TV licensing people are after me!

[Glaucus]

It's a tax so they have more rights than most, if you simply informed them they would stop, therefore it can't really be called harassment.

What is disgusting is how they word and print their letters.

But most of you who complain can sort it out with a 3 sentence letter.

 

[mattyfez]

It's a tax so they have more rights than most, if you simply informed them they would stop, therefore it can't really be called harassment.

What is disgusting is how they word and print their letters.

But most of you who complain can sort it out with a 3 sentence letter.

This is where I disagree, I, nor anyone else, is obliged to inform TVLA if they do not utilise the service. Agreed it won't stop them threatening to put you in jail and rape your children, but it makes no odds, it's just nasty letters, and they go in the bin.

Something should be done about the tone of the letters though, really, If an individual decided to reign a campaign of harrasment against another individual, for no apparent reason, the police and courts would be involved pretty quickly and the mattter would be resolved.

 

[craptakular]

Whether you watch TV or not doesn't matter. If you have equipment on the premises that is capable of receiving broadcast TV, basically anything with a Tuner in it, be it a TV, Video, PC Tuner, Settop box you are required to have a valid licence for that premises.

For example, you cam have an old Video-Recorder in a cupboard, not own any TV or monitor to view it on, but still be liable for the licence fee.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/5081350.stm

thats utter tosh, what if you only use your "TV" for DVD and blu-ray?

Do I need a licence?
The law says that anyone who uses a TV, or any other device, to receive TV signals, must buy a licence.
This includes video recorders, set-top boxes and DVD recorders.
You will also need a licence if you use your computer to watch live broadcasts.

 

[Glaucus]

This is where I disagree, I, nor anyone else, is obliged to inform TVLA if they do not utilise the service. Agreed it won't stop them threatening to put you in jail and rape your children, but it makes no odds, it's just nasty letters, and they go in the bin.

as you say you don't have to inform them, but then you can't go on to say it's harassment. When you know informing them will stop it.

 

[doofer]

But most of you who complain can sort it out with a 3 sentence letter.

Wrong.

They simply remove your name from the Letters and keep sending them to 'The Occupier' at the same address. You cannot stop them.

 

[Tefal]

Whether you watch TV or not doesn't matter. If you have equipment on the premises that is capable of receiving broadcast TV, basically anything with a Tuner in it, be it a TV, Video, PC Tuner, Settop box you are required to have a valid licence for that premises.

For example, you cam have an old Video-Recorder in a cupboard, not own any TV or monitor to view it on, but still be liable for the licence fee.

Not true at all, you spout the same utter bs in every tv licensing thread, and refuse to actually read their own regulations and always cite some random 3rd party.

You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch programmes on your computer after they have been shown on TV

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-if-a-tv-licence-is-not-needed-top12/

 

[Glaucus]

Wrong.

They simply remove your name from the Letters and keep sending them to 'The Occupier' at the same address. You cannot stop them.

That goes against what several people in this thread have said, who have asked for there house to be removed.

 

[mattyfez]

as you say you don't have to inform them, but then you can't go on to say it's harassment. When you know informing them will stop it.

How so? I know what you are saying, but this is a matter of principal, it is an individuals choice if if they decide to watch 'TV'.

For example, how would you feel, if you had never driven a car in your life, but yet got constant demands to pay road tax? should you need to prove that you do not drive?

Or would you be within your rights to ignore the demands because they are irellevant?

Would you think it fair that every person in the country be sent a charge for road tax on the assumption that they drive?

Most people drive, so by the TVLA model it would be a reasoable argument to assume that all do, and all are liable to pay road tax.

 

[Pudney]

For example, how would you feel, if you had never driven a car in your life, but yet got constant demands to pay road tax? should you need to prove that you do not drive?

You're expected to be able to prove that you've paid the road tax and are expected to chase the DVLA if you pay and hear nothing from them

 

[mattyfez]

That goes against what several people in this thread have said, who have asked for there house to be removed.

Sorry I keep quoting you, its nothing personal, honest

I hear several versions of what happens,

A)they never bother you again
B) they leave you alone for six months then resume the harrasment
C) they carry on with the demands regardless

It is for this idiocy that I simply do not contact them. Ever. 'ain non of thier gaddam business!

 

[Glaucus]

How so? I know what you are saying, but this is a matter of principal, it is an individuals choice if if they decide to watch 'TV'.

.

You don't have to price anything, burden if proof lies with them.
What is so hard or wrong of informing a tax funded body.

 

[Vulcan]

thats utter tosh...

Not true at all...

You do realise the post was made in May and has been corrected more than enough times already?

 

[mattyfez]

You don't have to price anything, burden if proof lies with them.
What is so hard or wrong of informing a tax funded body.

Its not hard, or wrong... more importantly it's not necessary.

Why should the individual have to make an effort or state that they are exempt?

 

[doofer]

That goes against what several people in this thread have said, who have asked for there house to be removed.

I can only say from personal experience as this is what happens to me, note I stated 'Happens' as it does a regular cycle, you get xx Letters over 6 Months, you complain about harassment, you then get xx Letters addressed to 'The Occupier' over 6 Months after which a Recorded Delivery usually arrives and your name then reappears with/The occupier, then after xx Letters in 6 Months it's back to just your name. 6 Months is an estimate, it may take a bit longer or a bit less, but around 6 Months seems like the average.

 

[Pudney]

Its not hard, or wrong... more importantly it's not necessary.

Why should the individual have to make an effort or statement thet they are exempt?

How would they collect the fee if they didn't do that? Through honesty? You have to notify the DVLA if you're exempt so why not the BBC?

 

[Glaucus]

]

Why should the individual have to make an effort or state that they are exempt?

A) you don't have to, but you then can hardly say it's harassment. That's the problem you are calling it harrasment but are unwilling to do anything. It's one or the other.

B) it's a tax, many other tax bodies you have to inform them or you get a fine just like that.

 

[Glaucus]

I can only say from personal experience as this is what happens to me, note I stated 'Happens' as it does a regular cycle, you get xx Letters over 6 Months, you complain about harassment, you then get xx Letters addressed to 'The Occupier' over 6 Months after which a Recorded Delivery usually arrives and your name then reappears with/The occupier, then after xx Letters in 6 Months it's back to just your name. 6 Months is an estimate, it may take a bit longer or a bit less, but around 6 Months seems like the average.

It souls be two years, have you ever risen it through the complaints procedure.

 

[mattyfez]

How would they collect the fee if they didn't do that? Through honesty? You have to notify the DVLA if you're exempt so why not the BBC?

lol, you have missed my point, but then I probably didn't make it too well.

What do you suggest, a SORN service for CRT's? lol!

The model is out dated, and should be pay as you go/subscription based.

The same way I belive road tax should be scapped and put onto petrol pumps, you use what you choose.

They syastem as it stands relies on honesty, and bully tactics..

 

[Glaucus]

It is anoptional sorn. You inform them you don't watch live tv and they should stop letters for two years. Tvl have rights to minimise tax evasion like any other tax body.
If they don't stop letters, then you can go through the complaints procedure which all companies have. If it is still not resolved you can take it to the BBC/tvl trustee.

 

[Pudney]

Well, I agree it's not a particularly great method but then how do you do it differently? Honesty won't work, the current method does sort of work but uses too much bullying and intimidation.

It's hard to say. Even though someone may state that no license is required at an address how are the BBC to know if it changes? Or if someone new moves in. It's all rather rubbish right now.

Toning down their letters would be nice no matter what though.