TV licensing people are after me!

  • Thread starter Thread starter 4p
  • Start date Start date
mattyfez said:
I don't watch TV, and I do not need a licence. End of story. They can waste paper and postage as much as they like with thier silly letters, but I will not pander to them by contacting them to specificly state that I dont use thier service, Its none of thier bleedin' business.
Click to expand...

I contacted them twice to tell them I didn't need a license and they still continued sending me threatening letters and the like, gradually getting more threatening. I got a bit annoyed on Thursday at receiving yet another letter and phoned them to complain.. The guy was very apologetic and promised me he'd removed me from the system! They haven't even sent anyone round to see that my TV isn't plugged into the aerial..
 
Street said:
they still continued sending me threatening letters and the like, gradually getting more threatening.
Click to expand...

No letter that TV licensing send is ever targeted, they are just "broadcast" to everyone and they have letters in various levels of threat (it's all psychological). If you wait long enough you'll get the same ones over and over until they decide to change the design. You'll also notice that the letters have no power despite what they say.

Street said:
They haven't even sent anyone round to see that my TV isn't plugged into the aerial..
Click to expand...

They won't unless your area is targeted for an inspection. TV licensing can't afford to spend money on visiting individuals, they want the 'big money' targets such as student accommodation and tower blocks. The chances are if you live in a low populated area you'll never see them.
 
RobH said:
I know, maybe we should add it to the FAQ the amount of times this comes up each month.

On a side note, those CityLink threads seem to have disappeared but now we have DPD ones.
Click to expand...

Nah, I reckon the mods should just delete the threads and suspend the OPs. :p
 
If you don't watch tv you don't need to pay but if you do even on your computer then you do. Not iplayer though not yet anyway.
I doubt that you don't watch any kind of tv.
 
Very interesting article here that the BBC TVL would sooner you didn't read ;)

Philip Dean writes:

I made a Freedom of Information query to the BBC several months ago and asked about implied right of access:

Question: If a person harassed by your visits, writes to you and confirms that they have no need of a TV licence, explaining their circumstances, (such a letter satisfies your duty of information as regards the TV licence) and forbids your visiting officers access to his/her property and effectively withdraws any rights of access to his/her property – would this be honoured by BBC TVL? (Again this assumes there is no evidence of an offence being committed) (A simple Yes or No).

Reply: If a person writes to us and withdraws the implied right of access to their property, then of course we will adhere to their instructions.

This was their complete reply to the question; no conditionals added.

I also asked the FOI query:

Question: Could you confirm that a search warrant can only be granted if a magistrate is satisfied that reasonable evidence exists that an offence is being committed, and that a search warrant cannot be granted simply on the basis of non cooperation with BBC TVL?

Reply: TV Licensing does not consider search warrant applications except as a last resort and only then when legal advisors agree that there is good reason to believe that an offence has been committed.

In order to apply for a search warrant TV licensing must have reasonable cause to believe that television equipment is being used for the purpose of viewing or recording television programme services without a current licence of the appropriate type. They may then apply to the local magistrates for a search warrant, who will consider their reasons before giving agreement or otherwise.

A search warrant would never be applied for based solely on non cooperation with TV licencing.

I asked this question because I noticed, looking at standard threatening letters other people had received from BBC TVL, that TV Licensing were deliberately giving the impression that non cooperation with BBC TVL would result in a search warrant being applied for.

In relationship to a search warrant obtained by TVL, I asked:

Question: As to the fear of doors being 'kicked in' by the police because of a person being on holiday or at work, could you confirm that such would not be the case for possible TV licence evasion?

Reply: It is not our policy, when administering a search warrant (which we always do in the presence of police officers) to force entry to an address if the occupier is not at home. The officers would simply return at another time.

I asked the same question of Gwent Police, who also confirmed that their police officers only accompany a TVL visiting officer to prevent a breach of the peace. They weren't there to force entry into a property.

I've been living in my present house for a number of years. When I first moved in and received BBC TVL threatening letters I wrote back something like this outline of a letter.

You will notice that I used (a) harassment and (b) withdrawing implied right of access.

BBC TVL replied to the letter and I was free of visits and letters for just over four years. I then received a personal letter asking me if circumstances had changed. I was also placed back on the 'standard threatening letter' scheme. I wrote back to them with essentially the same reply; they acknowledged the letter – and again I have received no further letters and no visits. (I can confirm there were no visits as there is always someone in the house).

So I can confirm that withdrawing implied right of access certainly works – it worked for me for over six years.

Why this method is not better known? I noticed in my replies from BBC TVL that they never concede defeat. I wrote this on my website as to what to expect:

They will probably come out with some kind of drivel about 'we reserve the right for one of our visiting officers to call round . . .', which is a lie. After being informed that their conduct is now harassment they will be liable for civil action if they did; but TVL aren't going to admit to being so easily defeated. (A lot of TVL's correspondence is in fact bluster and lies.)

They will put a 'stop' on your property and they will leave you alone for three to four years. After this time they will write again to you politely enquiring if circumstances have now changed. They will also automatically put you back on their threatening letter scheme.

They might come out with some additional lies and bluster about how they have now introduced a new policy and that they now need to inspect your home; and if you don't comply they will not put a 'stop' on your property. (In other words comply or else you will get continual letters and visits). This, of course, is outrageous and shows the moral fibre, or lack of it, at the BBC (I have such a letter from TVL with such a threat!). Of course it is all disinformation (lies and bluster). Simply write to them again, as at the first, and they will have to leave you alone.

You might, during the time you wait for a reply, get a standard threatening letter because you have been automatically put back on the standard harassment scheme.

I've written about my experiences with this a few times over the years at the BBC Resistance Forum. I think because BBC TVL are dishonest in their replies, and try to give the impression they will continue to visit or write, people aren't aware that withdrawal of implied right of access works. The public give credence to BBC TVL bluster! People seem only to be aware now that this works, because for some reason, the BBC are now admitting they will leave people alone if instructed. But they've been doing this for the past 6 years in my experience – and I suspect they have always done this.

In my correspondence I've always stressed the harassment angle, not just the trespass angle. The trespass angle is pretty feeble, but the harassment angle isn't.

Harassment: (1) A course of action by party A is harassment of party B if party A should have previously known its actions would be harassing to party B. or (2) A course of action by party A is harassment if party B informs party A that their actions are causing harassment, and that party A should now desist. If party A continues it is guilty of harassment.

If you write and inform BBC TVL that you have no need of a licence and that their correspondence or threats of visits/actual visits are unwanted and are causing harassment, then if BBC TVL continued they would be liable under (2) above. This is my understanding of the law, and I don't claim this to be definitive.
Click to expand...
 
paradigm said:
Prove you don't.

You don't watch iPlayer? Listen to non-commercial radio? Use the BBC website for news and sport?

Pay it you tight-ass.
Click to expand...

you only need a licence for watching or recording TV as it's being broadcast. You don't need one for iplayer, BBC website or Radio.
 
tv is not worth watching full stop , and you can watch stuff online
next i think you will need a license for you're electricity , i can see it coming.
 
I had a warning in the post that i need to pay for a tv license when i purchased a 8800Gts graphics card lol
 
Another good site here :- http://www.bbctvlicence.com

Interesting that as soon as this independant site was setup detailing your rights and how to deal with TV Licensing the BBC bought the same domain in .org , .biz , .info and .net because :-

it appears the BBC thinks this website is engaged in "questionable purposes". A member of the public (thanks, Chug) applied to the BBC under the Freedom of Information Act to ask why they purchased the above domain names. The BBC replied: "Prevention of damage to the TV Licensing brand caused by similarly worded sites being used for illegal or questionable purposes".
Click to expand...
 
Holy thread resurrection Batman! I don't watch TV any more, haven't in years really. If I want to watch anything on occasion, I download it. Simples, and no TV licence required. We still have one (a TV and licence that is), simply for the children's benefit, but I could easily do without. I wonder if TVL/BBC have the power (or abilities otherwise) to gain information from Sky and/or Virgin Media as to whether a subscription is live at a particular property? Having wires and/or a dish doesn't mean you're using them... Just wondered. :p
 
Ye well they didn't catch me, never will in student accomo as we aren't there long enough :P
 
Rainmaker said:
I wonder if TVL/BBC have the power (or abilities otherwise) to gain information from Sky and/or Virgin Media as to whether a subscription is live at a particular property? Having wires and/or a dish doesn't mean you're using them... Just wondered. :p
Click to expand...

Hmm not to sure about that but to be on the safe side i'd assume they could check-up. Anyway here's a good little trick if you are subscribing to sky/virgin and don't want to pay your license :-

Cutting it short, I don’t pay 'private' companies any tax at all, therefore, TVLA gets nil from me. 2 years ago, on a Sunday morning, I had a TV licensing agent visit my address, I wouldn’t let him through my gate, I know my right to silence with these vermin, but I decided to waste his time. I stated I had a 'Sony' TV, and used it all the time. I, noticed he was ticking his form stating he had seen the TV in use, and checked channels 1-4 (since found out this is normal as channel 5 still can’t be received in some areas).

When he had done all his paperwork, he asked me to sign, which I did, but on the part that says 'I do not agree with the above’, anyway, 3 months later a summons appeared through the post. I decided this was going to be my time to shine, so off to court I went. I pleaded not guilty on the basis that this man had fabricated the evidence. I admitted to using a TV, but, bearing in mind that I am here today based on this man’s evidence, I cannot be prosecuted in the 'interest of justice'. They smiled and asked me how on earth if I admit I have a TV can they not prosecute, I explained that I would opt for trial and bring some video evidence in. Gingerly they agreed I could have a trial 'in the interest of justice'.

One month later I turned up with a few vhs tapes I have with me after cam cording my son over the last 4 years, all was set. I asked the TV licence agent in the court room if he was positive he had been into my address, he said in broken English yes. I asked him if his evidence is in his own handwriting and based on his visiting my home, again, yes was his reply. RUN VC, the first tape I showed was from 2004, my son playing in the living room, with my TV on in the background, again another tape from 2005, same setting, and again in 2006 and 2007, By this time the prosecutor was looking at me like I am a pratt, as was the court staff, they asked me what was my point, aha, my time had arrived. "The point is this, today I have had to take a day off work, just like the last court date, of which I am here only because of this person's evidence ok?, I use a TV, always have, always will, but I’m here today based on the evidence of this man", "now this man said in his own words he came into my home, checked my TV, checked the channels, and also noted the TV make and model, he states my TV was a Sony?, well, to conclude, I have showed you video's from the last 5 or 6 years, and on each video you can clearly see my TV is not a Sony, but a Toshiba, thus, proving beyond any doubt that this man has told a boo boo". Case closed, expenses awarded, never heard from them again, though bringing you up to date, in the last 2 years I have a had a couple of letters, they end up in the bin, and I have wrote to them advising them I have withdrawn them having consent to walk down my drive, have since put a fence on front of house so they can’t get to my house at all. When the day comes when the TV licence is abolished, I can hold my head up high and know that I didn’t help support the cretins.

Good luck to you all.

http://www.tpuc.org/content/tv-licensing-i-have-never-paid-plus-won-co
Click to expand...
 
bam0 said:
Only if it's the live channels, the already broadcast programs they put up you can watch without paying the license fee.
Click to expand...

Clum said:
Nope. From the TV licencing website FAQ's.
Click to expand...

Will I need a TV Licence to watch programmes on BBC iPlayer?

If you use the BBC iPlayer to watch TV programmes at the same time as they are being shown on TV (live) then you will need to be covered by a valid TV Licence. You can buy a TV Licence online.

If you use the BBC iPlayer to watch BBC programmes after they have been broadcast either to download or via streaming on demand then you will not need a TV Licence.
Click to expand...

As quoted above
 
Street said:
I contacted them twice to tell them I didn't need a license and they still continued sending me threatening letters and the like, gradually getting more threatening. I got a bit annoyed on Thursday at receiving yet another letter and phoned them to complain.. The guy was very apologetic and promised me he'd removed me from the system! They haven't even sent anyone round to see that my TV isn't plugged into the aerial..
Click to expand...

They can't "take you off the system".. only stop the letters for 6 months at a time.

I'm building a house and keep getting the letters and have rung countess times to get me taken off the system until I move in. At one point there wasn't a house there, yet they claimed to have made a visit!

I'd like to have seen that ! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom