Tv License Visit

[Mark my words]

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?

[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.

[Mark my words]

What is this loop hole then I need to know:lol:

 

I don't think there is a "loop hole", as such.

 

If you have no need of a TV licence, you can ban TVL from your premises. This is known as "WOIRA" - withdrawal of the implied right of access. It's the most basic form of a set of common law rights that you have over your own home. For various reasons, it's not favoured by many TVL opponents. But there are variants - such as banning only Capita, which don't have quite the same issues.

[Mark my words]

A right is a right. I don't agree with people breaking the law, but at the same time, the law grants them particular rights, that have not been over-ridden in legislation, and therefore still apply.

 

The BBC (if it thinks it appropriate) should seek to have the law changed. The resulting public debate should throw the spotlight on its present dubious activities very nicely.

 

BTW, I don't see this as a "loophole" because it was clearly intended by legislators that it should be this way. It's only the BBC and its supporters who seem to question that.

[Mark my words]

If there were no genuine tv licensing evaders out there and everyone who needed a license paid for one, I'm sure there would be no capita chasing unpaid tvl fees.

I'm not sure that it is in the interests of Capita and the BBC to catch all the evaders. This is a valuable contract for Capita, so why jeopardise it by being too efficient?

 

People who don't need a licence wouldn't have any bothering visits and everything would be great. But we don't live in an ideal world. I'm sure everyone who gets stopped at customs isn't a drug smuggler, but because drug smugglers exist they have to do the job.

It's a natural to confuse these things, but one's home really is protected under both historic and modern rights, whereas when you step across the borders of the country or onto a plane, airport, port, etc., you are subject to many special provisions designed to protect the country and its revenues.

 

If you ask me, outsourcing to capita isn't the best idea when capita give their own employees targets to meet rather than catching genuine tvl evaders. It's too much about targets and profits for them.

I agree.

 

If the money raised from license fee is really in the public interest, the BBC should take it back in house and look to change to the law on what methods they can and can't use to catch evaders. So long as its done and administered correctly, it has to be more successful than the current methods.

So why does the BBC not do this? Could it be that they don't want the public to know that TVL is the BBC? Could it be that they know they wouldn't be more efficient? Could it be that they can't rely on this/any Government to grant more powers, or that there is a real risk that greater powers would be ruled disproportionate to the offence?

[Mark my words]

Maybe not. But it really doesn't matter because the vast majority of defendants are convicted on the basis of their own confessions. TVL doesn't generally seek or capture physical evidence of evasion because it doesn't need to.

 

I would highly recommend that anyone who is interested in this issue spends an hour sitting in on one of the TVL sessions at their local court. It is a real eye-opener - British justice at its finest.

[Mark my words]

The required delay has not been tested in Court. I believe that TVL advise 2 hours.

 

This is going to become important if broadcasters continue to release material for download before broadcast.

[Mark my words]

I was discussing the concept and indeed the reality of people having equipment to delay what they receive. Yes, it may be "live" as its being broadcast, but its not live on your tv. It's reaching it a few minutes later.

 

How are they being delayed - if it is some kind of recording, you sill need a licence.

[Mark my words]

It's not like somebody has just made up this rule and applied it and tried telling everyone it is right.

The BBC has done exactly that - the legislation makes no mention of inspectors or letters or any of the main process of TV Licence enforcement. That's all been created by someone (probably the GPO as was) and is now the property of the BBC.

 

If you are proved to be in breach of the law on this matter, do you not end up in court and get fined or imprisoned if you are found to be guilty?

Law enforcement does not give the Law enforcer complete freedom to do whatever they want. We have laws that apply to them, too.

[Mark my words]

Because the government that governs my country has said it is law that if I watch live tv (regardless of what I watch) I need a tv license...

 

I think the problem is that you are looking at this one requirement in isolation. We also have laws against Harassment - yet TVL harasses people, we have laws against Malicious Communications - yet TVL sends millions of such items a month, we have laws requiring fair trials - yet in most TVL trials the defendants stand no chance because the BBC's resources are so vastly bigger than theirs.

 

More seriously, these points have been put to Government (both this one and the previous one) who have confused these law enforcement issues with BBC independence (quite how they can do that is beyond me) - but what that means is that the normal process of democratic protest is unavailable. The battle for the truth therefore takes place in forums like this.