Tv License Visit

[huttonwhitewash]

It's worth remembering that CAG is about "standing up to consumer bullies or dealing with other consumer rights". As such, the advice to just do what you are told by an organisation that lacks any real authority isn't really what would be expected here.

 

And this is the issue: TVL are bullies. They send out millions of threatening letters every month, they run an extensive "home visit" programme, again with millions of attempted contacts every month, and their process is not (unlike the Police, DVLA etc.) written into legislation - and can be ignored, if you choose.

 

The "bad and dangerous" bit comes in with the alarming frequency with which TVL embark upon false prosecutions. The best way to avoid being falsely prosecuted is not to speak to them - and since there is no legal requirement to speak with them at all, that's all good, surely? And of course, letting them in once is not the end of it, anyway. Assuming that the "visit" goes well, you can expect them and their letters back again 2 years later, or sooner (because their administration is not all it should be).

 

Going back to the purpose of the forum, the way to beat these bullies is simply to know your rights and exercise them. I'm not sure I understand why anyone would consider doing anything else - what possible purpose would it serve?

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php?topic=4850.5;

 

You have hit the nail on the head there - The "Mikw" (I spoke to them & solved it in 5 mins) story, is old an & worn out Digital spy quote from another BBC spokesman, but this is how they try to get you on their TVL Phishing hook - Live long & stay in the River, is the best Policy by far.

Edited March 23, 2013 by huttonwhitewash

[porkyp1g]

I've PMed a few on this thread as I really don't want to be arguing on here and derailing the thread potentially. This thread still serves to help the OP, and I think they have enough info to decide what they want to do.

[Mark my words]

It might give them the peace that they seek and end to the matter, if they are genuine cases.

It won't - we already know that.

 

I see my view on this is similar to late MARTIN3030 who ran the site. His words were, "But its not a responsible course of action to be suggesting members ignore correspondence or visits, given that we know should it be escalated,the consequences can be inconvenient and stress for many. These are not things that the site would agree with nor suggest."

And I would agree, IF that correspondence is sent in good faith, and is legally compliant. I have reason to believe otherwise.

 

Despite their poor admin skills, the enforcement department don't always continue to hound you after you've satisfied their inquiries. My friend that I referred to before, showed them his setup. Showed them that he only watched DVDs and also only used his TV as a monitor for his games consoles. They were happy, he never got another visit after that, only a letter every few years confirming the situation was still the same. They haven't sent anyone back to check he isn't lying because of his previous co-operation I assume. He's happy with the peace and quiet, and even though he didn't legally have to, is happy that he did let them in.

I don't have any issue with anyone making an informed decision about this. But let them do so in full knowledge of all the facts.

 

Listen, the OP has two pieces of advice and can choose to do what they wish. I'm sure they realise that they don't legally have to answer any questions, but if they do it could mean the peace that they seek. It's really up to them.

It cannot lead to permanent "peace". It is not possible within the BBC's policy.

 

The broader point, of course, is that we do not have house-to-house enforcement (at least not in any other area of law). That's because being free from the arbitrary scrutiny of the State is an important part of our freedoms. So, although I am happy for individuals to make an informed decision on this, I do think that they are letting the side down, if they agree to the visit.

 

If I choose to live legally without a TV licence, that is my prerogative. And I don't see the BBC/TVL as having any legal or moral right to challenge that in any way.

[snowy101]

In one of my posts i have raised concerns the this Porkyp1g is a troll from either the BBC or one of its outsourced company`s. Having read his defence of Curry`s [ strong Capita connections ] & his continued defence of the TVL methods & his misleading & dangerous advice, i suggest the Moderators look at this more closely, i am more than willing to let them see the PM sent to me from this person. This person has an agenda & is IMHO an internet troll on behalf of the BBC or its other company`s.

 

No one condones licence avoidance if one is required, if one is not legally required then the methods I & others have outlined are legal & will put a stop to the mentality that you must be guilty if you don`t wish to communicate with TVL / Capita / BBC.

[porkyp1g]

In one of my posts i have raised concerns the this Porkyp1g is a troll from either the BBC or one of its outsourced company`s. Having read his defence of Curry`s [ strong Capita connections ] & his continued defence of the TVL methods & his misleading & dangerous advice, i suggest the Moderators look at this more closely, i am more than willing to let them see the PM sent to me from this person. This person has an agenda & is IMHO an internet troll on behalf of the BBC or its other company`s.

 

No one condones licence avoidance if one is required, if one is not legally required then the methods I & others have outlined are legal & will put a stop to the mentality that you must be guilty if you don`t wish to communicate with TVL / Capita / BBC.

 

I don't work for TVL/Capita or the BBC. Stop being so paranoid. You are taking the thread off topic. I'm merely posting as a law abiding citizen, as I've PMed you to try and keep this thread clean. I do want to see people who break the law punished sure, if I pay, so should everyone who needs a licence.

 

Anyway, back to topic and I shall now bow out of the thread so it can serve it's purpose. If anyone would like to correspond with me, do so via PM.

[snowy101]

I don't work for TVL/Capita or the BBC. Stop being so paranoid. You are taking the thread off topic. I'm merely posting as a law abiding citizen, as I've PMed you to try and keep this thread clean. I do want to see people who break the law punished sure, if I pay, so should everyone who needs a licence.

 

Anyway, back to topic and I shall now bow out of the thread so it can serve it's purpose. If anyone would like to correspond with me, do so via PM.

 

Of course you don`t , then i`m sure you won`t mind me going through your personal effects & searching your house to prove your innocence , will you!. Paranoid ! , another well worn tactic if someone smells a rat. I can just spot a troll who doesn`t have the sense to even use a different user name from another well known site he was posting on. Lets leave it to the moderators shall we.

[Bazooka Boo]

Ha ha ha, porkyp1g would you direct me to the 'Law' that states we need to purchase a TV licence, I can't find it anywhere, and the BBC doesn't know either, nor do the goons who attempt to get me to contract with them, it is as illusive as this years spring.

[huttonwhitewash]

Ha ha ha, porkyp1g would you direct me to the 'Law' that states we need to purchase a TV licence, I can't find it anywhere, and the BBC doesn't know either, nor do the goons who attempt to get me to contract with them, it is as illusive as this years spring.

 

That is because it is an from "ACT" of parliment:wink: Yes, it is thanks to the Snow, that this troll has been uncovered!

[huttonwhitewash]

deleted

[huttonwhitewash]

I don't work for TVL/Capita or the BBC. Stop being so paranoid. You are taking the thread off topic. I'm merely posting as a law abiding citizen, as I've PMed you to try and keep this thread clean. I do want to see people who break the law punished sure, if I pay, so should everyone who needs a licence.

 

Anyway, back to topic and I shall now bow out of the thread so it can serve it's purpose. If anyone would like to correspond with me, do so via PM.

Or link to:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check/viewtopiccontent.aspx?id=TOP12&iqdocumentid=TOP12&WT.mc_id=r001 It's all the same:lol:

[renegadeimp]

Or link to:

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check/viewtopiccontent.aspx?id=TOP12&iqdocumentid=TOP12&WT.mc_id=r001 It's all the same:lol:

 

Pity that link doesnt tell you can can withdraw their implied right to visit you, so there is 100% no comeback on you at all.

[huttonwhitewash]

Pity that link doesnt tell you can can withdraw their implied right to visit you, so there is 100% no comeback on you at all.

 

True, but but there has been evidence that withdrawal can lead to a search warrent - Capita thinking, "He has something to hide" but the choice is always yours.

[renegadeimp]

They cant get a search warrant unless they have proof beyond doubt or reasonable suspicion. Simply revoking their right doesnt give anywhere near enough suspicion. I've done it for almost 12 years now.

[snowy101]

Brilliant:lol:, just had Porky threaten me via PM. He is going to report me for having suspicions that he is a TVL troll & in his words "going off topic".

It just gets better on a cold Saturday,when one is not watching live broadcasts.

[huttonwhitewash]

Brilliant:lol:, just had Porky threaten me via PM. He is going to report me for having suspicions that he is a TVL troll & in his words "going off topic".

It just gets better on a cold Saturday,when one is not watching live broadcasts.

 

Typical of the DS trolls, They are never wrong - even when proved wrong.

[matt v atos]

I hate titles used by a private company's like TVL. {TV license inspectors}, {The enforcement officers}, {The enforcement team} {The official representative} {The authorities} all words used by one poster:wink:

[Bedsit Bob]

If you have a device within your premises that can receive TV reception, then you will need a TV licence

 

Incorrect.

 

A simple answer will be to deactivate the tuner and use the TV as a monitor or play back device

 

Deactivation is not required.

[Bedsit Bob]

Why hide this from TV license inspectors if this really is the case?

 

Because I value my privacy, and don't want some stranger poking about my home.

[Bedsit Bob]

Are you advocating the fact people watch or record live TV, don't pay but are allowed to keep the inspectors away?

 

It's not a matter of advocating something.

 

It's a matter of it being legal to decline entry.

[Bedsit Bob]

Maybe he's just stating his own opinion.

 

He's not just stating his own opinion.

 

He's giving incorrect statements about the law.

Edited March 23, 2013 by Bedsit Bob

[Bedsit Bob]

Also, up until very recently the " investigators" who have no more legal power than a paper boy, were not CRB checked . Not sure if that is still the case. Be interesting to find out.

 

"Enforcement Officers" hired before 2006 (and all "Sales Officers") haven't been CRB checked.

[Bedsit Bob]

Even if you don't legally have to, it will stop the visits won't it?

 

Do I care if the visits stop?

 

Answer: No I don't.

 

it doesn't get the job done ie stopping the visits, phone calls etc.

 

As above, I don't care of they keep visiting, and I've never had a phone call from them.

 

they will still want to try and find evidence the person isn't just blanking them because they are breaking the law.

 

What they want is irrelevant. It's what they're entitled to (which is nothing) that matters.

 

The only way my advice is bad or dangerous, is because you could potentially give them incriminating evidence. The only way this could be the case is if the person is watching live tv or recording it and not paying for licence.

 

Tell that to M Shakey.

[snowy101]

Bob, you have been busy:-D.Bang on as usual though. I bet a particular poster would love your video,he might even know the fella:lol:

[porkyp1g]

Careful, if your tin foil hats all meet together you could make an aerial. More evidence for the tv licensing people to do you with. Where's the video, i'll have a look to see if he's one of my chums. Might not be in my department though, we are very widespread....

[snowy101]

Careful, if your tin foil hats all meet together you could make an aerial. More evidence for the tv licensing people to do you with. Where's the video, i'll have a look to see if he's one of my chums. Might not be in my department though, we are very widespread....

 

You were rumbled very early on, by me:-). Now you have nowhere to go, even lame attempts at humour / sarcasm will not dig you out of this one. People are seeing the BBC for what they really are , a politically & morally bankrupt bloated dinosaur. Harbouring paedophiles & fiddling phone quiz results, paying obscene monies for very little return, expenses being fiddled ........... oh the list goes on. The tide is turning on your organisation & as if any proof were needed, you & your kind , pop up to dis inform & try to muddy the waters. You have every right to be scared, the truth is out on your employers.