TV license enforcement visit

[andydd]

Which wouldn't work either as not all IPs are static.

 

True..but (in theory) ISP's hold all the IP address that have been used and who there were (or still are allocated to).

[buzby]

Not even in Theory - I gather they must retain the IP record of allocations for 4 years, under laws enacted by LAbour during their last term in Government.

[andydd]

It's missing the point...

 

when the music industry see people downloading files they can log an IP address. they can easily link this back to an ISP.

 

they then have the chance of just asking the ISP for the attached user details or going to court to force the ISP to give the attached user details.

 

it's illegal to download music, (unless it's from a on-line store), so the fact that the industry has your IP address logged downloading a file is proof that a crime has been committed.

 

 

?

 

 

I mostly agree with you with the exception of the above, an IP address isn't definative proof that a downloading 'crime' has been commited, firstly IP addresses maybe shared with many users in a home, perhaps many hundreds or thousands in a pub or office, they identify a location not a specific user, IP addresses used on torrent sites are commonly spoofed, proxies could be used to hide the actual user, plus wifi connections can be hacked (especially if left unsecured), there is also the possiblity of a mistake being made (perhaps just a single digit) along the process.

 

I still very much doubt whether the BBC would venture down the route of tracking down users who watch 'live tv' online, in fact I can see the licence fee being abolished before it happens.

 

Andy

[nigel_bytes]

Not even in Theory - I gather they must retain the IP record of allocations for 4 years, under laws enacted by LAbour during their last term in Government.

 

The plan for internet service providers and phone companies to hold records of all the web, email and phone communications of UK citizens will be shelved – some £2 billion of public money had been allocated for this. Clegg said: “We won’t hold your internet and email records when there is just no reason to do so”.

 

Clegg: £7bn worth of 'outrageous? databases will be scrapped - Public sector organisations - ComputerworldUK

[buzby]

I can't see how it can be 'shelved' as it is already in operation (like the ID card scheme). It would require Parliament to create enabling legistlation to permit the cessation of the new laws already being enforced.

 

'Shelving' makes it sound like it is simply disregarded. and the ISPs will be royally hacked off having to purchase storage capable of holding all this data. There will be compensation clims without doubt.

[reorete]

has anyone had any fun with the tv license man ? i just cant help myself but i love winding them up hahahah. was putting rubbish out the other day when i spotted what looked like a weasel faced tv license man coming in my street. he had tv license weasel wrote all over him. anyways he knocked on my door and when i answered started writing his form out then arogantley looked at me and said and im talking to whome? i replied excuse me but youve knocked on my door so who am i talking too. he flashed his badge like he was the lapd hahahah. i said hang on a minuit and closed the door... 15 minuits later the penny dropped an he realised i wasnt returning pmsl.. he then started shoutin through the letterbox he was callin the police an havin me in court.. so i opend the door an said i havnt even told you my name so when you call the cops who you gonna say you callin em on? then slammed door shut after tellin him to **** off... i dont know why i get a thrill out of winding tv license men up.. any of you got any funny tales id like to hear em hahahahahahah

[buzby]

And HAD you a licence?

[reorete]

no i dont believe in em

[buzby]

Just as well they don't take 'no' for an answer.

[reorete]

i think the bbc should make having a license voluntary so only the people who can afford one would buy one and then bbc can make it more expensive and the rich can pay my share xxxx rofl

[reorete]

the bbc should make buying a license voluntary. then up the fee so the rich can pay my share lol xxx

[reorete]

ohhhh an echo lol

[buzby]

Well, until that happy day arrives, you're a criminal as far as the law stands. I pay it becasue I have to, not because I want to. Are there ant 'rich' people prepared to take the strain? I doubt it - it's all the single parent families that get caught...

[maroondevo52]

One of my neighbours came to my door a few years ago, thinking he was round for a visit I let him in, turns out he's got a new job with the TV license folk and wanted to know where mines was

[phoenix11]

I'm one of those who does not need a tv license because I simply don't have a tv or anything else to watch live (or even dead) programmes with.

 

I have had years of distress and bullying by the so called TVL "Authority".

 

This forum saved my sanity:

 

TV LICENCE RESISTANCE - Index

 

There are still some on there who seem to enjoy the 'thrill' of playing hide and seek to avoid the licence fee out of principal, which personally I don't believe is very helpful, but there's a whole load of help about what may be best to do if you really do not require a license under law.

 

The BBC did have a survey a year or so ago about the licence fee and what it could do better - maybe they've taken on board some of the comments about Capita and their harassment and scare tactics.

 

 

I don't know what the answer is about funding the BBC or collecting the licence fee.

 

It's worth finding out the current situation with regards to how many millions Capita make per year from just collecting the fee.

 

It's also worth noting that whilst it may be easy to enter the information on their website, Capita have a horrendous number of sticky fingers in way too many pies and they're another organisation that has grown too big to control by any real authority.

 

They are unregulated and unchecked.

[Conniff]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YnvJwZpV_Q

[nowon]

Firstly, many thanks to all such as Buzby for the provision of invaluable info & insight you are providing to the ignorant masses, of which I am certainly one. Let me ask a Q. of you re the power/scope of the law and its realistic application by the TVL (and by association the CPS & police) in eg: securing a search warrant for a property or/and securing a court case, etc, of a potential TV licence evader in the following scenario..... The TVL is seeking response re a lack of a licence for a potentially valid & existant property. However, only the most basic licencing query/information letters are ever occasionally posted it it over a dozen or more years, addressed merely to the "Legal Occupier". During this time period the residence is listed in the phone book, and there is also a resident listing in the public electoral roll. An item of TV equipment is then bought online and subsequently delivered to that card billing address. Letters of increasing vigour (addressed in the cardholders name) soon begin arriving more frequently (but which gain no reply). This continues for a year or two. During which time the phone directory & electoral roll entries are delisted, and the phone number terminated. Letters, (returning to the "Legal Occupant" designation) proclaim unannounced visits by inspectors, enforcement division attention, a designated case number, etc. The residence, located several floors up from ground level, means no monitoring or inspection would be possible without controlled & consented entry via intercom/buzzer. Any such visits or phone calls during the preceding periods have never gained reply/response. (So the property could very well be vacant). After another two or three years of such, a letter ultimately states: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dear Sir/Madam, You have not responded to our previous letters. We want to ensure you have the information you may need before a hearing is set at your local court. Please read the information below carefully and keep it for your records. You will be allowed to take it into court with you. Yours -------- --------- Blah Blah Enforcement Division What to expect in court Blah, blah. *Evidence collected during an enforcement visit to your property is used by the court to decide the penalty for TV Licence evasion. Etc, etc. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What, if any data concerning whether the residence in question is even/generally occupied (and if so, whether by the same or different occupants, etc) were to remain at such a low to nonexistant level, would be the likelihood of ever securing an enforcement warrant or/and a court hearing/case, etc? Thank you.

Edited June 6, 2011 by nowon

[phoenix11]

Nowon, you might find the other forum which is dedicated to this specific issue more helpful.

 

It is apparently not unheard of for the 'enforcement officers' to supply 'evidence' to a 'sympathetic' magistrate in order for a search warrant to be obtained. A challenge was issued some time back to attempt to force the Courts to show what evidence had been used for such a situation, but it failed - ie the 'evidence' presented to the magistrate for a search warrant can never be verified by the victim and so no proceedings can be taken against anyone who may have fabricated evidence to gain an unlawful search warrant.

 

So, the 'enforcement officers' have to have clear evidence that equipment is being used at the premises for the purpose of receiving live broadcasts. Without that evidence they do risk having the book thrown at them.

 

The issue then turns around what evidence they allege to have. If there has been no search warrant (which I understand - but am open to correction - has to take place with the police present and does not permit them to roam freely all over the home), then they have to rely on a bunch of other stuff. This could include 'confessional' documentation and again, it has been shown that these 'enforcement officers' are not above forging the information on such documents.

 

As they have your name from previous information, it gives the potential dishonest employee a starting point.

 

However, all this is conjecture and the members of the other forum would be able to give you some more help on what your rights are and how it may be best to deal with this. It could, for example, simply be just another of their very unethical, scare-tactic letters.

 

All I will add is that personally speaking, for years I defended the principal of the TV License and did not want to see the BBC being phased out and becoming another commercially run company. I am now not at all supportive in the main because of their behaviour towards those of us who are genuine, law-abiding people who do not need a licence.

 

I love listening to the radio and would miss that if it ever went.

 

But as long as there is the the need for a TV licence as governed by law, I do not condone those who refuse to pay it but still use their TV, not in the least because it gives those eejits the excuse to persecute the rest of us.

 

So, if you have a TV at that address, please do the decent thing and get the licence. If you don't have a TV, then get more advice from as many knowledgeable folk as possible as to what your rights are.

[seen this before]

TVL (and by association the CPS & police)

 

unlike the police tvl have no legal powers of arrest,the police and criminal evidence act can be recited by anyone but as equal to tvl have no legal powers to do anything,they are not the police.

 

in the public electoral roll

 

which you can and should elect not to be in.

 

do not take any notice of the "before a hearing is set" it hasn't or wont be unless you co operate with them,another recent is "the final stages of our investigation" another false statement.

[Consumer dude]

Had another vist and the guy said he had been sent to ask my name and I politely stated (or words to this effect) that I have no desire to do that. I do not have a tv and no information was going to be given. I have been under so many investigations that never come to anything, its really so boring..

[perplexity]

So, the 'enforcement officers' have to have clear evidence that equipment is being used at the premises for the purpose of receiving live broadcasts. Without that evidence they do risk having the book thrown at them.

 

Really?

 

According to Section 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949: "No person shall establish or use any station for wireless telegraphy or instal or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under the authority of a licence in that behalf ..." etcetera. (my bold)

 

----

 

unlike the police tvl have no legal powers of arrest,the police and criminal evidence act can be recited by anyone but as equal to tvl have no legal powers to do anything,they are not the police.

 

Really?

 

Conspiracy to defraud is an indictable office, so to charge you with that an arrest could be made by anybody, because of Section 24A of Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005.

 

[NewYorkOwls]

I had so much trouble with TV Licensing-moved house and registered the licence with the house name.Then I started getting licence demands with the house number on.Rang to tell them to add the number-which they did,but then removed the name.They couldn't seem to get the fact that one property could have a number and a name.

Then when I didn't have a TV for a while,they attempted to tell me that since I had a computer,I needed a licence because it was possible to play TV programs on it,regardless of whether or not I actually used it for that.

Their latest attempt was a letter telling me since I had no licence,they would be turning up at the house,interviewing me under caution,all sorts of threats etc.etc. Would have taken more notice if it hadn't had in big black letters at the top corner the number of my licence-the one I apparently didn't have!

[seen this before]

i have thirty three of these letters all the same thing "immediate action required" a dubious looking character was outside running the doorbell battery down last week just left him out there.how they are allowed to blatantly mislead in print and bombard people with junk mail is a sad reflection of laws that prohibit such activity and their enforcement.

 

just ignore them don't communicate whatsoever and never let them in,its your money why pay a protection racket of pay us and we'll leave you alone.

[perplexity]

...just left him out there.how they are allowed to blatantly mislead in print and bombard people with junk mail is a sad reflection of laws that prohibit such activity and their enforcement.

 

 

To the contrary., if you reckon that what they do is illegitimate but all you do is sit there and take no notice, except to turn up here to brag about it, as if to expect to impress, that is a reflection of you.

 

All you've done for as I am concerned is to warn of me of the sort of deliberately idle, ignorant, ineffective, insignificant idiot you are.

 

[skelosia]

Wow! A lot of information here. And it seems, at times, it goes round and round in circles

 

Anyway, I have had a visit from an enforcement officer. I will hold my hands up. I don't have a tv licence. I did a few months back, but fell behind with the payments. When I tried to get on my feet again, they wanted nearly £100 a months....for the arrears and advance. I tried to pay, and I failed.

 

I have recently joined a debt management thing, an dthe subject of the TV licence came up. So when the officer came, I explained I was in the process of arranging it. But I still had to sign a declaration, and he set me up with payment there and then.

 

Will I have to go to court though? I am worried, I don't want to go to court. I am begrudgingly willing to pay. But they don't make it easy for you!