TV Licence Super Thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ken
  • Start date Start date
GiraffePencils said:
What a bunch of nonsense, doesn't stop them coming up and knocking on your door, no matter how much sudo legal stuff you mail them that they surely bin
Click to expand...
You are wrong about that as it is not nonsense and it does stop them. I had years of problems and harassment from them. The only solution that worked for me was to withdrawn there right of access. They did try to refuse me at first but once I pointed them to that website that we are not required by law to submit our name they backed down. Then they acknowledged that right of access has been withdrawn and since then they have stopped visits and letters via there agents. Plenty of other people have done the same as me and confirmed it worked.

Legally they cannot and do not just bin it. They normally respond. You can also use email over a paper letter.
 
Pottsey said:
You are wrong about that as it is not nonsense and it does stop them. I had years of problems and harassment from them. The only solution that worked for me was to withdrawn there right of access. They did try to refuse me at first but once I pointed them to that website that we are not required by law to submit our name they backed down. Then they acknowledged that right of access has been withdrawn and since then they have stopped visits and letters via there agents. Plenty of other people have done the same as me and confirmed it worked.

Legally they cannot and do not just bin it. They normally respond. You can also use email over a paper letter.
Click to expand...
Well this is anecdotal, I'm glad it worked for you, and I'm sorry if you were under some kind of harassment. But I'm yet to see any shred of evidence that it has any legal standing.
Best I've found was a solicitor's website that said it was tantamount to having a 'no trespassing' sign and knocking on someone's door to ask if they have a TV is not trespassing (no injury)
At the end of the day it takes quite the **** to watch TV and get caught in a provable way, but if you do that's a court order and then we're out of civil matters
 
GiraffePencils said:
Well this is anecdotal, I'm glad it worked for you, and I'm sorry if you were under some kind of harassment. But I'm yet to see any shred of evidence that it has any legal standing.
Best I've found was a solicitor's website that said it was tantamount to having a 'no trespassing' sign and knocking on someone's door to ask if they have a TV is not trespassing (no injury)
At the end of the day it takes quite the **** to watch TV and get caught in a provable way, but if you do that's a court order and then we're out of civil matters
Click to expand...
It proves what you said is wrong. You said its nonsense and that they will not respond which is just flat out not correct. Its not nonsense, they do respond and they do follow the rule. If its not legal then why do they acknowledge the common law right of land access? Why do they respond to requests and respond to the withdrawal of common law right for TV Licensing's officers to approach your property?

As for no injury so not trespassing that is incorrect. After injury there is an or which goes into especially to enter onto another's land wrongfully. There is a difference between knocking on someone's door and knocking on someone's door when you have clearly told them they have no right to come on your land. If you tell someone they are not allowed on your land and to get off and they still come onto it you are in a far stronger position as they cannot use the reason they did not know they where trespassing.
 
Pottsey said:
It proves what you said is wrong. You said its nonsense and that they will not respond which is just flat out not correct. Its not nonsense, they do respond and they do follow the rule. If its not legal then why do they acknowledge the common law right of land access? Why do they respond to requests and respond to the withdrawal of common law right for TV Licensing's officers to approach your property?

As for no injury so not trespassing that is incorrect. After injury there is an or which goes into especially to enter onto another's land wrongfully. There is a difference between knocking on someone's door and knocking on someone's door when you have clearly told them they have no right to come on your land. If you tell someone they are not allowed on your land and to get off and they still come onto it you are in a far stronger position as they cannot use the reason they did not know they where trespassing.
Click to expand...
It shows I was wrong about their response to it, yes.
And I did admit that it might make you more hassle than you are worth to continue pursuing.

But you telling someone they have no right on your land does not change the fact they DO have a right on your land for the execution of their job. And regardless of a letter saying you don't have a TV, in no other circumstance of licenced property is suspicion of ownership content with "they once said they didn't"
I've looked (albeit briefly) and can find no ruling where a homeowner has revoked access and then won in court. I'm sure enough Freemen have been taken to court over it, so for you to say 'common law' it much have been ruled as such to be valid. Do you have a case/name/judge I can look into?
 
GiraffePencils said:
But you telling someone they have no right on your land does not change the fact they DO have a right on your land for the execution of their job.
Click to expand...

Well, let's see what the law says before we determine this. Baliffs would have a right to enter either way, but I'm not sure TV licensing peeps would.

It seems to me that it's just the usual freeman of the land rubbish.
 
Basher said:
Well, let's see what the law says before we determine this. Baliffs would have a right to enter either way, but I'm not sure TV licensing peeps would.

It seems to me that it's just the usual freeman of the land rubbish.
Click to expand...
Well a Bailiff has a court order, so yeah they're different. I know TVL peeps like to call themselves 'enforcement officers' but that doesn't change they're a normal citizen going about a job.
But it's much like a gas meter person, they're just turning up to check the service. Unfortunately TVL was made law and it's all gone horribly confusing
 
LuckyBenski said:
I'm curious as to why Virgin Media would pass your details to TVL if you didn't have a TV package. And if you did have a TV package, but weren't watching it, why?
Click to expand...

We did have a TV package under my partners name. As soon as she signed up with VM the TVL letters started. When I signed up with Sky in the Highlands the letters started soon after.
 
Rannoch said:
All letters were returned at the expense of the sender.

I will watch what I want, when I want.
Click to expand...
Big pat on the back for you then?
Seen a law you don't agree with and decide that stealing is the best recourse.

I could equate it to many other crimes, but you've given your opinion of me and there's no use really
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom