TV Licensing letters despite already notifying them

[Bazooka Boo]

My opinion too. They can keep sending letters addressed to 'the occupier' and insist that I contact them as much as they like. But unless they compensate me for my time, then their missives go in the recycle bin.

 

I've been collecting mine over the years, must count my collection!

[tobyjugg2]

I'm still seriously considering notifying them (via anonymous email) that I consider their contacts unwanted, unreasonable and harassing and that they should cease and desist immediately

and that any further contact, with the exception of a single response unconditionally apologising and unconditionally agreeing to my requirement,would carry an administration charge (to cover handling, considering any response and disposal all as I see fit)

 

£50 for the first letter, £75 each for each and every further letter to this property

£200 for any visit to this property by an agent or representative of any kind

£100 for each and every telephone call or email contact to me whether at the property or not

 

and and additional £200 for each individual response made by me or my representative in response to or during any of the above unwanted contacts, with any response and its content and form (eg Email, writing or verbal) being purely at my discretion.

 

any opinions or experiences anyone?

 

 

and no freedom of the land rubbish please.

[unclebulgaria67]

Toby

 

Sending that letter will make you more of a target. The legislation is on the side of TVL.

 

Here is what i think happens.

 

There is an assumption that every property has a TV or other means to watch live broadcasts. If you fail to pay a licence or complete the declaration, you are on a target list for visits to be made. If you complete the declaration which apparently about 2 million households have done, you are less likely to receive any visits. The declaration asks you to confirm that you don't watch live broadcasts and if you watch recorded output how you do this.

 

Being that they have to catch you watching live broadcasts and you have to sign something admitting to the offence, i am not sure why the declaration is a problem. Of course, if you are watching live output via Sky or Virgin and law is passed, then TVL will have a way of finding out your box has been on for live broadcasts. Does not mean your TV screen was actually on, but if you were changing channels, it would be difficult to defend.

[tobyjugg2]

They can come as long as they pay me for it unc.

I wont let them in or answer their questions, but happy to be paid for that.

 

I object to their assumptions they can threaten and harass me without justification or compensation from them.

 

Being a bit of a crusader (no offense or religious meaning intended) I would perhaps be interested to pursue any unjustified search warrant - as it would be.

 

I am also on good terms with our local police.

[tobyjugg2]

Let me clarify

I would perhaps accept a letter reminder every 6 months, maybe even every 3 months, politely worded.

Might even accept a once a year canvassing style knock on the door, but not repeated threats of a visit which dont happen.

 

Neither could I reasonably object (although I might) to any justified search warrant, although I would challenge and chase to the ends of the earth any unjustified one.

[Mr.P]

I would perhaps accept a letter reminder every 6 months, maybe even every 3 months, politely worded.

Might even accept a once a year canvassing style knock on the door, but not repeated threats of a visit which dont happen.

 

I'm with you on that. The currently worded letters warning of impending "investigations" an possible court appearances are designed purely to intimidate. In addition, if their so-called "investigator" had just rung the bell once rather than trying to knock the door down, I just might have answered some of his questions.

 

I don't think you would get far with trying to charge them for your time and certainly not at the scale you suggest. Perhaps a handling fee of £5 to £10 would be more reasonable for any letters/calls.

[tobyjugg2]

I don't think you would get far with trying to charge them for your time and certainly not at the scale you suggest. Perhaps a handling fee of £5 to £10 would be more reasonable for any letters/calls.

 

Mine may well be high, but I really think those are way to low.

(My personal contact details are VERY personal)

 

You almost certainly have more experience in these areas than me Mr P

What is your personal opinion of the following site

It seems to me to be on a solid basis and doesn't seem to me to be fotl type rubbish. Do you think I perhaps need to revisit that opinion? and if so any links why? (PM if more appropriate)

 

http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2012/10/standing-up-to-tv-licensing-harassment.html

 

I am seriously considering this, but might lose interest.

[Mr.P]

I have come across that particular blog before, but haven't dug in to it in detail. Seems to be reasonable in its opinions without going over to the FoTL crackpots.

 

If you have the time, you won't lose much in trying the anti-harassment route. At most, the cost of a few stamps and a court fee (if it ever gets that far).

 

For my part, I have not confirmed my name or provided them with any telephone numbers or email addresses. So at best, all they can do is to contact the 'legal occupier'. The threat-o-grams only started in January, so I'm only at the beginning of the journey.

[tobyjugg2]

For my part, I have not confirmed my name or provided them with any telephone numbers or email addresses. So at best, all they can do is to contact the 'legal occupier'. The threat-o-grams only started in January, so I'm only at the beginning of the journey.

 

Me too. Apart from been about 3 years with no license and no tv at this property - my retreat (which makes the attacks on its integrity even more offensive to me).

[Mr.P]

I've been collecting mine over the years, must count my collection!

 

Have you had the hand delivered "We called while you were out" letter ?

 

Had one through the letter box this afternoon whilst i was at work. If there is interest, I'll scan it before it goes in the firelighting box.

[Bazooka Boo]

Have you had the hand delivered "We called while you were out" letter ?.

 

Yes, had one last year, but as I live in a block of flats, and they can't gain access to the building, they left it tucked in the front door of the block, a rather puerile attempt at intimidation, as my neighbour handed it to me later that day.

 

Added to file 13.....

[carolinerae5299]

Toby

 

Sending that letter will make you more of a target. The legislation is on the side of TVL.

 

Here is what i think happens.

 

There is an assumption that every property has a TV or other means to watch live broadcasts. If you fail to pay a licence or complete the declaration, you are on a target list for visits to be made. If you complete the declaration which apparently about 2 million households have done, you are less likely to receive any visits. The declaration asks you to confirm that you don't watch live broadcasts and if you watch recorded output how you do this.

 

Being that they have to catch you watching live broadcasts and you have to sign something admitting to the offence, i am not sure why the declaration is a problem. Of course, if you are watching live output via Sky or Virgin and law is passed, then TVL will have a way of finding out your box has been on for live broadcasts. Does not mean your TV screen was actually on, but if you were changing channels, it would be difficult to defend.

 

 

This confuses me as my niece was taken to court by these people, They stated that they knew she was watching TV because her neighbour let them in and they heard through the wall? She had not let them in her property and in actual fact the only thing that would of been playing would of been a kids dvd, as her TV Ariel blew down over a year ago and she can't afford to have it repaired.

[Bazooka Boo]

So they attempted to take your niece to court on no evidence?

 

I take it the DJ laughed at them and threw this out, or she defended and it was thrown out

[unclebulgaria67]

This confuses me as my niece was taken to court by these people, They stated that they knew she was watching TV because her neighbour let them in and they heard through the wall? She had not let them in her property and in actual fact the only thing that would of been playing would of been a kids dvd, as her TV Ariel blew down over a year ago and she can't afford to have it repaired.

 

I believe that for a criminal issue such as TV licence they have to prove that an offence took place and listening through a neighbours wall would be insufficient, unless they heard a current live TV programme being watched in the house concerned. If your neice signed a declaration that she and her household did not watch live TV programmes and the TV licence inspector heard X live programme being watched when they visited, then they might have gone to court to let Magistrates hear their evidence. Your Neice would have received a summons from Magistrates to attend the court so she could defend. If she did not defend, she would have been found guilty in her absence.

 

If your Neice did not receive the Magistrates summons about the alleged offence, she might be able to make a statutory declaration to the court, so she has a chance of her case being heard again. She would need to speak to the clerk at the court about this.

[Bazooka Boo]

I seriously doubt it happened at all TBH.

[ericsbrother]

I bet she pleaded guilty and moaned about the injustice afterwards. If you arent guilty why agree you are? you see it all the time in the newspapers over small matters like littering.

[chiefmegawatty]

It is highly unlikely they will ever turn up with a warrant, even if they did, is does NOT entitle them to force entry.

 

Besides it won't come to that, just ignore everything they send,, the old bill are only present to prevent a breach of the peace, which in most cases, is caused by TVL themselves, when you refuse them entry and put the wood back in the hole.

 

A magistrates court search warrant does entitle them to force entry.

However, they do need proof that you are breaking the law in order to obtain the search warant.

[renegadeimp]

and the only way for them to do that is if you invite them in and they see live tv, or you sign their silly forms.

[tobyjugg2]

A magistrates court search warrant does entitle them to force entry.

However, they do need proof that you are breaking the law in order to obtain the search warant.

 

If they turn up at your door with one, then they have provided 'proof' as they have one.

I would find that proof very interesting in my case - there is no TV at all in my retreat.

 

I do have a laptop in fact a number of computers there (gaming and training) but would NEVER allow access to them as they contain sensitive personal data (mine and others) data including log-ins to on-line purchasing, email and gaming accounts.

The reasonable privacy bit.

I would challenge any access in court and challenge the proofs they used to gain the search warrant. Luckily I'm on good terms with the local community police.

 

I haven't heard of TVL search warrant 'proofs' being challenged - anyone?

Surely some of these search warrants must have been challenged even if after the arrival with them - or was everyone guilty?

 

Lots of TVL blogspot posts saying they are dodgy submission search warrants - but I cant find any detailed actual challenges.

 

This seems the most informative:

http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/search-warrants-and-judicial-reviews.html