TV License fines....BBC responsible for over 10% of all criminal prosecutions in Magistrates Courts

[Bedsit Bob]

When I last purchased a telly the assistant asked me for my address , does any one know if this is a legal requirement to give it ?

 

Firstly, they no longer ask.

 

Secondly, while they were obliged to ask, you weren't obliged to give it, although they could, of course, refuse the sale if you didn't.

 

The alternative, from your POV, was to give false details.

[Bedsit Bob]

does anyone know how long the debtor is given to purchase a TV Licence

 

They're not given any time to purchase a licence.

 

If they admit to watching without a licence, a "Prosecution Statement" is taken immediately.

 

does anyone know the approx length of time from when the inspector visits to the matter being heard in court?

 

It's usually around 5-6 months.

 

This is because, information must be laid, within 6 months of the date of the alleged offence.

 

Leaving it as long as possible, means the accused is less likely to be able to accurately recall what they said, hence less likely to put up a believable defence, under questioning in the Dock.

[Bedsit Bob]

So am I correct in saying that if they are denied entry to your house, they have no proof of a tv device being used =no proof to show to a magistrate to gain a warrant, meaning they are stuffed either way?

 

A SW application doesn't require PROOF, merely "reasonable grounds to believe".

 

More importantly however, not talking to them means no risk of inadvertently giving information that could be used to fit you up.

 

And before someone says "nobody has ever been fitted up", Capita/TVL employees have been convicted of falsifying evidence.

 

So, don't give your name or other details, and exclude yourself from the edited version of the Electoral Register.

Edited August 29, 2013 by Bedsit Bob

[Bedsit Bob]

A typical case might be heard before the court 4 or 5 months after the ALLEGED commission of the offence.

 

Corrected for you.

[osdset]

A solution to this nonsense? Someone on another forum posted one.

 

Digital TV is encrypted with a 128 bit rotational rolling encryption codec.

Your decoder has a shared key for open channels, hence why you can see them.

The licence could quite easily be your key for subscription.

No licence = no key= No BBC.

 

So no licence inspectors, no courts, you don't pay you don't watch .

Makes sense to me, however I imagine the BBC would object to losing revenue from those that don't subscribe, and no doubt Crapita would lobby vigorously against it.

[Bedsit Bob]

Firstly, if Capita TVL are now responsible for "Licence Enfarcement" then how can they actually sue anybody for not having a TV licence?

 

They don't sue anybody.

 

TV Licence evasion is a criminal offence, hence alleged evaders are prosecuted, not sued.

[Laird_Scooby]

Digital TV is encrypted with a 128 bit rotational rolling encryption codec.

Your decoder has a shared key for open channels, hence why you can see them.

The licence could quite easily be your key for subscription.

No licence = no key= No BBC.

 

So no licence inspectors, no courts, you don't pay you don't watch .

 

 

 

That's too much like common sense and you're right, both the BBC and Capita would object strongly!

Perhaps it's because deep down they know they have a product very few would willingly pay £150 (or thereabouts) a year for. What gets me as well is that in common with Road Tax (sorry, Vehicle Excise Duty), this is an outdated, overpriced ownership tax that must be paid in full with no sensible options for monthly payment. Also both are administered by private copmanies these days, not by the government who are meant to be above corruption etc.

When i say sensible options for monthly payments, yes you can pay for a TV licence monthly but the first 6 months payments are doubled so that because of subtle wordings, if for any reason a direct debit payment goes AWOL, they can then charge you with not having a tv licence from day1 of when it was meant to be effective from. Nasty!

[Laird_Scooby]

They don't sue anybody.

 

TV Licence evasion is a criminal offence, hence alleged evaders are prosecuted, not sued.

 

When i said sue, i A) used the term loosely and B) was under the impression it was still a civil offence.

 

Considering most of the detritus the BBC produce, they should be prosecuted for poluttion of the airwaves!

[tomtubby]

They don't sue anybody.

 

TV Licence evasion is a criminal offence, hence alleged evaders are prosecuted, not sued.

 

 

Quite right

[porkyp1g]

Again, some on here are blatantly advising people how to avoid tvl folks when some would require a license and should pay it. How people think they should be allowed to avoid paying when they need a license is beyond me and its surely not what this forum is for. The advice should be if you need a license, pay. If you don't, then you can ignore the tvl folks

[Laird_Scooby]

tomtubby - if you bothered reading my reply a couple of posts above, i pointed out i used the term loosely and why!

 

porkyp1g - i think it's more a case of people trying to advise when people DON'T need to buy a tvl rather than deliberate avoidance techniques - that in itself is probably some sort of offence?

[tomtubby]

Again, some on here are blatantly advising people how to avoid tvl folks when some would require a license and should pay it. How people think they should be allowed to avoid paying when they need a license is beyond me and its surely not what this forum is for. The advice should be if you need a license, pay. If you don't, then you can ignore the tvl folks

.

.

 

 

I started this thread and have made the majority of the posts and I wish to make it CLEAR that at no time have I indicated that people should not buy a TV licence. Instead, I have merely outlined the frankly worrying way in which non payment is ENFORCED and the role that is played by Capita in the subsequent court hearing.

 

Most importantly, I have tried to stress as well that anyone visited by Capita should NOT ignore the summons from the court and should at the very least, plead guilty ( if this is the case) and complete a Means Enquiry Form.

[citizenB]

Again, some on here are blatantly advising people how to avoid tvl folks when some would require a license and should pay it. How people think they should be allowed to avoid paying when they need a license is beyond me and its surely not what this forum is for. The advice should be if you need a license, pay. If you don't, then you can ignore the tvl folks

 

Anyone that follows that advice will only have themselves to blame if they end up with a claim form land on their mat or a bailiff at their door.

[brassnecked]

Most people convicted, even those with NO TV and no need for a licence stitch themselves up at the doorstep, NO TV no problem for Crapita they will insinuate your PC needs a licence and get you to admit to watching Eastbenders over that dial up connection.......

[Consumer dude]

Since the signal went over to digital I don't get any letters from Tv licensing anymore..

[porkyp1g]

I started this thread and have made the majority of the posts and I wish to make it CLEAR that at no time have I indicated that people should not buy a TV licence. Instead, I have merely outlined the frankly worrying way in which non payment is ENFORCED and the role that is played by Capita in the subsequent court hearing.

 

Most importantly, I have tried to stress as well that anyone visited by Capita should NOT ignore the summons from the court and should at the very least, plead guilty ( if this is the case) and complete a Means Enquiry Form.

 

My point was more aimed at the post by fulhamboy on the 28th August. It's blatantly just saying dont pay till your caught and then try and pay up. That's not what the threads are for?

[Fulhamboy]

My point was more aimed at the post by fulhamboy on the 28th August. It's blatantly just saying dont pay till your caught and then try and pay up. That's not what the threads are for?[/quote

 

I stated in a previous post that I have a license and will continue to buy one , but if caggers have more pressing debts to pay then a license could wait .

[SWLABR9]

I routinely wait till a few months after the license is due before actually buying it and I've never had visitors or anything problems. It's backdated when you buy it like that anyway, assuming it carries on from your last license. I'm seriously considering genuinely ditching the license and the tv channels which come with my broadband both as I watch so very little on it now. If I do that I'll deffo send the withdrawal of implied rights letter because I remember a time many years ago when I didn't have a tv they came round and came round and came round... I can do without the pointless hassle.

[Consumer dude]

It is pointless hassle. I used to ignore them apart from the odd occasion when I had conversations with them on the doorstep. They used to act as if they had such authority and to which they had none. I did really feel sorry for them..

[lamma]

"If I do that I'll deffo send the withdrawal of implied rights letter". There is a potential downside to that should Crapita be so minded. I cannot estimate the odds.

[SWLABR9]

Which would be?

[lamma]

the (rarely used) warrant

[Laird_Scooby]

the (rarely used) warrant

 

Are you saying that if necessary, Crapita can obtain a warrant to force entry to ascertain whether someone has a tv or not?

[Consumer dude]

Are you saying that if necessary, Crapita can obtain a warrant to force entry to ascertain whether someone has a tv or not?

 

Surely only if they have evidence that a tv is being used without a licence..

[brassnecked]

Surely only if they have evidence that a tv is being used without a licence..

Crapita have been known to lie in order to gain a warrant.