We have just had news today that we are probably going to lose our jobs. What can i expect when i sign on, any do`s & don`ts . I don`t want, nor can i afford sanctions , so i would like a guide through the process please.

I can`t see why everyone assumes that the BBC needs advertising to be a part of a subscription package. If they went down the subscription route , scrambled the output , the uptake for those that want to watch the BBC should be in line with the current TVL tax system ?. No need for adverts , like all monopolies they are top heavy & prone to waste money, local councils & governments spring to mind. I think in the circumstances i have laid out it would force the BBC to address the vast amounts of money it wastes, streamline the management structure & force them to concentrate on the real business of output. Those that already enjoy & are happy to pay will continue , those that don`t will not & won`t be able to view live output . This would give people a choice, that is fair in my view, it should be a choice & not a tax. The truth is that the whole system is calling out for change, clinging on to the past is not cutting it in today's world. Surely it is better to be in on the negotiations of change than have them forced upon you.

There is always a legal standpoint when you purchase goods . I found the situation interesting as to what are both parties rights are in this situation as regards to the seller not being paid , the customer not having the funds to do so , the consumer was not willing to enter into a contract that was not legally mandatory. Effectively, the goods have been consumed & a stubborn impasse has resulted. Clarification on the " legal standpoint " was & is of interest to me.Personally, i would have had no problem signing the form. If you want to know something, you ask. It is called, gaining definitive legal knowledge, this site is full of such Q&A`s, in fact, you could say it was built solely for that purpose. Is that simple enough for you to digest. That is a rhetorical question BTW.

Asking questions to clarify a point in law [ to establish if there is one] is not making a mountain out of a mole hill. It is called , " asking a question " . The situation was sorted out, i asked a question about the legal standpoint.

Well that is exactly what has happened , the firm has instructed all drivers not to use Tesco. They are a very big national company & all the drivers filled up at Tesco because it was very close to the depot.

If you care to read the OP properly, you will see i could not make a formal complaint as i was not involved .

I agree, i thought it might be interesting from a legal standpoint, i think both needed their heads banged together.

Thanks for the reply's, what is the legal standpoint ?. Why should anyone have to sign a book , it is not a legal requirement . They can ask you to sign , but you can decline, you still have every intention of paying. If they had called the police when he was there , he has committed no crime, in order to pay he has to return home. It might seem pedantic but he has a point.

Just wanted to get a clarification on the law. My next door neighbour called in at Tesco to fill up in the works van [ well known firm & van is sign written] . Filled up & went to pay, he had forgotten his wallet. Informed the lady behind the counter & immediately he said she barked " stand over there". Made him wait while she served everyone in the shop, then told him to produce some ID. He reminded her he had forgotten his wallet , she then produced a book & asked him for his details. Normally he would have signed , but her attitude narked him. He asked if he was legally obliged to sign , she called the manager who informed him if he did`t sign he would call the police. He repeated the question & after a lot of side stepping the manager admitted it was not a legal requirement. He explained that , you have the van reg, the company name, CCTV of my face & i live a 5 minute drive away . The manager then informed my neighbour that if he left the station he would report it as a theft. He left , got his wallet , returned & payed. He does not know if the manager phoned the police , so he wants to be prepared if they do come a calling. The firm have now told the drivers that they can`t fill up at Tesco as a result of his treatment

The answer is one that frightens the BBC to it`s very core. A voluntary subscription service. Go it alone & survive in the real world like the rest of us do. I don`t care about the BBC , i care about the fact it is a tax & unfair competition. It has so many ill`s , it is not worth going over them again. This next review is going to be very interesting as to the outcome of the LF tax. My hunch is it will get a continuation of the LF tax but with caveats, the old boy network will keep her afloat............................. this time

I did not realise that single mothers had it so good.

Internet being bolted on to the TVL , been the number one priority of the BBC for some time now. If you accept that . Then the article spells out their first steps in moving channels to the iPlayer, this will hopefully persuade the review to enable & facilitate that aim. It is very obvious if you have read the bill put before government in connection with the license tax & the collection amendments, which i posted on here some time ago.

Proof [ as if it were needed], that the BBC is trying to force & bolt on the TVL tax to the internet. No one will then be able to opt out of the tax. Even if you don`t watch live broadcasts, you will be forced to pay it because you have internet access. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26452235

I find this a staggering statement for someone on the site team. The biggest demographic of prosecutions by the BBC/ Capita/ TVL are single mothers on benefits. How is criminalising them going to help?. They will be even further down the ladder of opportunity for jobs to get them back into society & with a criminal record you are not going to get a cleaning position. There will be some on here who will say " they should`t watch live TV then" , no they should`t in an ideal world, but we don`t live in an ideal world. But with little one`s running around it is probably the only entertainment she can provide , she is forced to make a choice as to feed, cloth & buy essentials for her children or pay the TVL tax , it is obvious which one will win. Subscription [ voluntary] is the only solution in my view.

Could not agree more, but if they have a warrant , it will be a different matter. Nobody would suspect the TVL / Capita people of making the evidence up , now would they:wink:.. they have detector vans & magic wands

Phew...Right, here is what i have found. This is my understanding. The iPlayer is totally free to view, if you watch it as a catch up service , but the BBC also provides " live output" in the iPlayer, thus muddying the waters regarding a TVL [ sneaky eh]. If you watch any live TV through the iPlayer you require a license but you then have to prove you are only watching catch up. Delaying the start time of live broadcast through the iPlayer is deemed to be the same as Sky / Virgin, again the cut of point is not clear, but it is deliberately designed like this to complicate things & in turn keep the TVL tax afloat. The iPlayer has been described as a " Trojan horse". this is the BBC`s way of bolting on the TVL to the internet. Is it " live broadcasting ?, the BBC claim it is, they are happy [ for the moment ] to leave well alone & use it as a their major bargaining tool to bolt the TVL to the internet. As i said in my earlier post, there is a propaganda war going on at the moment. The BBC is under pressure for it`s survival like never before , the new technologies are killing it. The question is, will people stand for it?, allowing them to include the internet as part of the TVL, just like it did when TV first came along. The TVL started out for radio [ Radio license], as every technological advancement has been made in home entertainment it has bolted the TVL to the new advancement but the internet has really done the damage. They have also done deals with the major gaming console / TV manufacturers to include the iPlayer into their boxes / TV`s for free, again another way of subliminally incorporating the iPlayer into as many homes as possible, thus ensuring the continuation of the TVL tax. As regards to this being a loophole:-), lets use this scenario , the TVL salesmen arrive to test your equipment, you show them that you have no live feed facility , but you have the iPlayer on your TV , they will then put you in court because you have the facility to watch live TV but are not licensed to do so. You can`t remove the iPlayer facility from your TV, catch 22 , done & dusted. Sorry for the length of the post .

OK, thanks for that. Having never used it, i was not sure of the workings. My understanding is the Sky / Virgin system still requires a TVL, as you say it is live broadcasting but you , the viewer decide to delay it. The iPlayer? , i`m off to do some research

Do you mean sky Andy?,as i don`t have any live TV or cable facilities. I am not familiar with the workings of their system.

If you see a program advertised as starting at 8.00 pm & you watch the program , you are watching live TV. The fact there is a delay is not relevant IMHO, you tuned in at the advertised time & are watching a live feed. Where the cut off point is, then that is arguable , there is a caveat in the law that covers the recording of live TV & watching it later, you still need a TVL . It is a subject the BBC has not touched because it can`t afford to lose the battle of live TV verses non live TV. It is a point that could only be clarified by a test case in law. There may already be a case or law that covers this, though i am not aware of it .

Yes, it is a tricky one. It would depend on what is the cut off point for assumed " live TV", the amount of people doing this must be miniscule but the BBC will not touch this in court for fear of losing , far easier to suck up to the politician you went to school with. It is blatantly clear that the TVL is not for the modern age, having said that , i would be shocked if the old boys network did away with it.

Thanks for the source information. The word " loophole" has become a headline grabber, guaranteed to get peoples attention, but it is the wrong terminology. There is no loophole, catch up, is free to watch , perfectly legal & has caught the BBC with their trousers down. In every link you have provided it states this clearly, but the headline is designed to attract not quantify. My first post & my inclusion of the article in this thread clearly shows how the BBC has been left behind & the advancement of technology has resulted in the TVL for modern devices that are capable of receiving LB`s, is not controllable , nor can it be verified unless they [ BBC] get a bolt on to include the internet on the TVL. This would require all ISP`s to furnish the BBC with data regarding their customers , that is a clear breach of the DPA. As for the time delay, if you are not watching live feeds then you do not require a TVL, again, very clear. The only reason the BBC has not touched this is [ in court] they know the result would not go in their favour. Far easier to persuade the government that it is losing revenue to the internet than actually put someone in court & risk setting precedents & having the whole TVL called into question. This is a PR & propaganda war , expect the heat to be turned up over the next 12 months as the TVL review gets even closer.

What loopholes Andy?, could you please enlighten me. We hear this time & time again. You either watch live broadcast TV or you don`t. You either require & license or you don`t. It really is as black & white as that. Catch up TV is not a loophole, it is a free, across the board service available to one & all , watching live TV without a license is illegal , not a loophole. I`m not having a go, i am just very frustrated at this perception of a " loophole" , it is utter nonsense, wrong & misleading.

I found this & thought it was one of the best written & well balanced pieces of journalism about the BBC funding debacle , although i disagree with the quote that " most people would be happy to subscribe" . I believe the BBC is doomed, but it needs to get the PR department working flat out as it has the funding review in 2015 /16. The public has had enough, an ever growing number of people can see that the corporation is well past it`s sell by date . ‘The big threat to BBC funding doesn’t come from devious private-sector bosses or angry politicians , *or so called evaders *.. It comes from technological change, and the changing market that accompanies it' This week Lord Hall, director general of the BBC, will take on critics who suggest that other channels should share the license fee. By criticising the corporation's market dominance and guaranteed multibillion-pound budget, they endanger the whole future of broadcasting in the UK, he is due to tell the Oxford Media Convention on Wednesday. It's easy to see why he's squealing. The BBC's license fee funding model is under fire, questioned like never before by competitors, politicians and – increasingly – consumers. Who wouldn't lash out if they stood to lose the comfort of a £3.6bn income, received without the need to actually win business? Unfortunately Hall has picked the wrong targets. The big threat to BBC funding doesn't come from devious private-sector bosses or angry politicians. It comes from technological change, and the changing market that accompanies it. The story of the last 20 or 30 years has been one of ever-increasing choice. In almost every aspect of our lives we are empowered by the ability to abandon old, clunky and expensive ways of doing things and award our business to those who work out how to do them better and more affordably. That process has accelerated significantly in recent years. Increasingly you don't just get to choose your supplier, you can control every detail of the service you buy (a process which will continue as 3D printing becomes more economical). Accordingly, consumer expectations have changed. Deference is dead, as the power of online feedback can make or break a business. The idea of placidly waiting weeks for a service, as BT used to demand before privatisation, is unacceptable in an age where you can simply switch supplier. People want to buy things that meet their needs, not adapt their needs to what is given to them. These are the forces that Hall is up against – and they're a sight more mighty than mere Channel 4 executives. The BBC license fee is a relic from another age, left behind by the evolution of technology and society. Simply asserting that the corporation has produced many great programmes is not enough to protect its funding model from the march of progress. When other broadcasters either provide their content for free or allow subscribers to build their own package of channels, the approach of compelling people to buy the whole shebang via a tax is becoming indefensible. Just as someone who wants to watch Sky Sports doesn't have to buy children's TV, why should I have to pay for access to BBC Three's Hotter Than My Daughter when I actually want to up my blood pressure by watching Question Time? These aren't hypothetical questions, and ignoring them will not make them go away. Already, the number of people who tell the TV Licensing Authority they don't need a license has topped 400,000 – the number simply watching TV online without interacting with TVLA at all is undoubtedly much higher. Given those facts, we mustn't blame Hall for feeling under pressure. When any monopolistic organisation has its dominance challenged by insurgent competitors or new technologies, they tend to start sweating. That's only natural when, having grown fat as the undisputed king of the jungle, they realise their crown is slipping. It's the director general's response to that pressure that is so deplorable. Instead of scrutinising the market, questioning the funding model or accepting that times have changed, he has chosen to lash out. If the BBC doesn't lead the debate on how to reform its funding, then it will simply fall further behind the times. The further behind it gets, the more resentment will grow and the more people will simply refuse to pay the tax. That way lies a slow, crumbling death. If he really cared for British broadcasting and the corporation that bears its name, Hall would be the first to argue for an end to the license fee and for a move to a subscription model. Most people would choose to sign up, and the BBC's size and cost would be backed by consent, not compulsion – a much more appropriate model for modern times. **i added this bit:wink:

Something does not add up here, how can you be summoned to court if you did`t sign anything?, where`s the proof. If the summons is in the wrong name then inform the court that they have the wrong person & see what happens. If you are watching live broadcasts, then buy a license, if you are not, don`t communicate with TVL.

Firstly , contact Capita & ask for a copy of the 178 form that you have signed. Tell them that under no circumstances were you cautioned at any time & you were told that signing the 178 was just proof of attendance & to set up the DD , hopefully if he has set one up , that gives a lot of weight to your account of what happened , state you have a witness who is prepared to go to court to give evidence on your behalf . Also state you want the " inspector " to attend any court date to be questioned on his account of the events. IMO , if he set you up with a DD then they are dead in the water . Please get that request off today & try not to worry.