English to want to be a nuisance but as Americans say, it's the squeaky wheel that gets the grease.


----------



## Jo.Cassady (Jul 21, 2002)

Beware of fake commenters working for large, TiVo-like Corporations, infesting message boards to promote their agenda. 

Use your gut instinct, folks. If you think something is morally reprehensible, stay strong and complain.

Now, the rest of this thread is about making a claim. Please refrain from corporate shilling.


----------



## Langree (Apr 29, 2004)

Jo.Cassady said:


> Nonsense.
> 
> I want £200 +*compound interest* from the year 2003. I _might_ just settle for that. Also, I want them to refund the full cost of my TiVo unit. They have to give it to me on a plate, I'm not jumping through hoops to get it.


So your TiVo has NEVER worked in all that time? You were unable to use it as intended?

If it has worked why on earth would you think you deserved a refund for all monies spent on the unit?

Even if you have a lifetime sub, it is only good thru the life of the unit, and it's been 7 years since UK units have been produced, and they are all based on the Series 1 TiVos.

TiVo is not the first company to cut off support for older lines of products and classify them as End of Life or EOL.

Apple has many older products they no longer support. Microsoft cut off support for older versions of Windows and other software. Which are still in use in some cases.

Happens all the time.

The unit is old enough, with no renewable or new revenue streams coming in to support the resources to keep them going.


----------



## spitfires (Dec 19, 2006)

I am prepared to underwrite the cost of any legal claim anyone wants to make against TiVo - I have £10,000 set aside for you. Let me know where I should send it.


----------



## spitfires (Dec 19, 2006)

That wasn't me, that was some random guy who came in off the street, who I share my forum account with.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

rwtomkins said:


> I think there's an easy way of deciding on the value of a claim. The value of anything is what people are prepared for it and on eBay there was a steady market in used TiVos with lifetime subscriptions before TiVo announced that it was pulling the plug on the service. Can someone say roughly what the going rate was for a TiVo in good condition with a lifetime subscription a couple of months ago?


About £50 I think. Better act fast as once the new EPG is in place the price may well return to that level again.


----------



## spitfires (Dec 19, 2006)

Yes, about £50. I was looking to buy one but once you added on postage I couldn't afford it.  :up:

(or about £70 with an Agreement-breaching network card installed)


----------



## Steve_K (May 5, 2001)

originally in that system message thread but better answerd here?


cwaring said:


> . . .An injunction for what; on what grounds?  .. .


VM say they have an exclusive agreement with TiVo, injunction would be to prevent that agreement being enacted as the exclusivity is a conspiracy to have TiVo default on their extant obligations to S1 owners.

Now to be clear, in the original thread I said *only if *I won the lottery big time (it costs £tens of k to get an injunction and then you can be sued for the losses the injunctee suffers) but I think there is legal merit per se in the argument.

But in the end only won £10 so a net profit  but no injunction any time soon


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Steve_K said:


> VM say they have an exclusive agreement with TiVo, injunction would be to prevent that agreement being enacted as the exclusivity is a *conspiracy* to have TiVo default on their extant obligations to S1 owners.


Unfortunately, "conspiracy theory" isn't a recognised legal term. I know IANAL but that's just common sense. 


Steve_K said:


> But in the end only won £10 so a net profit


Nice


----------



## Steve_K (May 5, 2001)

IANAL 2

but IIRC didn't Tom Hicks (erstwhile owner of Liverpool football club) file an injunction to stop what he alleged was a conspiracy to deny him his fair rights under agreements.

All moot really, I haven't got the money to pursue an injunction but I still believe TiVo are reneging on their commitments and VM are at the least encouraging them to do that. It's back to the good deal/fair deal discussion of earlier.

Meantime a plague on both their houses.


----------



## Davyburns (Jan 7, 2004)

TCM2007 said:


> Better act fast as once the new EPG is in place the price may well return to that level again.


Ehh! whats that? Have I missed something? is my S1 not going to the big transmitter in the sky?


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Steve_K said:


> All moot really, I haven't got the money to pursue an injunction but* I still believe *TiVo are reneging on their commitments ...


You can believe what you like. I don't think any lawyeer would touch any case based on 'belief' though; only hard facts and evidence.

And I know it's a moot point, but even if you did have the money, can you not see that it would be a collosal waste bringing a case you are sure to lose?


----------



## Trinitron (Jan 20, 2003)

Steve_K said:


> VM say they have an exclusive agreement with TiVo, injunction would be to prevent that agreement being enacted as the exclusivity is a conspiracy to have TiVo default on their extant obligations to S1 owners.


How are you going to show that the exclusive agreement is the cause of TiVo discontinuing S1 service? S1 subscribers are contracted to TiVo inc. VM TiVos are provided under contract to Virgin, not TiVo.

IANAL but I think you would have a hard time connecting TiVo's obligation to not charge for service during the life of that service, and the view that to discontinue direct service to ALL users in the UK is a breach of that obligation.


----------



## Steve_K (May 5, 2001)

I think you need to look where this line started. It was in the System Message theread and what I said was getting annoyed by those insulting messages and *IF IF IF *I won the lottery big time I'd get an inunction. It was never a serious plan.

However IANAL but I do know you don't have to prove anything to get one. You just have to show reasonable suspicion, the injuctee fail to refute AND the ability to compensate if your suspicions are later shown to be wrong.

I happen to believe the ending on June 1st is less than disconnected form the exclusivity of that agreement with VM. Can't prove it, I suggest I can't be proved wrong. Would love to force VM to put the details into the public domain


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Davyburns said:


> Ehh! whats that? Have I missed something? is my S1 not going to the big transmitter in the sky?


An alternative EPG is being worked on at tivoland.co.uk


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

cwaring said:


> Unfortunately, "conspiracy theory" isn't a recognised legal term. I know IANAL but that's just common sense.
> 
> Nice


Carl,

He didn't say 'conspiracy theory', but just plain 'conspiracy' which I assure you is very definitely a legal term as in 'conpiracy to ...'

You also have a very kindly view on lawyers with your impression that they wouldn't move forward with a case on 'belief' alone. They will move forward on anything with only the slightest chance of winning in court as long as someone is paying their legal fees....hence the op stating that he would love to do it, IF, he had the money/won the lottery.

I thought it was a well thought out & succintly put point & at no point does he actually state that he thinks it would win, he just wants to do it to give TiVo a bit of a bloody nose in response to the pain he is rightly or wrongly feeling because of the withdrawal of service.

I think the point that you are missing in a multitude of threads on here with your rabid pro-VM views (ie they can do no wrong, ever) is that people just want an avenue to voice their feelings & to have someone at TiVo say "We're sorry. The service can't continue because of x,y,z reason but we thank you for your years of support & understand how you feel"

The reason why it is a 'PR disaster' is not as some people like to believe that it will effect future sales, but because it is all so avoidable by giving a simple public statement which they have steadfastly refused to do. They even went so far as to put an entry on their blog & then run & hide when the shouting got a bit loud. No wonder people chased him onto his FB page.

At the end of it all I agree with you Carl, the legal thing is hot air, but for goodness sake let people express their feelings without belittling them. All you are doing is stoking up the rancour on this once friendliest of forums. Can't you sit back in the knowledge that you are right instead of feeding them & even risking becoming a troll yourself.

Martin


----------



## Karnak (Jan 13, 2003)

^ what he said


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

martink0646 said:


> Carl,
> 
> He didn't say 'conspiracy theory', but just plain 'conspiracy' which I assure you is very definitely a legal term as in 'conpiracy to ...'


Well okay then. I sit corrected for a mis-interpretation 



> You also have a very kindly view on lawyers with your impression that they wouldn't move forward with a case on 'belief' alone. They will move forward on anything with only the slightest chance of winning in court..


Okay. How about _no_ chance of winning though? As in....



> ... he actually state that he thinks it would win...





> he just wants to do it to give TiVo a bit of a bloody nose in response to the pain he is rightly or wrongly feeling because of the withdrawal of service.


Wrongly, by most accounts 



> I think the point that you are missing in a multitude of threads on here with your rabid pro-VM views (ie they can do no wrong, ever)...


And, once again, I challenge you to find even _one_ single post as an example of where I have ever actually said, or even implied, this POV.

Bear in mind that the last _three_ people who have stated the exact same thing recently have been curiously silent on the issue since I gave them the challenge. So it's not looking good for you, is it?!



> ...is that people just want an avenue to voice their feelings & to have someone at TiVo say "We're sorry. The service can't continue because of x,y,z reason but we thank you for your years of support & understand how you feel"


And I support them in that goal. But the likes of Jo.Cassady, who has also gone curiously quiet recently, haven't helped their cause at all.

It would be nice, but I don't see it happening.



> The reason why it is a 'PR disaster'...


Except that it is not and has not been any such thing.



> At the end of it all I agree with you Carl, the legal thing is hot air, but for goodness sake let people express their feelings without belittling them.


Forums like this invite discussion. If people just want to rant, then they should get a blog or something.


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Carl you've been a VM cheerleader for years. You run a fan site about them, were invited to the TiVo previews and they gave you one for free! Please don't claim you don't constantly defend them, as you just make yourself look silly in the eyes of those who have read your posts for years.


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

TCM2007 said:


> Carl you've been a VM cheerleader for years. You run a fan site about them, *were invited to the TiVo previews* and they gave you one for free! Please don't claim you don't constantly defend them, as you just make yourself look silly in the eyes of those who have read your posts for years.


Actually, I have not been invited to any specific Tivo previews. The Sofa Event, to which you are referring, just happened to include a brief video of the unit and what it could do.

They also gave *every other person* (there were around eight of us, IIRC) a free (and only for a year, not for life) Tivo; not *just* me. This was simply as a "thank you" for taking part in the Sofa Event. Nothing more.

So, once again, you might like to apologise for making certain assumptions and being wrong.

That event was actually to discuss both what was right *and what was wrong* with VM and there was plenty discussed on both of those points, including by me.

I am more than happy to discuss what I believe VM are not getting right, but these forums are specifically for discussing one, single issue; either the S1 or the new VM Tivo. Anything else would be deemed off-topic.


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

cwaring said:


> Well okay then. I sit corrected for a mis-interpretation
> 
> Okay. How about _no_ chance of winning though? As in....
> 
> ...


Hi Carl,

My intention was not to start a flame war with you but to try & gently point out how you are coming across to the 'balanced' members, ie those that can see & sympathise with both sides of this situation. At the moment you are firmly in the 'unbalanced' with only one viewpoint. You say that forums should invite discussion & I agree wholeheartedly, but what we are having here isn't discussion. It's both sides shouting at each other & then sticking their fingers in their ears so as not to hear ANY opposing viewpoint. It's a total waste of time & it is destroying the goodwill & respect that you have earnt over the years on this forum with your helpful, witty & engaging comments. I even found myself agreeing with pete77 today replying to one of your blunt, acerbic replies. I NEVER thought I would utter those words

Still if you really don't get the point of initial post then you just don't get it. It is not my job to act as some sort of behavioural compass for you, I just thought that I would do you the service of letting you know when you are coming across badly as a longtime forum lurker & contributor.

Does there come a point for you when enough people are saying the same thing in response to your posts that you might stop & think "hold-on, could they possibly be right" or do you never reach that point like the pete77's of this world whose viewpoint is unalterably correct (in their opinion)????

I can produce a list of post numbers for you if you want me to but I'm just too busy now. I'll be happy to do it later if you need the point ramming home or won't believe any of the other posters.

Martin


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

cwaring said:


> I am more than happy to discuss what I believe VM are not getting right, but these forums are specifically for discussing one, single issue; either the S1 or the new VM Tivo. Anything else would be deemed off-topic.


Hi Carl,

You asked me to point out posts to defend a point of view & this is one. Hiding behind forum rules in response to stuart's polite & totally on the button remark is really, really weak & a perfect example of what I was talking about.

I apologise for carrying it on & again I bear you no malice so I shall refrain from anymore comments on this, I've said my piece & got it off my chest & hopefully you'll understand what I & others are saying to you.

Martin


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

martink0646 said:


> Hi Carl,


Hiya!



> My intention was not to start a flame war with you...


No flaming here. Just debating; which is what we do on forums.



> ..but to try & gently point out how you are coming across to the 'balanced' members, ie those that can see & sympathise with both sides of this situation.


As do I and I have never said othewise.



> At the moment you are firmly in the 'unbalanced' with only one viewpoint.


Really? Please don't try and tell me what my views are.

_Of course_ I am upset that Tivo have now decided to withdraw their service from the UK. As previously pointed out, it's been expected for _years_ now. We're actually all surprised it hasn't happened sooner.

_Of course_ a new platform-independant Tivo would have been fantastic, but I don't think it would have been a viable product anyway; not least because of the subscrition issue. Also, it couldn't really have been a 'dual-input' model for two channels at once. How would they fit them all it? Two 'freeview' and 'freesat inputs? And it wouldn't have worked with cable with two inputs!

Working with Sky again was a no-go (once bitten, etc.) so VM was the only real option, I think.



> You say that forums should invite discussion & I agree wholeheartedly, but what we are having here isn't discussion. It's both sides shouting at each other & then sticking their fingers in their ears so as not to hear ANY opposing viewpoint.


I respectfully disagree. Point/counter-point is how debates work.



> Still if you really don't get the point of initial post then you just don't get it.


To which "initial post" are you referring; yours or the OP that started the thread? We've certainly been around the latter a time or two now and the consensus does seem to be that no claim would succeed.



> It is not my job to act as some sort of behavioural compass for you, I just thought that I would do you the service of letting you know when you are coming across badly as a longtime forum lurker & contributor.


Well I am sorry about that, but that does not give people the right to come on and make despariging comments and, in some cases, complete lies about me.



> Does there come a point for you when enough people are saying the same thing in response to your posts that you might stop & think "hold-on, could they possibly be right"...


Not when those people are the true "lurkers" who have only recently come on here to spout nonsense about the meaning of 'lifetime service' and how Tivo have 'screwed us over'. Both point that have been completely demolished by not only me but other _actual_ forum regulars.



martink0646 said:


> Hi Carl,
> 
> You asked me to point out posts to defend a point of view & this is one.


Actually, not it's not.



> Hiding behind forum rules in response to stuart's polite & totally on the button remark is really, really weak & a perfect example of what I was talking about.


But I am not "hiding" behind anything. I am _following_ the rules I agreed to follow when I signed-up to these privately-run forums in 2002. You want to start a thread over in "General Discussion" then please be my guest.


----------



## spitfires (Dec 19, 2006)

cwaring said:


> They also gave *every other person* (there were around eight of us, IIRC) a free [...] Tivo; not *just* me.


Oh puleeeez - that takes "pedantic" to a whole new level.


----------



## OzSat (Feb 15, 2001)

Excellent idea!


cwaring said:


> But I am not "hiding" behind anything. I am _following_ the rules I agreed to follow when I signed-up to these privately-run forums in 2002. You want to start a thread over in "General Discussion" then please be my guest.


----------



## Nimbus (May 29, 2004)

The ignore function does work well, but is there any way of making it also ignore quotes from people who you are trying to ignore ?


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

spitfires said:


> Oh puleeeez - that takes "pedantic" to a whole new level.


The original post read to me like he was trying to infer that I got a free one because I ran a 'fan site' for the company. Actually, they have been almost no help _at all_ since 2007. I got a lot more help from Telewest back in the day. I can't even join an affiliate programme to get some money towards the running costs as I have "Virgin Media" in the domain, which is not allowed.

Besides, I'm thinking of dropping the site anyway as there is now far more sites out there covering cable now whereas mine was one of, if not the first one back when it was TelewestInfo.


----------



## martink0646 (Feb 8, 2005)

Hi Carl,

OK, one last go......



cwaring said:


> Really? Please don't try and tell me what my views are.


I'm not trying to tell you what your views are, I am responding to said views



cwaring said:


> _Of course_ I am upset that Tivo have now decided to withdraw their service from the UK. As previously pointed out, it's been expected for _years_ now. We're actually all surprised it hasn't happened sooner.
> 
> _Of course_ a new platform-independant Tivo would have been fantastic, but I don't think it would have been a viable product anyway; not least because of the subscrition issue. Also, it couldn't really have been a 'dual-input' model for two channels at once. How would they fit them all it? Two 'freeview' and 'freesat inputs? And it wouldn't have worked with cable with two inputs!


This is not about TiVo or VM or SKY it's about you. You just refuse to get it!!!



cwaring said:


> I respectfully disagree. Point/counter-point is how debates work.


Sorry Carl, debates are about people putting opposing viewpoints using reasoned arguments not rhetoric, with the objective of getting the other person to understand their viewpoint & listening to the counter argument. If you enter into a debate refusing to listen to the other person it ISN'T a debate.



cwaring said:


> To which "initial post" are you referring; yours or the OP that started the thread? We've certainly been around the latter a time or two now and the consensus does seem to be that no claim would succeed.


That would have been MY initial post



cwaring said:


> Not when those people are the true "lurkers" who have only recently come on here to spout nonsense about the meaning of 'lifetime service' and how Tivo have 'screwed us over'. Both point that have been completely demolished by not only me but other _actual_ forum regulars.


It doesn't matter who they are, the rest of us have to read it. Let it go Carl, people have different viewpoints from you. You say you have completely demolished these arguments...who there boy, calm down. This is just a penny ante, twobit forum not the Old Bailey. A number of people are getting fed up of you & your viewpoints BECAUSE of the way you express them & your refusal to consider the other side of the coin, NOT because of you as a person so stop taking it so personally.



cwaring said:


> But I am not "hiding" behind anything. I am _following_ the rules I agreed to follow when I signed-up to these privately-run forums in 2002. You want to start a thread over in "General Discussion" then please be my guest.


That comment is so patronizing & self congratulatory when you are constantly pulling topics off thread.

Sorry to respond...again but I think I have convinced myself to back down as you really don't want to see it. I look forward to reading your future posts.

Martin

NB I have just re read this & feel it's all a bit futile, so Carl feel free to respond but I won't. I should have let it die really


----------



## ColinYounger (Aug 9, 2006)




----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

^ What he said 

I now see another thread has been locked since it descended into member-bashing (no sniggering at the back there ) rather than chat about anything relevant to the Forum.

Perhaps that might give some people a hint. But I doubt it.


----------



## bobnick (Jun 6, 2002)

cwaring said:


> Perhaps that might give some people a hint. But I doubt it.


Carl, as a poster who's been here as long as you, please take heed of my advice and take the hint. Don't lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same bucket at Jo, and actually consider other people's opinions and feelings when posting. You've knocked a lot of noses out of joint over the last few months, and it's sad to see - please avoid the temptation to joust with every troll, don't defend the indefensible and take the high ground wherever possible


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

bobnick said:


> ... Don't lump everyone who disagrees with you in the same bucket at Jo...


Yes. Again, I did clarify that I didn't mean to do that .



> .. and actually consider other people's opinions and feelings when posting.


Like they have considered mine, right? 



> You've knocked a lot of noses out of joint over the last few months...


Only some of which I care about 



> ...please avoid the temptation to joust with every troll...


Always good advice, but I'm not that good at spotting them.



> ...don't defend the indefensible...


I wouldn't if I agreed it _was_ indefensible. That's a matter of opinion.



> ..and take the high ground wherever possible


I'd need a set of stilts for that


----------



## DB70+ (Jan 31, 2011)

OK I'm off!

This forum has given me much information, but now it is full of endless sniping by someone who admits he no longer has an S1 and has an new VM Tivo. Please go away and leave the S1 users to sort themselves out. 

I am not logging in here again until it sorts itself out. I will transfer my attention to tivoland.com. If anyone can tell me when it is safe to return, call me there.

CW don't bother to reply as I have gone.

D


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

DB70+ said:


> ...but now it is full of endless sniping by someone who admits he no longer has an S1 and has an new VM Tivo. Please go away and leave the S1 users to sort themselves out.
> 
> I am not logging in here again until it sorts itself out. I will transfer my attention to tivoland.com. If anyone can tell me when it is safe to return, call me there.
> 
> ...


Yeah, because it's 100% fair and accurate to only blame me for all the problems. Like I'm the troll, name-caller and and liar 

I think that was what they call a 'drive-by'


----------



## TCM2007 (Dec 25, 2006)

Carl, FFS let someone else have the last word for once!


----------



## cwaring (Feb 12, 2002)

Oka.... d'oh!


----------



## unitron (Apr 28, 2006)

cwaring said:


> Oka.... d'oh!


Okay, Carl, since you tried to to be nice and heed TCM2007's request to let someone else have the last word, I'm going to help out by being that someone.


----------

