TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
413x said:
Dissapointed

Had the 'we are going to visit you on x date' and no one came round.

Had a few new letters this cycle. Including a nice yellow one.
Click to expand...
Why be disappointed? I'd be happy them not showing up.

I've had letters threatening a visit for years but only ever had one actual visit.
 
steve5424 said:
Why be disappointed? I'd be happy them not showing up.

I've had letters threatening a visit for years but only ever had one actual visit.
Click to expand...

Its exciting to see how the person responds when you tell them to go away!

We don't get many visiters :D
 
DeanT77 said:
I have to agree with you on the wording on the letters. Keeping in mind I'm doing nothing wrong, I can see how people get stressed receiving these letters :(

I get a letter about once a month for the past 4 months.

I'm going to stay on this train though and see what lengths they will go to, apparently there will be an investigation into my address - let's see what happens next!

"Innocent until proven guilty", these letters do not give me that impression lol.
Click to expand...

I remember living in student halls back when i was at uni. The way the living areas are contractually divided up meant that for a 5 bed flat (bedrooms were tiny), each room required a TV licence. As you can imagine, no student was paying for a TV licence, so the building used to get hundreds of letters sent out. Also as the building was secure (keycard entrance), it meant none of the enforcement team could gain access to knock on any of the flat doors.
 
theone8181 said:
Maybe more central, and stop the second home expenses, i'd have thought it would be cheaper to have a kind of MP hotel, rather than them all owning a second home.
Click to expand...

There is a strange and repeating coincidence that most of the problems in an area stem from the social housing :\
 
I see they still haven't changed to reflect reality...

I got one of the usual threatening letters today. As an aside, I wonder if anyone has bothered looking into whether using threats as the only course of action is actually the most effective way to run the TV licensing business?

Anyway...off I pop to the "I don't need a TV licence page" and fill it in. Rejected because I didn't choose any of the listed reasons why I don't need a TV license. There are two reasons for that. Firstly, I shouldn't have to do so. What matters in this context is that I don't need a TV licence. What I do instead of watching live TV or iplayer doesn't matter in that context. Secondly, none of the allowed answers are true for me. I don't watch live TV or iplayer because I got out of the habit of watching TV about 20 years ago and because I read books, play games and watch Youtube instead. TV is not the only form of entertainment.

So now I am forced by the TV licensing business to lie in an aspect of my declaration to that business. Again. Because they are incompetent as well as malicious. It's an irrelevant lie because what matters is that I don't need a TV licence and not what I do instead of watching live TV or iplayer, but being forced to lie (even to a business I have nothing but contempt for) is an additional annoyance.

For years their records had my home down as a place of business. That's because when I first explained to them that I didn't watch TV their systems had no way at all of handling a home address that didn't need a TV licence. I was told that explicitly when I phoned them. So they've improved a bit since then.

So I'm going to pick the nearest option - only use a TV for games. Which is not true since I don't have a TV at all(*) since I have no use for one, but it's the least bad match from the very limited options they're allowing me.

Incompetent and malicious. A bloody annoying combination. *******!


EDIT: Hmm...actually, maybe I'll choose "No TV receiving equipment or devices at this address" because I don't have a TV. I'm not sure which is the less bad option. There isn't an option for "stop threatening me, you incompetent fools, and stop demanding irrelevant information about me then not allowing me to answer truthfully".



* I have a TV in a very technical sense - there's a TV that's at least 30 years old in a spare room I use for putting stuff out of sight and out of mind when disposing of it is more bother than putting it in that room and ignoring it :) That TV won't work any more - it's analogue and the signal switched to digital at some point. Assuming it would work at all - it was old when I stopped using it ~20 years ago.
 
Sorry I realise this has probably been discussed to length but after reading your post @Angilion I looked into doing away with our TV service until I read this on the tv licence website
The law says you need to be covered by a TV Licence to:

  • watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV, on any channel
  • watch or stream programmes live on an online TV service (such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, Amazon Prime Video, Now TV, Sky Go, etc.)
  • download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer.
This applies to any device you use, including a TV, desktop computer, laptop, mobile phone, tablet, games console, digital box or DVD/VHS recorder.
/QUOTE]
Click to expand...
is that true? Even to watch say YouTube on a laptop?
 
steve5424 said:
Only true if it's a live stream of a channel. Ie the news channels on YouTube or stuff.
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's only if those online services rebroadcast a live transmission in real time. So BBC News would require a licence regardless if you're watching it live on a TV over DVB, iPlayer or YouTube.

You don't need a licence to watch content on YouTube that isn't being broadcast live on a TV.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Indeed. It's only if those online services rebroadcast a live transmission in real time. So BBC News would require a licence regardless if you're watching it live on a TV over DVB, iPlayer or YouTube.

You don't need a licence to watch content on YouTube that isn't being broadcast live on a TV.
Click to expand...
While i do have a tv license, is it even possible to monitor if people are streaming tv. And how does it work if you have a quest who has a tv license but you don't? Just seems so antiquated.
 
Your ISP could see what you are looking at if they wanted to. The BBC dont have access to that.

But even if they get an IP and list of sites you looked at, that isnt proof. Someone outside the house could have tapped off the wifi or a guest did it without you knowing etc.
 
If the BBC moved to a sub service, I wonder how much they could charge?

Surely not the current licence price. There’s just not enough content and it would offer poor value compared to Netflix and
Prime.
 
robfosters said:
If the BBC moved to a sub service, I wonder how much they could charge?

Surely not the current licence price. There’s just not enough content and it would offer poor value compared to Netflix and
Prime.
Click to expand...
If they did, you'd have to expect they'd slowly remove all the shows they currently licence out to Netflix , like Top Gear, as those agreements expire, so that the BBC had a more exclusive content selection.

They'd not be able to subsidise broadcast TV with it though, so ultimately if that either died or was funded alternatively they'd probably be able to compete OK on a like for like service.
 
Nasher said:
Your ISP could see what you are looking at if they wanted to. The BBC dont have access to that.

But even if they get an IP and list of sites you looked at, that isnt proof. Someone outside the house could have tapped off the wifi or a guest did it without you knowing etc.
Click to expand...

That depends on whether you use a VPN or how they monitor. DNSSEC could cause issues if you set that up.
 
A VPN provider may still keep logs, they have to under UK law. But there are loopholes some use which make the logged data useless to anyone trying to trace it back to a user.
 
I had another letter today to a "Mr Legal Occupier" it seems they only accepted that name and a throw away email for a few months last year and now they send letters in that name threatening visits.

Refuse to have anything to do with them and will never give them my details as i have no need to interact with them and have no obligation to do so. I dont watch TV so why do i have to keep justifying myself to them.

Side note, its another letter to go into the tv licensing bag under my stairs. I think ive collected between 150-200 off them so far and one day when im home and they visit ill return them to their rightful owners.
 
HybridX said:
I had another letter today to a "Mr Legal Occupier" it seems they only accepted that name and a throw away email for a few months last year and now they send letters in that name threatening visits.

Refuse to have anything to do with them and will never give them my details as i have no need to interact with them and have no obligation to do so. I dont watch TV so why do i have to keep justifying myself to them.

Side note, its another letter to go into the tv licensing bag under my stairs. I think ive collected between 150-200 off them so far and one day when im home and they visit ill return them to their rightful owners.
Click to expand...

Take them to small claims for harassment mate you will get an easy win with 150 letters. Infact judging by the mental responses the red letters and threats generate among this forum it proves they are capable of causing distress and alarm.


You could also then technically revoke Royal Mail's presumed rights of access and use the collection facility or the mail to another house method they have. You can technically and legally stop them but they rely on no one having the potatoes between thier legs. :)
 
Rofflay said:
Take them to small claims for harassment mate you will get an easy win with 150 letters. Infact judging by the mental responses the red letters and threats generate among this forum it proves they are capable of causing distress and alarm.
Click to expand...

And what damages would you be able to evidence?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom