TV license enforcement visit

[nigel_bytes]

[buzby]

Unfortunately, the letter above is meaningless without information on what the original query is, as an explanation without this means nothing.

 

As to the ear;er cpmment about it being a 'ridiculous law' - this beg the question, remove the law and then what?

 

The only solution would be, if not a tax, then programming funded by advertising. This would mean that the BBC would require to provide programmes with advert breaks within.

 

Now, with the World Cup Final coming up, and being carried by BOTH BBC and ITV, who do you think will have the higher viewing figures, and why?

 

It's a no brainer - stick with a provider that will deliver what is promised, a footie match. Someone providing parts of a footie match indispersed with adverts is not going to be popular (irrespective of whether they miss any goals in the process). Then there's the fact that if advertisers spread their budgets between a new range of channels (BBC1-4), ITV and the rest will see a drop in revenues, putting them back on a precarious road.

 

By all means, iron out the nonsense of 'installing' and 'viewing' meaning the same thing in law, but this problem is only the tip of the iceberg.

[loopinlouie]

I got my license issued in the name of my dog to prevent harassing letters or at least let me have a laugh if anyone knocked asking for her, also the postie is very pooch aware and would have a titter when noticing our doggy received mail. Guess what the surname arrived on the plan was wrong and totally unrelated to our household. Pointed out I would use the card to pay the first installment over the phone as the account numbers were apparantly going to stay the same and they would reissue the card which would take two weeks.

 

The first date payment due was to be received by 23/-6 (their choice of dates and to the sum of just below six pounds) I rang over a week ago and they tried to take just under twelve pounds.

 

I questioned why double and they tried to argue I should pay more even though not yet due under the new plan. So I say again, a lot of this is down to the collecting agents also being a debt collectors company IQOR. You offer a dca 1.00 they ask for 100.00 obvilously they cant get away with that under the tvl scheme printing ammounts and dates required to their own specifications, so they try for double instead;)

 

In the end even though taking the payment they said I was not to watch tv for at least two weeks even though plan said as long as adhere to I am now owner or dog is:p of a valid license.

 

Called bank and found out they got the payment two days later, so as far as I am concerned they can bog off or deal with the real license holder next time, wuff wuff xxxxxxxx

[loopinlouie]

Just to add my greivance started with them when I made a payment in advance and the operative asked as I only had one payment left due the following fortnight would I pay it to save calling again. I thought at the time it made sence. Was told the next years plan would arrive a few weeks later and reassured the first payment would be due one month later to take into account I had paid off the early payment, their words.

 

Payment plan arrived you guessed it, with first payment due the same date had paid for. Rang to say you need to reset the plan as not fair and on benefits to be layed into by them and felt disgusted.

 

Decided then not to replace damaged telly but later relented due to kids.

 

Have to say the weeks not used was peaceful xx

 

I reapect that if watch need license wether I want to pay or not, but resent the implication that because I was insisting politely they reschedule the payments that the fact I was on benefits didnt matter to them and I needed to pay. What got me was the staff actually told me they are told to encourage people to pay off the plans early and the plans then run on, unfair and rude.

 

Rant over. I am legal but despise the gets in the offices, they all deserve us communicating with respect, but when dca themselves they need to realise unless a person is in arrears a household deservers respect when questioning why they are trying to screw them over xxxx

 

Ah feel better now xx

[Guest jsa12]

this site offers excellent advice dealing with this crowd.

 

Letters from BBC Television Licensing/intro

[loopinlouie]

Very informative site and interesting. After reading it, own goal to bbc:D

[loopinlouie]

I am laughing away at the incompetance of these people. They again today sent me the new altered card due to otheone having wrong surname of my pooch, guess what, wrong again:) They are going to have to send another one out and as he said hope for the best. Maybe pooch will get hrh on the next one?xx

[hightail]

I've had my latest threatogram today - always come on a Saturday. I do watch TV, am fully paid up, have been for many years. Think there may have been one year I was about 3 days late in renewing. I now consider them an absoloute joke and wonder why I've bothered staying legal all these years. I'm obviously going to be hounded whether I pay or not.

[buzby]

I don't mind paying, I stil think it good value (despite me actually using radio considerably more, and it supposedly 'free' of any charge).

 

Like you, there was a glitch on their system and I started getting the letters, this was despite me having a full licence without a break for some 4 years at my address. The letters came monthly, always arriving in time for the weekend, which I of course ignored. I must have had at least 30 of them, then 'an inspector called', who asked to see my licence.

 

Keeping him at the door, I retrieved the licence and showed it to him - and he said that the reason I was being pursued, was because the address on my licence 'didn't cover' my address. I explained that as as the application form required my 'full postal address', that is what he was provided with. You see, for 20 plus years, I have a Royal Mail PO Box (as a large user) and even have my very own exclusive postcode. My mail is delivered by van, so IS my postal address. I suggested if what they meant was my 'physical address' then their documentation was in error.

 

Regardless, I had a licence and was viewing legally. Like a dog with a bone he kept saying my address was unlicewnced. Me countering that he should prosecute my address, as I had already exhibited my licence and my obligation had been discharged.

 

He wasn't a happy bunny, but I never heard from them again.

[Guest jsa12]

what all this shows its not easy just to walk away,the think that if someone who owns a television must pay this is not true,you pay if its watched broadcast live.

 

i have had many letters form tvl/capita nine with "action required immediately" this is not true and none is required,they use terms such as "enforcement" and "division" to create an impression of control this is misleading also. sending "enforcement officers to take your statement " is another attempt to mislead,what they are not mentioning is they are relying on you to cave in and submit to signing an incriminating form designed to do just that and in doing so leave yourself open to a potential court case,the people who we read have been prosecuted have done it to themselves,known as self incrimination.

 

totally ignore them shut the door never let them in they have right of entry,they don't like to be filmed or asked for immediate legal representation at their expense now,they will walk away.

 

i have not had a license for three years',the first six months were just letters then they became more desperate six moths of visits and cards through the door as they tried to recover that lost money after that its generally a six moth visit and monthly letters.

 

these are nasty people that have lied to obtain a conviction by falsely filling out self conviction forms known as perverting the course of justice and have turned aggressive in the past in some cases,the bbc ought to be ashamed.

 

 

the best section of this is at the end and needs to be watched through.

 

 

 

again best advice just shut the door don't talk to them,if they want to shout and scream outside let them there's nothing they can do.

[buzby]

again best advice just shut the door don't talk to them,if they want to shout and scream outside let them there's nothing they can do.

 

Not it isn't - it's one way, but it certainly isn't 'best advice'. The law is clear, if you have a TV instsalled then you are liable for court action, and your mitigation if you don't watch it. The judge then rules on probability. This 'watching live TV' is meant to make it easier to understand, but opens up a bigger can of worms.

 

If you have a TV that can be used, then you're at risk. If you don't, you aren't - and no mitigation is required. Whatever you view of the enforcement staff from Capita, they do the job they do. The trouble is, those who make the song and dance in all probability DO having a working TV, and in all likelyhood, use it to watch live broadcasts and have a PVR - all of which makes them liable in law. That has not changed. So why should they not be pursued?

[Guest jsa12]

capita/tvl have no more legal powers the the man on the street they are a private company,they will try and question you under the police and criminal evidence act known as pace if anyone is naive to talk to them however it holds as much legal weight as if anyone had read it they have no powers of arrest,hence requesting legal advice at their expense now.

 

that's just their problem, they portray powers but are completely legally impotent without your self incrimination,its also the bbc's arrogant belief that every household should hold a license regardless,an offense takes place if a set is tuned to a broadcast and that broadcast is watched live,a licence is not required to simply own a set for any other purpose games console dvd exe.

 

they will if you have not shut the door to try to lie/deceive/con their way in again they have no legal powers' of entry.

 

just shut the door say nothing thats the most important,they can apply to a magistrates court for a warrant,that very highly unlikely as this costs them money and are under pressure to bully and intimidate as their preferred method.

 

just ignore them,ignore their letters they are baseless legally with no obligation to contact, it costs them time and money chasing people,once seen what legal powers they have "none" the psychological threat disappears'.

 

just leave them stand in the street and act the fools' they are.

Edited June 20, 2010 by jsa12

[buzby]

They don't need 'legal powers' if you mean entry without warrant. If required they get them, and it is not ordinarily refused. Similarly, for prosecutions, it is the CPS/PF that prosecute (not Capita, who simply provide the evidentiary basis for prosecution. If the CPS/PF don't like what they see, it doesn't go to court.

 

Actually, they DO have more powers, as they can refer cases directly TO those agencies for prosecution, which the 'man in trhe street' cannot do.

[Guest jsa12]

how many warrants have they applied for?,its all a smokescreen to make you believe in something that is fabricated,capita are under pressure to provide results and sales from the bbc not to fund warrants'.

 

without your help its all legally baseless.say nothing/sign nothing/door closed.

[buzby]

Why not ask them? I can say for the prosecutions I have followed in my local court there were around 40pa, since 2006 I've only been aware of 6 (that's in total, not per year). This is far more useful figure than 'the number of Warrants' issued. I don;t believe the BBC Trust has provided figures on the UK number of prosecutions initiated, which is a shame.

 

But the issue still remains, if you have a TV installed, you need a licence - irrespective of who 'watches' it. Like Council parking tickets, it is the driver that gets the ticket, but ultrimately it is the RK who is made to pay if they don't.

[nigel_bytes]

if you have a TV installed, you need a licence - irrespective of who 'watches' it. Like Council parking tickets, it is the driver that gets the ticket, but ultrimately it is the RK who is made to pay if they don't.

The key word being "Installed" watching live TV requires a signal (live TV broadcast)

TVL work on commission its in their interest to find a "signal" without that they are stuffed.

[buzby]

Installed is not defined, I've seen judged accept that it's very presence in a room at the premises equals installation. Similarly, AT vith with a plug cut off (presumably in the moments before the inspector rang the bell) ditto. The inspector testified the set was 'warm'. Strangely in that case there was no counter argument that no live broadcast was being watched, simply that on licence existed.

 

As for them working on commission - you seem to believe this somehow invalidates their right to operate? Surely the real issue is if you need a TV licence, you get one or don't have a TV? (Until they change the requirements). The system is not one where mugs pay, and anyone that doesn't want to only has not to answer their door.

[nigel_bytes]

TVL make it very clear as to when a licence is required.

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder

TV Licensing - Check if you need a TV Licence

[buzby]

Sorry, at the expense of stating the bleedin' obvious. What TVL say they want is simply their interpretation, you can safely ignore it. You need to be guided by the enabling legislation (the Communications Act) as it is THIS that is used in the pursuit of those who break the law.

 

What the BBC Trust/TVL requires is an aspiration, nothing more.

[nigel_bytes]

From the House of Commons library,

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-01148.pdf

A TV Licensing spokesperson said:

 

“The licensing requirement is not for ownership of a device, but for the installation and

use of the TV receiving equipment.

 

“If you only ever use television receiving equipment to watch pre-recorded DVDs or

videos, or your TV receiving equipment cannot receive programmes as they are

being broadcast in the UK, then you do not need a licence.

 

“Those who wish to make it clear that they do not need a licence can take the

following actions to detune their television set, but this is not compulsory:-

 

• remove the television from the aerial;

• cover the aerial socket so that it can't be used;

• ensure that when channels on the television are selected no television signal

is received.”

[Guest jsa12]

they will seek to distort this,as is the advice never let them in or communicate with them.most people these days have access to some sort of recording equipment mobile phone exe this is why they don't like being filmed,they state health and safety and will either be in the car or half way down the road more likely they don't want their activities' recorded.

 

they operate with all the dignity of a protection racket,they damaged the bbc through their conduct the bbc refuses to criticise them and are therefore part of this.they harass people they have no business with silly mail and personal visits' they have threatened to have people arrested before by not letting them in again more lies from powerless individuals' whose only methods are to pester.

 

BBCresistance.com | Home > The web

[buzby]

From the House of Commons library,

http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snha-01148.pdf

A TV Licensing spokesperson said:

 

Is utterly, totally and completely irrelevant. Which bit of that don't you appreciate? This is a CRIMINAL action, and the Law (as enacted) the prime directive. Not what 'a TVL spokesman' says.

[huski]

As to the ear;er cpmment about it being a 'ridiculous law' - this beg the question, remove the law and then what?

Nothing, we all live in peaceful coexistence.

 

The only solution would be, if not a tax, then programming funded by advertising. This would mean that the BBC would require to provide programmes with advert breaks within.

As for me they all can get evening part-time jobs in fast food and keep the company running through donations. CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg, Euronews are all private business and provide wide range of their content for free and even somehow bring substantial profits to their shareholders.

[huski]

“Those who wish to make it clear that they do not need a licence can take the following actions to detune their television set, but this is not compulsory (...)

Almost like in North Korea, they also have "detuned" TV that can get only 1 official run by government TV channel.

[buzby]

Nothing, we all live in peaceful coexistence.

 

 

As for me they all can get evening part-time jobs in fast food and keep the company running through donations. CNN, CNBC, Bloomberg, Euronews are all private business and provide wide range of their content for free and even somehow bring substantial profits to their shareholders.

 

You mean like US Public Broadcasting, that shows old (5+ years) programming after the primarly syndication rights have expired? You then get 12 minutes in each hour with telethon-type exhortations to pay the station, so they can keep on broadcasting?

 

No thanks!