TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
What sort of harassing are they doing exactly?

Can you quote them when they threaten/call you a criminal?

When we were students we never had a license. TV bloke came to the door after two letters saying that they might send someone down and we are required to pay if we use a TV. I could have just just shut the door on his face but i let him in, he asked me if the TV worked, i said nope, we even keep it unplugged. He had a quick glance and left to be never heard of again.

So from my experience I was never harassed/threatened when I chose to not have a license.
 
I don't watch live TV, I filled in an online form and got a letter saying I didn't need to pay.

It was really simple, I don't understand why people are making it so hard!?
 
I've not had a licence for a while, I don't watch live TV but I do watch iPlayer occasionally (happy for them to stop that tbh, it makes sense), and haven't told them because I find the letters amusing so why not.

However, some comments, likening the TV licence to others, sure if they know you have a TV (and when you buy one you should be asked for a name/address, so they 'should'), then sure, like a vehicle it would be acceptable to pursue for either a declaration of not watching live tv (aka sorn), or for payment. But if they have no evidence of TV ownership then how is the 'harassment' justified?

I recently moved house, my TV was bought at the last place, so they have neither my name nor any proof of TV ownership, yet I get letters every month or 2 weeks. It's even addressed to 'The Legal Occupier' because they lack any information, this would be akin to the DVLA sending out letters to every address not currently paying at least one instance of VED, per month, 'harassing' people into paying, which is just wrong.

As for the letters themselves, and the intimidating nature of them, I find it hilarious as I'm familiar enough with the regulations that I know I'm not doing anything wrong, but they are written in a fairly underhanded manner. They obviously don't flat out call you a criminal but they heavily imply it, along with things such as "An Officer may interview you under caution", it's clearly written to intimidate/frighten people into paying.

As for the rules, as mentioned I do think they should apply the licence to iPlayer, it makes sense, however I fear they'll go for an option that covers all 'catch-up' or even just streaming services, e.g. needing a TV Licence to watch Netflix, that would be wrong but oh so predictable...
 
Avenged7Fold said:
What sort of harassing are they doing exactly?

Can you quote them when they threaten/call you a criminal?

When we were students we never had a license. TV bloke came to the door after two letters saying that they might send someone down and we are required to pay if we use a TV. I could have just just shut the door on his face but i let him in, he asked me if the TV worked, i said nope, we even keep it unplugged. He had a quick glance and left to be never heard of again.

So from my experience I was never harassed/threatened when I chose to not have a license.
Click to expand...
Constant letters and knocking on the door is the worst harassing they do. I don’t care about the threats of investigations and court cases as that’s just a scare tactic. It’s not so much the content of the letters but how often it happens and how often they send people around to poke around your house. It’s happening to often. I had to deal with them once a week on average this month so far.


“I could have just just shut the door on his face but i let him in, he asked me if the TV worked, i said nope, we even keep it unplugged. He had a quick glance and left to be never heard of again.”
That’s just what I had for years and I always was nice to the inspector and let them in but then after around 5 years the harassment started. Why, I have no idea.
 
Should we take bets on how the new stuff will be implimented?

Will..

A: They turn the BBC into a normal subcription service like netflicks or sky, etc, or

B: Keep it the same, only now the inspector goon want to come into your home and look through your electronic devices history?
 
Threepwood said:
Should we take bets on how the new stuff will be implimented?

Will..

A: They turn the BBC into a normal subcription service like netflicks or sky, etc, or

B: Keep it the same, only now the inspector goon want to come into your home and look through your electronic devices history?
Click to expand...

Or turn it into a general tax and IP block anyone outside of the UK.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Or turn it into a general tax and IP block anyone outside of the UK.
Click to expand...

Which would be the easiest option, and unlike changing to subscription still allow the BBC to do it's best to cater to most, including niche content, as opposed to the subscription model of "got to get subscribers, this content doesn't get enough viewers".

And of course there isn't really any realistic way to encrypt the BBC radio stations which wouldn't require tens (hundreds?) of millions of devices to be replaced to continue to receive them.

Out of the countries with a TVL we're a bit of an oddity, from memory most simply add it to another utility bill, or require you to sign a legally binding document to state you haven't got a TV (and if you lie it's dealt with the same as lying on a court or income tax form).
They don't allow you to opt out by simply saying "I don't use my TV for broadcasts".
 
We got greated with this letter this morning :) All over £30 what a lovely world we live in. Forced to pay a silly FEE and if you don't your are arrested, couldn't make it up.

20160330_120344.jpg
 
Glaucus said:
That fee is a TAX, what do you expect. No different to not paying things like council tax.
Click to expand...

No its massively different and how they treat you is disgusting. Forcing there way into your home feeling threatened for PAYING something which you not use. They tricked my other half in been let inside and TELLING her she was under Caution and faced arrest if she didn't sign a statement, she was forced and tricked into signing a form without been told the full conent. FYI we do not watch live tv nor any catchup services. But have a TV on the wall connected to an old broken Sky Box, they saw this and well took us to Court, we now have a default for not paying and now a Warrant issued?

Seriously not everything is as Cut and dry, 'well its a TAX so it needs paying'
 
Sounds like it seemed that you did have a TV that looked like it was in use and was given a form to sign to acknowledge this. So from their side it probably looks like you are trying to dodge the payment.

What way did they force her to sign?

What was the document she signed? Did she not read it?
 
What I don't understand about the TV license is why you have to pay for something you don't use. I wouldn't mind paying if it were a TV tax or if you had to pay it extra to own a TV or something, but I rarely if ever watch BBC content and probably wouldn't if I had to pay to. No other service makes you pay for something even though you don't use it and then forces you to pay a fine if caught not paying. But it's not a charge for having a TV and if it were I'd be happy paying for it, they just assume you watch their content anyway. I dunno I just hate it but I pay it because I want a TV and want to stay inside the law.
 
pokerking said:
No its massively different and how they treat you is disgusting. Seriously not everything is as Cut and dry, 'well its a TAX so it needs paying'
Click to expand...

Except it is. Under current law it is a tax and thus you should have expected such a letter.

You also think about history, it was essentially a tax on a TV, there wasn't consoles, VCR, streaming etc. There weren't 100s of channels etc and TVs were only for the rich. So taxing in this way made perfect sense to fund a state broadcaster.

There's millions if stuff like this that in the modern era seem a bit odd. But make perfect sense of the time period they are from.
 
Last edited:
Avenged7Fold said:
Sounds like it seemed that you did have a TV that looked like it was in use and was given a form to sign to acknowledge this. So from their side it probably looks like you are trying to dodge the payment.

What way did they force her to sign?

What was the document she signed? Did she not read it?
Click to expand...

Looked like it was in use? Yeah thats grounds for a Court order. The Sky Box is broken and has been for a few years this can be proven by Sky they did not want to know this.

Once they are in your home that is it, easy pickings.

Believe what you like but I was not at home and was told that she was FORCED to sign a document saying she NEEDED to PAY for a TV licence, and was held under caution and would face arrest if she did not sign, (this to any mother with a young child would SCARE them to sign and not read) this could be contested but once they papers from the local courts appear the TV licence people do not want to know it is NOW with the court, they cannot come round and check.

It is a total shambles.

And NOW we do not pay, we invided a inspector back into our home and PAY nothing as we do not watch or use catchup.

Simpley have a Games Console and a PC connected to the TV.
 
But how was she forced?

There are ways to appeal this and your story seems full of potential ways that will settle this without little effort but details are a bit vague.

TV license guy came into my house a few years ago after asking if we paid and if we watched. He saw the TV, asked if we used it and i said no and showed him it was unplugged. Then i was given a form, this form acknowledged the visit and what conclusion the bloke came to. I gave it a once over and it was sorted.
 
Avenged7Fold said:
But how was she forced?

There are ways to appeal this and your story seems full of potential ways that will settle this without little effort but details are a bit vague.

TV license guy came into my house a few years ago after asking if we paid and if we watched. He saw the TV, asked if we used it and i said no and showed him it was unplugged. Then i was given a form, this form acknowledged the visit and what conclusion the bloke came to. I gave it a once over and it was sorted.
Click to expand...

Every thing was in my partners name so I really had no say as she did not was arresting, seriously they placed her under caution and was made to feel intimidated and threatened in her own home buy some man ispecting our home looking around. We probally had a bad egg as he was reported on his behaviour and false imprisonment in her own home, she had to go out but was not allowed until he finished his inspection, I am only going by the accounts of what I have been told I was not there.

She was told she would NEED a TV licence and did not question this, a 24YR Female vulnerable scared of what he was saying she believed him and signed saying she agreed to pay for a TV licence.

I refused to pay, it was MY home but she signed and let them in and agreed to pay for a TV licence, I didn't pay it and and asked for this to be looked at, it could not as she signed a Legal document.

This then went to the courts and once its with them you have to deal with the courts not TV Licencing.

All in all its a massive shambles, and seriously questions the whole system.

Answer me this, if you forget to pay for Netflix or Sky now TV do they send you an arrest warrant?

Probally what I say makes no sense but its all true!
 
Netflix, sky now, is not a tax. It's not even comparable.

And this is why you should know your rights and not sign stuff.

If you felt so strongly why didn't you seek legal advice.
 
Refusing to deal with them out of principle because you had a dodgy individual is only going to put you in a worse situation. I dont see how a guy looking round the house and telling her that she needed to be present while he did it (which is standard). Sounds like the complication arose more to her misunderstanding of the process and situation more than the actual system itself. Even if he did behave as badly as you said, that is hardly a representation of the TV license system.
 
I've never had a problem with TV licencing harassing me. I Just told them online I have no TV service and they leave me alone for 2-3 years, whatever it is, then I do it again. Even buying a new TV from Richer Sounds in December has triggered no further contact so far.

Only getting a refund for a quarter when you have to pay two quarters in advance is a thieving joke though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom