Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Work from home is "an aberration" that will be corrected as soon as possible says Goldman Sachs chief. View the full article
    • Work from home is "an aberration" that will be corrected as soon as possible says Goldman Sachs chief. View the full article
    • The mini electric vehicle being made by China's biggest carmaker is now outselling Tesla two to one. View the full article
    • https://www.bindmans.com/news/neale-v-dpp-the-right-to-silence-citizens-duties-and-coronavirus-regulations   Perhaps the OP should have said nothing - and risked arrest!   "Firstly, the case calls into question the logic behind aspects of the criminal justice response to the public health crisis created by the Coronavirus pandemic...   "Secondly, it is clear that some police officers have misunderstood and misstated their powers, and citizens’ obligations, under the Regulations and at common law...   "Thirdly, the case confirms reasonable excuses for being outside are not limited to those explicitly set out in the Regulations. Police officers considering whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been committed under the Regulations so that an FPN may be issued, or the reasonable grounds for suspicion that are necessary for an arrest, should give proper consideration to any explanation given by members of the public (and what a court might think of them) rather than only recognising those exceptions explicitly listed in the Regulations and/or government guidance...   Fourthly, the case is an example of a failure of the CPS review into prosecutions brought under Coronavirus Regulations, which has found that alarming numbers of cases were wrongly charged..."   Above quotes from the Bindman's article, not the decision.  Case arose from the first lockdown and was in Wales.  Same now?  Also was about not being at home - not mask wearing.    
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 33 replies

BBC threatens to make iPlayer users pay licence fee


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2264 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Viewers who avoid the licence fee by only watching catch-up shows on iPlayer could have to pay up, the BBC’s director general warned yesterday.

 

 

Lord Hall’s comments come amid growing concerns that younger viewers are using free catch-up services to dodge the £145.50 annual charge. He insisted that the licence fee has ‘plenty of life yet’ but admitted it could be changed.

 

 

Currently, a loophole means viewers who only watch catch-up shows instead of on TV as they are broadcast do not have to pay the licence fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

time to say bye bye BBC and their repeat of the repeat repeat repeat of the 29th repeat, and old news which is more up to date on other channels & subjects BBC minimal subjects and self praise Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Viewers who avoid the licence fee by only watching catch-up shows on iPlayer could have to pay up, the BBC’s director general warned yesterday.

 

 

Lord Hall’s comments come amid growing concerns that younger viewers are using free catch-up services to dodge the £145.50 annual charge. He insisted that the licence fee has ‘plenty of life yet’ but admitted it could be changed.

 

 

Currently, a loophole means viewers who only watch catch-up shows instead of on TV as they are broadcast do not have to pay the licence fee.

Until they abolish the fee then I agree iplayer viewers should be charged.

 

Why should they get a free ride when we pay for the content they watch?

Link to post
Share on other sites

because the law says so. Without primary legislation the BBC can do nothing and if they try and force people to provide telly licence number or the like they may well get a day out in a county court. I would rather the BBC saved £600 million a year by not having vanity projects and then compain that people use them as they are designed to work.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never paid, never will.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no reason for there to be a licence fee. Sorry, i mean a fee that everyone must pay to a private company under law. The BBC do not have any quality programming over any other channel. Theres no reason they cant throw on adverts like all the other channels. Especially when their new programs are complete rubbish now and there are TONS of repeats.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
Until they abolish the fee then I agree iplayer viewers should be charged.

 

Why should they get a free ride when we pay for the content they watch?

 

Because the law says that only live programs fall into the remit of the licence fee, it would need controvertial legislation, would be a nightmare to administer, how exactly would it work ?...Tv licences dont cover individuals, they cover households, so some sort of ID number would be needed for the family or household, what if you have lodgers, do you give them the ID numbr ?..what about your friends ?, it would end up with codes posted on the internet or cracks/hacks found to get around it (such as what happens with Sky/Virgin catch up TV).

 

The licence fee is on thin ice as it is, extending its scope would not be popular, getting rid of it would be a better option IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites
There is no reason for there to be a licence fee. Sorry, i mean a fee that everyone must pay to a private company under law.

 

If by private company you mean the BBC (rather than Capita who collect the licence fee on behalf of the BBC) the BBC isn't a private company, it's a public body in the form of a statutory corporation operating under a Royal Charter and subject to ultimate control by Parliament not shareholders.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, watching the 'One Show' is like watching a 'repeat', the same guests in a loop promoting their latest gig, it should be called the 'Catch-Up Show'.:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've no idea how it would be regulated, that's not my problem.

 

Until it's abolished I don't see why some viewers should pay when others don't have to.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've no idea how it would be regulated, that's not my problem.

 

Until it's abolished I don't see why some viewers should pay when others don't have to.

 

I agree.

 

I am not sure how people manage to get away without a house having a TV licence recorded. I had a number of months while away on a trip, when I did not pay a licence and there were many letters saying that it was presumed I needed a licence and an inspector would visit the house to find out why I did not have one. I don't know whether they visited in the end, but a letter was eventually received telling me how I could buy a licence when needed. So perhaps they threaten an inspection, but don't actually always do one because of the cost.

 

This is a problem that won't go away. There are now millions of people who don't have a licence and claim they don't watch live TV. Don't know what the answer is, but the licence fee will have to go at some stage.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a student and don't have a TV for the very reason that I cannot afford to shell out £150 a year for the privilege of owning one.Since I need internet for my uni work, and I'm paying for that, I may as well just watch catch up and use things like Netflix - at £6 a month, it's half the price of a TV license, also advert free and has far more things that I actually WANT to watch, rather than the drivel that's on BBC these days. If they can survive as an optional subscriber service on half the price of a compulsory TV license, then I feel the BBC is pulling a fast one.My husband is American and when I said about the TV license, he decided that it was 'ridiculous' and 'archaic', and 'why didn't we just have adverts? Everyone's used to adverts by now'. Pretty sure that the BBC would make so much more money if they just had adverts and stopped charging people the license fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC corp is not going to champion ads, why would they when they have a steady stream of revenue, pay themselves princely sums, they don't want to jeopardize all that by having to answer to the public.

I personally don't care if some people do not pay their tv licence because I think it's wrong in the first place. I do pay for the odd meal time watching tv but my family are mostly on the internet/computer.

Times have changed and the BBC is no longer the necessary public service channel as most would agree except for those working there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree.

 

I am not sure how people manage to get away without a house having a TV licence recorded. I had a number of months while away on a trip, when I did not pay a licence and there were many letters saying that it was presumed I needed a licence and an inspector would visit the house to find out why I did not have one. I don't know whether they visited in the end, but a letter was eventually received telling me how I could buy a licence when needed. So perhaps they threaten an inspection, but don't actually always do one because of the cost.

 

This is a problem that won't go away. There are now millions of people who don't have a licence and claim they don't watch live TV. Don't know what the answer is, but the licence fee will have to go at some stage.

 

Have you been living in a cave ?. :) Its well known that all the BBC or strictly speaking TVL/Capita do is send endless letters, these letters get sent to everyone without a licence, whether you need one or not, how many other private companies could get away with accusing you of a crime with no proof what so ever ?. What happened to innocent untill proved guilty, of course they rarely send round inspectors, that would be costly, and they are pointless anyway, all one has to do is say nothing and politely ask them to go away.

 

The whole basis of the licence fee is fatally flawed, it was introduced when the BBc was the ONLY TV service, now many years later, habits and technology have changed and agree that the BBC cannot be regarded as a public service, it is just one broadcaster amongst many hundreds, however the others do not charge me even if I do not watch them, its my choice should I wish to subscribe to Sky/Virgin/BT/Netflix.

Link to post
Share on other sites
If by private company you mean the BBC (rather than Capita who collect the licence fee on behalf of the BBC) the BBC isn't a private company, it's a public body in the form of a statutory corporation operating under a Royal Charter and subject to ultimate control by Parliament not shareholders.

 

Royal Charter or not, the BBC and its subsidiary branches operate like any other private business, selling its (licence funded) programmes on the open market.

"TV Licensing", being a trade mark used by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of license fees, often using threats, intimidation and out and out lies to do so.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Until they abolish the fee then I agree iplayer viewers should be charged.

 

Why should they get a free ride when we pay for the content they watch?

 

At the moment, they have to prove someone owns a TV which is capable of receiving broadcast to get them to pay TV Licence. Now, they only have to prove someone merely owns a mobile phone or pc with an internet connection.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It a draconian out of date unenforceable tax.

 

All the letters they have sent me over the decades go in the bin, on the one occasion they did come round with a piece of paper they claimed

was a 'search warrant' with the token plod in attendance under the guise of 'preventing a breach of the peace' were told to go away and the

police were reminded that it was a civil matter, the sheer audacity of the BBC wasting police time and attempting to use them as intimidation

is indicative of a very worried authoritarian corporation.

 

I don't have the DVLA using the same type of threats and intimidation simply because I don't have a licence, quite why the BBC thinks it can do so is beyond me?

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
At the moment, they have to prove someone owns a TV which is capable of receiving broadcast to get them to pay TV Licence. Now, they only have to prove someone merely owns a mobile phone or pc with an internet connection.

I've no idea how best to police it, but I agree with the principle. Either scrap the fee and be free for all or everybody pays their fair share.

 

Maybe when you download the iPlayer app you need some kind of registration process before you can watch. Then not everybody with an internet ready phone will need to pay. Simples.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I've no idea how best to police it, but I agree with the principle. Either scrap the fee and be free for all or everybody pays their fair share.

 

Maybe when you download the iPlayer app you need some kind of registration process before you can watch. Then not everybody with an internet ready phone will need to pay. Simples.

 

The way the BBC thinks, is that everyone in the UK should be covered by a TV Licence. They will harass people that don't have a licence as they assume they must have a TV. In one YouTube video, a TV licence man notices a PC in a room in view of the door and tried to claim that it has access to watch live streamed BBC via the internet, thus they should have a TV licence.

 

Many other videos on YouTube show TV Licence people taking pictures through house windows, in some others, they get violent. These people are commissioned by the BBC to put fear into people and make them pay even when they shouldn't have to.

 

I only watch Top Gear from the BBC, I'd do without it for £150 a year if the household I live in wasn't paying it already.

 

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-legal-framework-AB16

Link to post
Share on other sites

Who is responsible for the maintenance on the many transmitters we have around the country and where do the funds come from? Also which organisation pays for the satellite broadcasts of BBC channels etc and how is that funded?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Who is responsible for the maintenance on the many transmitters we have around the country and where do the funds come from? Also which organisation pays for the satellite broadcasts of BBC channels etc and how is that funded?

 

As far as I can tell, individual private companies own the towers, not all towers broadcast every channel. I guess the channel that is being broadcasted pays the companies to broadcast their channel.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arqiva

Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not pay my TV licence and I have never had a letter nor have I ever had someone come over to my house to "investigate" me. I think the TV licence is a ridiculous idea, not to mention expensive. The reason I do not pay my TV licence is I do not watch live TV because it's all a load of old crap. I have better things to be doing than watching depressing Eastenders and on the extremely odd occasion I do want to watch Frozen Planet or something I can access it and stream it from elsewhere. Why pay for something I very rarely use...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 months later...
Until they abolish the fee then I agree iplayer viewers should be charged.

 

Why should they get a free ride when we pay for the content they watch?

 

They are not getting a free ride, nor dodging or evading but simply acting within the law.

"You do not need a TV licence if you only watch content after it's been shown on television. This includes TV programmes downloaded or streamed after broadcast using a catch-up service".

I myself have not watched TV live or catchup for over a year. I do however watch some interesting things on YouTube, should I have to pay a monopolised tax, sorry I mean a license fee just because there may be some old BBC programmes on there, me thinks not.

This is not good old Auntie Beeb but a global corporation charged with collecting a tax on behalf of the government who then pays the BBC a large amount from the said tax. The BBC then pass some of this tax onto the sheriffs men, you may know them as Capita who prosicute people who choose to act within the lawful confines of the 2003 communications act. Good old Auntie beeb.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think this is a good idea because I don't see how you can police it. You could force people to create an account to log into iplayer but that would be a pain and I'm sure people would just share accounts anyway.

 

150quid a year is pretty small. Is it really efficient to be paying people to chase after that? Personally I think we'd be best off just funding the BBC through general taxation, but maybe that is just me.

 

I strongly disagree with people who are saying that the BBC is rubbish. I have spent time living abroad in a few different places and can promise you that the quality of programming is so much lower and the number of repeats so much higher than in the UK, even with a full cable TV subscription. This is especially true for things like documentaries and wildlife programmes - watch some of the drivel put out by the History Channel or Animal Planet and you'll see what I mean. Believe me, if you ever live abroad you will miss the BBC.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the bbc should do what the other channels do. Advertise. It's only on the rare occasion that the BBC put out something worth watching anyway. The majority of stuff they show are pointless soap operas with bad acting or repeat after repeat.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...