Tv License question....just curious

[Conniff]

They use those words as further intimidation.

You do not have to speak to them at all, unless they turn up with a warrant, (even then you don't have to say anything).

I like your way of thinking AT but unfortunately you will have to pay for that legal eagle as you can only get free legal advice if you are being interviewed in a police station.

[Annoying Twit]

Originally Posted by Conniff

They use those words as further intimidation.

You do not have to speak to them at all, unless they turn up with a warrant, (even then you don't have to say anything).

I like your way of thinking AT but unfortunately you will have to pay for that legal eagle as you can only get free legal advice if you are being interviewed in a police station.

OK, HSE - Questioning of Suspects supports your claim. But they can't continue on with the "interview" without legal advice having been taken, so it ends there. I would presume.

[crash3903]

Originally Posted by HSBCrusher

CAG certainly encourages everybody who watches television to pay the licence fee, and distances itself from comments to the contrary.
If you watch TV, pay the fee.
If you do not, then don't be bullied.

Really?

Originally Posted by WebMaster

Of course they do have a bit at the bottom (almost called it a link then) saying you should write to them if you don't have a TV, but given how aggressive and hostile their letters are, I didn't see why I should. Instead I decided to be as uncooperative as possible

The evidence suggest otherwise

[Hippy-chick]

Sorry, crash - how is this advocating not paying a licence fee? I agree with webby. If one does not have a tv, why should one make it easy for them? Why should one write to them? Surely the onus is on them to prove that one watches tv?

This is not avoidance of paying the licence at all.

[crash3903]

Instead I decided to be as uncooperative as possible

You right sorry mush have been too much brandy

[Conniff]

As further intimidation, these people who obviously use the DCA collection manual as their instruction manual, attempt to make it look as though your house must have a licence, and you may receive a letter begining:

Official Warning - This Property is Unlicensed

You are hereby notified that we have authorised officers from our Enforcement Division
to visit you home and interview you under caution, as our records show there is still no TV Licence at this address.

Maybe, on second thoughts, these people wrote the manual that the DCAs use for collection.

Surely this type of thing must come under the 'Harasement' regulations.

	Debt collection library Follow this link to our debt collection library. This library contains templates and advice for dealing with debt collectors who act oppressively or unfairly. This library is work in progress and will be built up over the next few weeks. 17.03.09

[Annoying Twit]

Originally Posted by Flagg913

So basically because my friend only has a dvd and his games console attached to his tv, he does'nt have to pay....Cheers for that.

Careful! I amused myself by reading up on TV licencing some time ago. It appears that there is case law which means that a TV capable of receiving transmissions requires a licence even if it isn't connected. The advice that I read (not written by lawyers, nor am I one), said that anyone wanting to use a TV for purposes other than receiving broadcasts should disable it so that it cannot receive such signals. Even that won't help you though if a TVL inspector fools you into signing a confession, which is, I'm told, easier to do by accident than you'd think, with key phrases hidden in larger documents etc. It is claimed that TVL doesn't publicise these precedents (though it uses them in court) as it's easier to get a conviction if people aren't familiar with them.

On the lighter side, I also read a story where someone had a TVL inspector on his doorstep. The TVL inspector asked to come in. The householder said no. The TVL inspector said that he was going to stand there until he was allowed in. It was raining heavily and there was no shelter outside the door. The householder said "fine" (or similar) and just stood there for some time until the TVL inspector realised that the situation was ridiculous and left.

[Conniff]

To disable does not mean removing some part so that it can't receive. It is satisfactory to have the television detuned.
To enter your home they have to have cause, ie they have seen it through the window (and believe that it is a live tv picture) or captured it on a detector. They will still even then, need a warrant from the court to enter.

If the set has an aerial plugged in or a set top box, and on switching it on a live television picture appears, then I am afraid that no denial will be good enough.
Just a television and a dvd is fine. Remember though that a video is a television receiver and some dvd have receivers in them (rare), and also a computer with a television card is also classed as a television.

One of the reasons to try and educate is that there is nothing tvl has that you need to sign.

[Annoying Twit]

Originally Posted by Conniff

To enter your home they have to have cause, ie they have seen it through the window (and believe that it is a live tv picture) or captured it on a detector. They will still even then, need a warrant from the court to enter.

I have read some horror stories of what TVL inspectors will do if they believe that the person they are (in my opinion) harassing does not know the law. In theory they need to follow the process you describe. In reality there appear to be some "bad eggs" among TVL inspectors.

There are also more mild examples where inspectors will use bullying or manipulative, erm, "strategies" to get the homeowner to give them permission to enter. As a fictional example, imagine the inspector putting his hands on his hips, saying in an officious voice "I need to inspect your property to ensure that you do not have a television. Show me to the lounge." Wouldn't work on one of us I'm sure, but on poorly educated unemployed people, sometimes effective.

[Conniff]

They are probably on a bonus scheme and that is why they try so hard.

[Annoying Twit]

Originally Posted by Conniff

To disable does not mean removing some part so that it can't receive. It is satisfactory to have the television detuned.

I have lots of televisions around, and a valid license. But out of curiosity I've emailed TVL to ask what they consider sufficient disabling of a television so that a license is not necessary.

Their standard answer for the question of whether a license is necessary if a tv is only used to watch DVDs etc. suggests that an enforcement officer may need to visit.

https://tvlicensing.metafaq.com/temp...CVU3JPC15I7VHM

Would it be cynical of me to think that they probably want to catch people whose TVs are not sufficiently "disabled", rather than want to help people make sure whether or not they need a license.

[Conniff]

No I don't think you were being cynical at all. When the 'dreaded' VAT man calls to inspect you books, unless you have obviously tried to fiddle them, he will assist you, suggesting ways to do this or that to make your life easier and less prone to error.
TVL wont do that, which is why I believe they must be on some sort of bonus scheme.

[Annoying Twit]

Here's a page with BBC responses to Freedom of Information Act queries concerning the license.

BBC - Freedom of Information - Responses: TV Licence

It's rather long, and I certainly haven't read every one. But I notice that the BBC refused to confirm whether "enforcement officers" are paid and whether they receive a commission. They also refuse a lot of other requests on the grounds that this would affect law enforcement.

I've emailed them (not under Freedom of Information Act) to ask what they consider sufficient "disabling" of a receiver so that a license is not needed. If they don't reply, I'll ask again under the Freedom of Information Act.

[Conniff]

I always take a refusal to answer a question as an unmittigating 'yes'. Just like politicians, will never answer a question.
I don't see how confirming collection on a 'commission' basis would affect law enforcement.

This is the sort of story the Sun or Mirror likes and would probably have more success at getting a response, try dropping them a letter.

[Annoying Twit]

Originally Posted by Conniff

I always take a refusal to answer a question as an unmittigating 'yes'. Just like politicians, will never answer a question.
I don't see how confirming collection on a 'commission' basis would affect law enforcement.

This is the sort of story the Sun or Mirror likes and would probably have more success at getting a response, try dropping them a letter.

If I remember correctly, they denied the request concerning the commission question by saying that they subcontracted out enforcement work to Crapita, and do not hold the information themselves. Since Crapita is a private business, it is not subject to the Freedom of Information Act act.

[Conniff]

I would say there must be a way around this and 'crapita' would have to answer Freedom of Information Act type questions on the collection of public money. It is probably just a case of wording.
If they cannot be made under any circumstances to divulge this info because they are a private company, then the BBC must have these figures and are lying.
Public accounts are always open to scrutiny.

[Annoying Twit]

Originally Posted by Conniff

I would say there must be a way around this and 'crapita' would have to answer Freedom of Information Act type questions on the collection of public money. It is probably just a case of wording.
If they cannot be made under any circumstances to divulge this info because they are a private company, then the BBC must have these figures and are lying.
Public accounts are always open to scrutiny.

In another reply the BBC said that they pay Crapita a fixed fee per year for them to provide their services and do not hold information as to how enforcement officers are paid.

I have been unable to find anything which says what happens concerning the Freedom of Information Act act where a private company is contracted by a public company to provide services. What I' have been able to find out for similar situations (e.g. pages 64 and 85 of this: http://www.publications.parliament.u...ghts/77/77.pdf)
suggests that private subcontractors are not covered by the act, and hence cannot be required to provide the information if it is not held by the public body.

This newspaper article from Wales talks of performance related bonuses for TVL enforcement officers as a matter of fact. TV licence worker guilty of pay scam - icWales

Note that the basic salary (in 2005) was 11K. I'm guessing that not many people would take an 11K job unless there was significant opportunity for increasing that salary through bonuses, commission, or similar.

[wanderingsoul]

I have just lived in the UK for 12 months, with a TV, but only DVD and Xbox.
They sent me about 10 letters, though they were always addressed to 'the current occupier' - except once when it was addressed to the last person to live there.
How can it be a legal charge if they don't even know who lives there?
I ignored every single one. If they want to knock on my door, then go ahead. They never did. If they did, I was prepared to refuse entry as I don't have to prove anything to them.
Australia and the US, as well as plenty of other countries abolished this stupid tax 20 years ago. You can pay 150 pounds per year for 4 channels with nothing on in the UK, or get 400 channels via cable in the US for less than that.
EDIT There IS advertising on the BBC, they DO make money from it, so I challenge anyone to tell me how the BBC can do this, and how it is fair.

[HSBCrusher]

Tv License question....just curious

[Conniff]

That shows they are out to make it look like the address has to be licensed.

Unfortunately W, it has to be paid as it is classed as a 'Tax' in the UK so is a criminal offence that will go to court if not paid.