Quantcast
Channel: TV Licensing
Viewing all 1019 articles
Browse latest View live
↧

TV Licensing: The Unfairness of Goon Commission Payments

November 1, 2014, 6:36 am
$
0
0

Some gluttonous TV Licensing goons are routinely playing the system in order to meet strict performance targets and enhance their basic salary.

On Wednesday we highlighted the case of West Midlands care worker Radhika, who was distraught at the prospect of a court appearance after TV Licensing wrongly accused her of dodging the TV licence-fee.

Radhika expressed concern that details recorded on the TVL178 Record of Interview form, which was completed by the TV Licensing goon visiting her home, bore little resemblance to her recollection of events.

Readers might be scratching their heads in disbelief at the idea of TV Licensing goons embellishing records, but it does happen and the flawed system - which the BBC and TV Licensing are fully aware of - actively encourages it.

As reported in the Daily Mail last year, Capita's squadron of TV Licensing enforcers can double their modest basic salary by hard-selling TV licences and collecting evidence of licence-fee evasion. The article, which incorrectly stated that "some 5.8 per cent of households evade the licence fee", explained how some goons make an extra £1,000 a month by hauling suspected licence-fee evaders before the courts.

Information obtained by the TV Licence Resistance forums aptly demonstrates a system wide open to abuse by commission-hungry goons. The information relates to a TV licence appeal, which was heard at Liverpool Crown Court back in December 2010.

A TV Licensing witness statement, tendered in evidence, noted the following: "A full-time Visiting Officer employed for 37.5 hours weekly would be expected to achieve the basic performance standards of 1 licence evader caught every 60 minutes during available hours in any working week. This equates to 38 in a full week. Officers would be expected to achieve that standard of performance as part of their normal duties.

"Payment of commission for any licence sales is secondary to the meeting of the performance standards of 1 evader per hour. Any such additional payment is held aside to be paid if that performance standard is met on a monthly basis."

The statement continued: "The value of commission per sale increases as the numbers of Code 8 cases submitted increases. There are 4 levels of payment per sale linked directly to the number of Code 8 cases submitted."

A "Code 8" is TV Licensing's term for obtaining a prosecution statement from a suspected licence-fee evader. It would appear that goons have a significant financial incentive to nab as many "evaders" as possible, which is no doubt foremost in their mind every time they visit an unlicensed property.


A TV Licensing job advert, shown in the image above, gives an indication of the commission payments available for each TV licence sold. As that document is now a few years old, the payments may well have increased in the meantime. Remember that these payments are in addition to those received for nabbing licence-fee evaders.

We suggest that the TV Licensing commission system is wide open to abuse. As indicated by TV Licensing's witness statement above, there is an expectation that goons will nab at least one TV licence evader every hour of the working week. We consider that a very steep target to achieve, for a conscientious goon playing by the rules.

We know that every TV Licensing visiting goon is assigned a geographic "patch" to work in. With less than 400 of these goons working across the entire UK, it follows that every patch is at least several miles across even in the most urban of areas. We estimate that a goon working in an urban area - with a fast car, compliant traffic lights and strong tail wind - might be able to visit 10 unlicensed properties in an hour. The BBC often trots out the statistic that more than 4 out of 5 unlicensed properties are correctly unlicensed. Mindful of this statistic we reckon that an urban goon, working at maximum efficiency (which is far from guaranteed), might visit 2 unlicensed properties every hour that actually require a TV licence. In order to meet their basic performance target they need to obtain a prosecution statement from a normal adult occupier of at least one of those properties, which is still pretty unlikely but just about possible.

A goon working in a rural or semi-rural area, on the other hand, is very unlikely to visit more than 5 or 6 properties an hour, because they will have much further to travel between each one. In that situation maybe only one of the unlicensed properties they visit every hour will actually need a TV licence. Factor in the need for a normal adult occupant to be present and answer the door and it's very unlikely the goon would be able to meet their target of feeling one collar an hour. The stakes are high as goons failing to meet the hourly target risk disciplinary action, which can ultimately lead to dismissal from the job.

Looking at the table above, you will notice that a goon leaving a "We Said We'd Call" card is rewarded with a small commission payment if the card subsequently generates a sale. That explains why TV Licensing goons often appear so keen to leave a card with anyone they visit.

So how, pray tell, can a goon enhance their job security and make healthy commission to boot? Well, there are two ways really. Firstly, they could work smartly - which is pretty unlikely as most TV Licensing goons aren't renowned for their smartness. By working smartly, we mean they could plan their visits so they hit as many properties as possible, in the shortest time possible, at a time of the day when the occupier is likely to be present. Even if they somehow managed to do that, there would be situations where they were unable to meet the hourly target. Secondly, they could obtain results by what we'll describe as non-conventional methods. Non-conventional methods might include acts of embellishment, as we briefly mentioned earlier - that could be sleight of hand when filling in paperwork, or it could be telling little old ladies "if you have a DVD player in your attic then you must have a TV licence or you'll go to jail" or similar. Again, we know that this has happened in the past and we suspect it's an integral part of TV Licensing operations on a daily basis.

As well as the clear financial incentives for unscrupulous practice, we consider TV Licensing goons have no real disciplinary deterrent to keep within the rules. We base that opinion on the fact that we know of at least two goons (see here and here), who are still working for TV Licensing despite having been caught on camera physically lashing out at the occupiers of properties they had just visited. We are also reminded of TV Licensing dismissive attitude when told a Hartlepool goon had attempted to force his way into a property. The attitude seems to be "get results anyway you can, but don't get caught".

We hope our article has opened your eyes into what really motivates TV Licensing goons as they visit unlicensed properties.

Anyone who doesn't need a TV licence should give TV Licensing as wide a berth as possible, as they could be the next one in a goon's commission-targeting sights.
↧
Search

BBC Wastes £10m in Redundancy Scandal

November 2, 2014, 1:47 am
$
0
0

The BBC has been accused of wasting more than £10m of public money by rehiring nearly 300 staff it had earlier made redundant.

Today's Sunday Express article reveals that 286 staff have been rehired by the Corporation, after each receiving an average of £36,000 in redundancy pay. The staff, who had previously been employed on a full-time basis between 1st September 2002 and 31st August 2014, have been rehired on permanent or fixed-term contracts.

In the last 4 years, since the TV licence-fee was frozen, the BBC has rehired 81 individuals after they'd pocketed a total of £3m in redundancy payouts.

The £10.2m bill, which the Express compares to the TV licence income for a town the size of Luton, could have been used to pay for an entire series of The Voice instead. For that, at least, we can all breathe a collective sigh of relief.

A BBC insider is quoted as saying: "I know of one BBC manager who was given a £100,000 payout to leave his job on a Friday and then rehired on a freelance basis the following Monday through a new production company, which is ridiculous."

With the BBC again demonstrating such reckless and cavalier management of public funds, there has never been a better time to cancel your TV licence.
↧
↧

TV Licensing Sued: Discussion on LBC Radio

November 9, 2014, 6:13 am
$
0
0

The story of our reader Phil, who successfully sued TV Licensing for the costs incurred dealing with its letters, was discussed on Nick Abbot's show on LBC Radio last night.

You can read all about Phil's story in our earlier article about how he sued TV Licensing after it caused him years of unnecessary stress and inconvenience.

A transcript of Nick's comments about Phil's case appears below:
____________________
Nick Abbot (NA): Meanwhile, a man who grew tired of receiving letters from TV licence enforcers, even though he does not own a television set, has been awarded almost £150 after taking the organisation to court. There you are, you see? A little chink of good news. The TV licence enforcers. 

The man from Northampton, who only wanted to be identified as "Phil", claimed that he had endured more than a decade of threats and fines, court action and prison from TV Licensing, which runs licence enforcement on behalf of the BBC, even though he has not had a television for 15 years. Oh, mate - the stuff you have missed!

He decided to bill TV Licensing for his time and he took it to the county court when it refused to pay. Isn't that brilliant?!

The amount of times, I mean honestly. I just got the telephone (installed) at my new house and they gave me this list of charges, that they insisted they would charge me if I did not follow their rules down to the letter. They said they were going to send someone over on the Monday between - you know what they say? - between the hours of 8 in the morning and midnight, something like that. "I'm sorry, that's as specific as we can be", but if you're not there when that person arrives then we will fine you £60. And if you are there and there's stairs involved, then we'll fine you £30. And if you're there and it's slightly moist conditions outside, then they'll want a fiver. It's just on, and on, and on they went. But how many times has an organisation like that said they will turn up and then they haven't? And do you get to fine them? No, of course not! So this tiny bit of good news we can take on-board for all of us.

He hasn't had a TV for 15 years and he got threats of everything up to and including beheading and then he took them to court for wasting his time and he won! He received £149... (laughs)... this is silly... he received £149.03. How? 3 pence? Why not 150 quid?!

He said: "For more than 11 years I've been a victim of TV Licensing's demands that I make contact with them help them update their records. I am expected to carry out this monthly update service in my own time and at my own expense".

He responded to a TV Licensing request for an update in 2012 by explaining that he did not need a licence and warned the company that he would charge it processing fees if he received any more letters, or phone calls or visits. When it (TV Licensing) refused to pay his bill he filed a claim with the county court in September. Excellent news, well done Phil or whoever you are! You have my full support, for which I will be billing you shortly!
____________________

Sadly Nick forgot to mention our blog, despite quoting Phil's words directly from it.

We are a little bit disappointed that Phil's story has not attracted more widespread media interest, given that TV Licensing harassment affects literally tens of thousands of law-abiding citizens every single day. TV Licensing sends an average of 100,000 red-daubed threatograms to unlicensed properties every working day, even though the BBC acknowledges that at least 80,000 of the recipients - who are threatened with £1,000 fines and criminal records - do not legally need a TV licence.

We are also disappointed at the dismissive reception given to Phil's success by certain members of the pro-BBC lobby. Given that more than 95% of civil claims are settled without the need for court action, they are wrong to brand the outcome of Phil's case as "not a proper victory" because TV Licensing failed to contest the claim. The simple fact is that TV Licensing could not risk contesting the claim. TV Licensing chooses not to present "detection evidence" in open court for the very same reason - the fear that their arguments will be picked apart and procedures thoroughly discredited.

Now that Phil has made a stand against TV Licensing's oppressive methods of enquiry, we really hope others will be emboldened to follow his lead. If you'd like to make TV Licensing pay for making you suffer, please check out our "Standing Up to TV Licensing Harassment" article. 

Phil did and now TV Licensing is paying for his drinks.
↧

TV Licensing: Festive Threatogram

November 12, 2014, 2:12 pm
$
0
0

Our reader James, who goes by the nickname of Daddy Rat, gives his thoughts on TV Licensing's "10 days" threatogram:

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury... I draw your attention to the design of the new TV Licensing “threatogram” – and note that this latest escapade is indeed worthy of a degree of my attention and provides yet another wonderful opportunity to engage in the process of litigation with TV Licensing.

On the rare occasion that I can even be bothered to give TV Licensing any thought whatsoever, I am somehow moved to empathise with their latest stunt simply because Christmas is coming and I wish to bring the tidings of good joy upon our dear friends at TV Licensing. Like Santa Claus I have decided to bring them a present. How exciting! Only I won’t be coming down the chimney of the BBC headquarters and I won’t be providing any champagne, after all, TV Licensing aren’t even worth a box of chocolates.

No. Instead I will be bringing news of the much anticipated verdict with regard their latest campaign. You see ladies and gentlemen of the jury this is a most significant event as this constitutes yet another case between the prosecution (them) and us... the defence.

And... in the spirit of glad tidings... I’ll be posting the verdict right here online on a prominent TV licence activist site so that more of them... and you... get to see it. Isn’t that just marvellous?

In the latest “threatogram” the narrative is, as usual, constructed by a team of people that are clearly deficient of any form of intelligence and this exposes the obvious and numerous inabilities of those who wrote it.

I am amused at their latest attempt to construct a document founded on the language of intimidation which is clearly designed to frighten and motivate those unto whom it is intended.

Has it worked? No. Of course not.

This latest attempt to once again derive income from threatening behaviour towards members of the public can only be described as absolutely pathetic.

Does their declaration that they know how hard it is to pay the bills at the moment strike you as being sympathetic to the suffering of those being squeezed in Cameron’s austerity economy? It needn’t. They couldn’t give less of a damn. Happily, the feeling is entirely mutual... because... in the words of the Chancellor of the Exchequer – we’re all in this together...and that includes TV Licensing. Which is why THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A BETTER REASON TO CANCEL YOUR TV LICENCE.

Battle hardened and seasoned – I remain unmoved by your threats to intimidate me and readily dismiss your latest correspondence as nothing more than another complete and utter failure.

The snarls and growls do not frighten me in the way that belies the intention to do so. No. Why? Because all attempts to cause distress and alarm will always be met with ferocious litigation in defiance of a corporate culture that believes it has an automatic right to bully and lay down threats to anyone who won’t give them money. This is a display of the antiquated nature of their thinking and demonstrates that their arrogance is only outdone by the dullness of their imagination.

Because, ladies and gentlemen of the jury – the document has to be read with a very healthy dose of scepticism, alongside a high degree of reservation, as the authenticity has to be weighed against whether the narrative constitutes a real or a perceived threat. Coming from TV Licensing we can safely assume that it is a perceived threat, not a real one, and can therefore safely be completely ignored.

This reflects negatively on those who contributed to the construction of the latest threatogram and identifies an obvious lack of a decent education. What amazes me is that the people who wrote this are actually getting paid to produce writing that will have an impact. Is this it? Wouldn’t you think that they could have done a proper job? What? Is this their best attempt after going through a copy writing procedure as well? Were they inebriated when they read it? Is this the best they can do? Sadly, this would definitively appear to be the case.

This causes me to wonder whether these people received any level of education at all and exemplifies that they are increasingly becoming isolated from the society in which they themselves live. Such ignorance is clearly deserving of ridicule...and I will be only too happy to provide it here for all to see.

Happy Christmas TV Licensing – you failed again.

So the entire case can be summed up as merely another pathetic attempt to change the thought patterns and behaviour of those whom they wish to intimidate through the ineffective narrative constructed by people whose collective knowledge of persuasive writing can be written on the back of a stamp. Clearly this is not having the effect that TV Licensing requires, as the new narrative exposes the previous correspondence as being ineffective – otherwise they wouldn’t have changed it. The fact that they have tells you something. After all, if you look, there is information in everything. This manoeuvre exposes an organisation that is haemorrhaging money. This is a corporation whose judgements are based on fear, and through their own actions, the nature and characteristics of their threats are laid bare for all to see.

Does this mean there is anything to be concerned about? Absolutely not. Daddy Rat is armed to the teeth with vicious, rigid and robust litigation to defend the beliefs that we will not bow to the demands of the Establishment which comfortably accommodates TV Licensing. In defiance, we stand together in the face of such tyranny and declare that we are not unequivocally committed to the search for lasting peace between TV Licensing and members of the public – we seek the abolishment of the TV licence altogether which is another reason why THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME TO CANCEL YOUR TV LICENCE.

I therefore declare to members of the jury – the public here online – that I shall not be capitulating to the demands of TV Licensing as I will never adhere to the insistence that everyone else live by their rules. Times have changed. Modernity has brought with it unwelcome disruption. The sooner TV Licensing comes to this realization, the sooner they will comprehend and accept the reality that their model for acquiring income is fast becoming obsolete.

So, as advocate for the defence, I therefore conclude that TV Licensing are NOT GUILTY of composing literature scary enough to change the perception and behaviour of all members of their audience and reverse their dwindling fortunes.

And although this latest case has been yet another complete and utter failure – believe it or not – there is good news.

Yes.

TV Licensing have successfully won the Daddy Rat “failure of the year award”... which is at least something... after all... at such special times like Christmas... it’s the thought that counts.
↧

TV Licensing: Hartlepool Search Warrant Update

November 13, 2014, 1:24 pm
$
0
0
In December we wrote about the case of YouTube user Binary Genius, who was the victim of a malicious TV Licensing search warrant execution.

We regret to report that he was convicted of obstructing the warrant when his case was heard at Teesside Magistrates' Court last Friday, 7th November 2014. He was fined £200, had to pay TV Licensing prosecution costs of £375 and a victim surcharge of £20. TV Licensing had sought £750 prosecution costs, but fortunately the Magistrates disagreed with that request.

During the trial, TV Licensing presented footage taken from our YouTube channel.

Given the case has now drawn to a conclusion Binary Genius is happy for us to publish his real name, Mick Oldfield.

It is noted that TV Licensing found no evidence whatsoever of unlicensed TV reception at Mick's home on the evening they executed the warrant. This negative result again raises questions about the evidence TV Licensing presented in order to obtain a warrant in the first place. The information for the warrant was laid on oath by Capita Court Presenter Tony Kaminskas on 22nd November 2014.

By way of a reminder, two TV Licensing goons - Terry Docherty of Sunderland and Burgess Nasr of Marske - attended Mick's home on the evening of 19th December 2013. They were in possession of a warrant granted under section 366 of the Communications Act 2003, which gave them legal authority to enter the property, search for and test any television receiver found there.


Mick, who was clearly very shaken by TV Licensing's surprise appearance, was reluctant to allow access to the property, but eventually they managed to talk their way over the threshold and were able to conduct their search.

We wrote at length about the search in our previous article. Even now, almost a year later, we are sickened at the tactics employed by Docherty and Nasr as they rummaged around for non-existent evidence in Mick's living room.

The pair desperately searched for the merest flicker of a TV programme that would lead to Mick's conviction for TV licence evasion. Finding nothing, they attempted to tongue-tie and bamboozle him into a providing a false "confession". At one stage Docherty, a failed Conservative election candidate, expressed a willingness to selectively quote Mick's words out of context.

Clearly disappointed at their vexatious search drawing a blank, TV Licensing decided to pursue the consolation prize of obstruction charges instead. Experience shows that TV Licensing is quite happy with obstruction as an outcome, because it keeps their rarer than hen's teeth search warrants in the public eye. There was no public interest in pursuing obstruction charges in Mick's case: TV Licensing had already entered his home on a falsehood, so could have shown humility by slinking back into the gutters where they belong. Instead, as in the famous case of Michael Shakespeare, they decided to make an example of an innocent man, whose home they had no business violating in the first place.

For all our disappointment at the outcome of Mick's case, it does serve as a valuable learning point. Had Mick allowed Docherty and Nasr immediate access, he would now have humiliating video footage of them searching for a non-existent TV receiver. He would also still have the best part of £600 in his back pocket.

Reflecting on his experience, Mick told us the following: "We are very unhappy with the court's decision, but feel a sense of relief that finally we know where we stand.

"It is not easy to represent yourself in court, but if you get the chance, and the charge is not too serious, I highly recommend doing it. You will start to really understand how the lower courts are being manipulated by private interests.

"My advice to anyone faced with a TV Licensing search warrant is to video everything and stay calm. If they ask for your help checking your equipment, then you should help them otherwise you run the risk of obstruction charges.

"My family would like to thank everyone from the TV Licensing Blog, the TVLicenceResistance.info forums and all the other sites that have offered kind words of support and advice."

TV Licensing search warrants are exceptionally rare. In the extremely unlikely event that TV Licensing do appear with a search warrant, the occupier should allow them immediate and unhindered access to the property. The occupier is advised to film them conducting the search and provide an appropriate commentary for the benefit of the camera.
↧
↧

TV Licensing Search Warrants: Prevention Better than Cure

November 15, 2014, 5:56 am
$
0
0
The recent case of a legitimate non-TV viewer being convicted of obstructing a TV Licensing search warrant has attracted widespread consternation with our readers.

Mick Oldfield, whose case we discussed yesterday, never receives TV programmes and consequently doesn't legally need a TV licence. As someone who genuinely doesn't need a TV licence, it came as somewhat of a surprise to Mick that TV Licensing had somehow managed to obtain a warrant to search his home. With its search drawing a blank, and therefore unable to pin TV licence evasion charges on Mick, the BBC's revenue generation bullies decided to pursue search warrant obstruction charges instead. In that, at least for the moment, TV Licensing has succeeded.


On the back of Mick's story, several readers have asked us to summarise the key points of the TV Licensing search warrant process. Before doing that, as is customary on the TV Licensing Blog, we remind readers that TV Licensing search warrants are exceptionally rare. Anyone who legitimately doesn't need a TV licence, Mick's case withstanding, should not be overly concerned about the threat of a TV Licensing search warrant.

1. TV Licensing collects the evidence required to apply for a warrant.
In theory a warrant should only be granted when a Justice of the Peace or District Judge is satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate. It is only necessary if TV Licensing has been unable to obtain voluntary access to the property and there is little prospect of being able to do so in the future; it is only proportionate if TV Licensing has credible evidence that an offence is being (or has been) committed at the property and immediate, unhindered access is required to secure that evidence.
  • Necessity: TV Licensing is more likely to convince the court of the necessity of its application if an occupier of the property has previously been uncooperative, confrontational or issued a Withdrawal of Implied Rights of Access (WOIRA) instruction. Amusing as it is to see TV Licensing goons humiliated and belittled on YouTube, we believe such encounters increase the likelihood that TV Licensing will exact revenge by seeking a warrant. We actively encourage the filming of routine TV Licensing goon visits, but recommend the occupier adopts a totally passive approach: film everything and say nothing.
  • Proportionality: TV Licensing policy is that warrant applications should always be supported by two pieces of evidence reinforcing the idea of an offence being committed. It is noted that the evidential standards needed for a warrant are less stringent than those needed for a conviction. TV Licensing only needs to convince the Justice or District Judge that is has reasonable suspicion that an offence is being (or has been) committed at the property. In Scotland the evidential standards required for the grant of a warrant are higher, which might explain why TV Licensing never applies for warrants there. According to Chapter 16 of the unredacted TV Licensing Visiting Procedures, the following types of evidence can be put forward:
    • Set seen but not in use. No admission, entry refused.
    • Occupier admits set but no admission of use. Entry refused.
    • Set denied, programme heard.
    • Admission of broken set on premises. Inspection refused.
    • Inspection is allowed after delay. No set is seen, but circumstantial evidence.
    • Detection evidence.
2. TV Licensing warns the occupier that a warrant is being considered.
In theory, unless doing so would seriously prejudice the purpose of the search, TV Licensing should warn the occupier that a warrant is being considered. Sometimes they do this by letter (e.g. "we know you're watching TV without a licence, so unless you buy a TV licence immediately we will apply for a search warrant"), or a visiting goon might slip it into doorstep conversation. In practice, they sometimes omit this step.

3. TV Licensing prepares the warrant paperwork.
If TV Licensing is satisfied that it has ticked the boxes necessary to obtain a search warrant, then it sets about preparing three pieces of paperwork: the H550 Search Warrant Application form, the Deposition and the actual warrant.
  • The H550 Search Warrant Application: A copy of this form can be viewed here. The first page is completed by the goon requesting the warrant. The application is then reviewed and approved/denied by a senior manager. If approved the form is then returned to the relevant Area Manager, so it can be completed with the final outcome after the execution of the warrant.
  • The Deposition: The Deposition is a copy of the information that TV Licensing lays before the Justice or District Judge when it applies for the warrant. It gives a chronological history of TV Licensing's dealings with the property and occupier in question. It also explains TV Licensing's rationale for applying for the warrant, including reasons why the grant of a warrant is necessary and proportionate.
  • The Warrant: TV Licensing, being a considerate bunch, type out the actual warrant for the Justice or District Judge to sign. An example warrant is shown elsewhere in this post. This appears to be the format that TV Licensing uses, although there is no standard prescribed format.
4. TV Licensing lays the warrant information.
Laying information (sometimes referred to as swearing the warrant) is the process whereby a Capita Court Presenter conveys the Deposition to a Justice or District Judge. This is done verbally and on oath, normally at the start of a scheduled TV Licensing court session. The warrant should only be sworn if less than 2 days have elapsed since the licence status of the property was last checked. Only those Capita employees named on the BBC authority list are able to apply for warrants and lay information.

The Justice or District Judge should carefully scrutinise everything they are told, asking questions as appropriate. The warrant should never be rubber-stamped without careful consideration. If the Justice or District Judge is dissatisfied with the information laid, they should refuse to grant the warrant - although there would be nothing to stop TV Licensing having another attempt at a more amenable court a few miles down the road.

5. Warrant granted.
Ninety-nine times out of a hundred the warrant will be granted. The Capita Court Presenter then delivers the warrant to the Area Manager concerned, who will promptly contact the local police station and make them aware that a warrant has been granted and police assistance will be required shortly. 

Warrants granted in England and Wales are valid for one calendar month from the date of signature. The warrant permits TV Licensing to enter the property, search for and test any television receivers found there. The warrant is only valid for a single entry to the property. TV Licensing policy is to make a first attempt to execute the warrant as soon as possible and at the latest within 10 days of it being granted.


6. Executing the warrant.
TV Licensing policy is that warrants must be executed by at least two members of staff, one of whom will normally be the Area Manager. The police are normally present to prevent a breach of the peace, but it is not their job to assist with any search for, or testing of, television receivers. The warrant is granted to TV Licensing and gives them the authority to enter, search for and test any television receiver found there. Legally speaking the police do not need to be there. In exceptional circumstances TV Licensing will executed a warrant without a police presence, as long as there are no risks associated with the property or occupier.

The warrant technically allows forced entry to the property, but TV Licensing policy is never to pursue that option. Mistakenly forcing entry to a TV-free property would be a disaster for TV Licensing, which even its massed army of PR harlots would struggle to cast in a positive light. If TV Licensing failed in its first attempt to execute the warrant, it would simply keep returning until it successfully gained entry or the warrant expired.

A date and time to execute the warrant will have already been agreed between the police and TV Licensing. To avoid wasting police time by attending an empty property, TV Licensing recommends that a goon passes by the property and checks for signs of life shortly before the warrant is due to be executed. A final check should be made on the licence status of the property.

At the start of the warrant visit one of the goons, probably the Area Manager, should state the purpose of their visit (e.g. "we have a search warrant, which grants us legal authority to enter the property, search for and test any television receiver found here") and hand the occupier a copy of the warrant and Notice of Powers and Rights. If the occupier refuses to accept the paperwork, it can simply be left somewhere prominent in the property. The occupier should allow the goons immediate and unhindered access. In common with any other TV Licensing visit, the occupier should be given the chance to inspect the goons' ID cards.

The Notice of Powers and Rights states that a friend or neighbour can be present during the search, but we suggest a camera will do just as good a job of corroborating the events of the visit. We recommend that the occupier films any search warrant visit in full and provides a running commentary of events as they unfold. If the occupier can get the police or goons to acknowledge the accuracy of their commentary, then all the better.

The occupier should comply with any reasonable requests for assistance, otherwise they face the realistic prospect of obstruction charges. By reasonable assistance, we mean neutral acts that do not self-incriminate the occupier (e.g. it is reasonable to pass the goon a remote control if asked to, but it is not reasonable to set up equipment or push buttons on their behalf). Obstruction is a more serious offence than TV licence evasion, so our advice is to cooperate (or at least don't appear uncooperative) with TV Licensing during the execution of the warrant.

The occupier should remain civil and stand aside from where the goons are working. If at all possible both goons should be kept in camera shot, as they can not be trusted alone in any part of the property. We know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that some TV Licensing goons tell lies.

If they suspect there is evidence of an offence, the goons should caution the occupier and complete a TVL178 Record of Interview form as they conduct the search.

The outcome of the warrant visit may be apparent to the occupier at the time. Assuming TV Licensing obtains no evidence of unlicensed TV reception, we encourage the occupier to complain in the strongest possible terms to the BBC and their local Member of Parliament. We would also encourage them to obtain a copy of the Deposition, which clearly turned out to be inaccurate, and scrutinise it closely for signs of TV Licensing malpractice.

If TV Licensing do find evidence of unlicensed TV reception, then the first the occupier might know about it is when a summons arrives in the post several months later. Advice about how to deal with a summons can be found in an earlier post.

Shortly after their visit the goons will put the finishing touches onto the H550 Search Warrant Application form, which was partly completed prior to the execution of the warrant.

7. Obtaining a copy of the Deposition.
We are aware of several occasions where TV Licensing has obtained a search warrant for a property where it turned out there was no evidence at all of unlicensed TV reception. Any occupier in that situation will probably be curious about the evidence TV Licensing presented in order to obtain the warrant in the first place. It is normally possible to obtain a copy of the Deposition by writing to the court. A letter must also be sent to TV Licensing, stating that a request is being made and offering it the chance to lodge objections. Suitable template letters can be downloaded from our Resources page.

8. Conclusion.
TV Licensing search warrants are exceptionally rare. Anyone who doesn't legally need a TV licence, shouldn't be overly concerned about the prospect of a search warrant visit.

The occupier of a property can reduce the chances of becoming a search warrant target by engaging with TV Licensing goons in a passive manner, thus depriving them of the information needed to proceed any further. The occupier should avoid being confrontational or aggressive with TV Licensing goons that call.

In the exceptionally rare event that TV Licensing do appear with a search warrant, the occupier is advised to allow them immediate and unhindered access. The occupier should also film everything, give a running commentary, attempt to keep both goons in camera shot and in no way appear obstructive. You can see a good demonstration of this technique in an earlier article.

If you've found this article useful please share it with your friends and consider using our Amazon referral link for your shopping.
↧

Sunday Express: End of the TV Licence

November 15, 2014, 3:54 pm
$
0
0

"End of the TV Licence" is the eye catching headline on the front of tomorrow's Sunday Express.

It appears that 50 backbench Conservative MPs, led by Andrew Bridgen, are calling for the £145.50 TV licence fee to be scrapped and replaced by a voluntary subscription model.

In a letter to Culture Secretary Sajid Javid, Mr Bridgen is quoted as saying: "(The TV licence) is increasingly becoming unsustainable and out of keeping with the modern media environment".

Mr Bridgen added that "it is one of the most regressive taxes in the UK today".

Andrew Allison, of the Freedom Association’s Axe The Tax campaign, said: "The BBC should move to a subscription model as soon as is practicable.

"It is the only way forward and the ­corporation should realise this. The sheer pace of technological change will render the licence fee redundant. It is a matter of when the fee goes, not if."

At the moment, regardless of how seedy its scandal or woeful its output, the BBC is handed £3.6 billion of licence fee revenue on a silver plate. The licence fee stems back to an era when the BBC was the only broadcaster. In the 21st century, with hundreds of rival broadcasters sharing the airwaves, it is obscene that every TV viewer is legally compelled to fund the frivolous spending habits and corrupt practices of the BBC.

The TV Licensing Blog would actively encourage a move towards such a voluntary subscription model. It is only right that the BBC should live or die on its own commercial merits, the same as every other broadcaster.

If the BBC produces quality content, then people will be willing to pay for it. If it continues to cover up scandal, report biased news and reheat archive content, the audience will turn elsewhere and the BBC deserves to die.

Make no mistake that the BBC would fight tooth and nail to retain the TV licence fee, as it provides a guaranteed annual cash injection for very little effort. We can expect champagne-quaffing BBC executives to extol the virtues of retaining the licence fee over coming days. No doubt they'll recite well-rehearsed horror stories about the collapse of obscure BBC radio stations that virtually no-one ever listens to. How, pray tell, could the nation ever survive without BBC local radio to provide round-the-clock traffic updates and programmes about gardening? Very easily is the answer.

The BBC has already issued the following statement in response to the article: "At just £2.80 a week the BBC Licence Fee is excellent value for money - only this weekend newspapers have been reporting the rising costs of subscription services. It's vital that programmes like EastEnders, Strictly, Sherlock, Doctor Who and Match of the Day can been watched by everyone - not a select few; and support for the Licence Fee has actually risen by 22% since 2004 and remains the most popular way of funding the BBC."

Remember that for the equivalent of the licence fee you can subscribe to both Netflix and Amazon Prime, neither of which legally requires a TV licence. More information in our earlier post.
↧

It's Time to Axe the BBC Television Tax

November 16, 2014, 10:11 am
$
0
0

According to the Sunday Express's lead article, as many as 50 backbench Conservative MPs are calling for the abolition of the £145.50 TV licence fee.

The group, led by Andrew Bridgen MP, propose that future funding of the BBC should be by voluntary subscription, where only those wanting to consume BBC content end up paying for it.

As mentioned in our article last night, Mr Bridgen sent a letter outlining the proposals to Culture Secretary Sajid Javid MP.

The full text of that letter, dated 15th November 2014, appears below:
____________________
Dear Sajid,

I am writing with reference to the forthcoming BBC Charter renewal and more specifically regarding the future of the BBC Licence Fee. You will be aware that I brought forward the amendment which has led to your department reviewing the criminalisation of non-payment of the TV Licence with a view to full decriminalisation. As I put together my campaign on this issue, I found a great deal of concern both amongst my colleagues and the wider public regarding the current funding structure of the BBC and the sustainability of the model.

The Television Licence Fee dates back to 1946, and has been classified as a tax since 2006 by the Office of National Statistics who state "in line with the definition of a tax, the Licence fee is a compulsory payment which is not paid solely for access to BBC services. A licence is required to receive ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, satellite and cable". As a tax, it acts as one, if not the most regressive tax in the UK today. You stated yourself recently that the licence fee is "a large amount for many families" and during my research into people who have been sent to prison for non-payment, it was clear that in many cases affordability was the key issue.

With the rate of technological change since the last Charter, I feel that the current 12 year period is excessive given the current media environment. Since 2004, we have seen significant change with the increases in broadband speeds, the advent of the iplayer and subscription channels such as Netflix. With nearly 500,000 people accessing BBC services via the iplayer for free, licence fee payers are being discriminated against to the tune of around £70 million, and that number could well increase in the future.

Therefore the current BBC funding structure is increasingly becoming unsustainable, and out of keeping with the modern media environment. I believe strongly that the BBC should be planning for a future without the licence fee, and investigating subscription based payment options as well as the wealth of further opportunities that exist for its worldwide operation. I also believe Government has to play its role to ensure valued services such as news and local radio are still freely available, and consult on whether attaching a fee to the Council Tax or some similar method could be found.

I would be grateful if you could comment on my concerns regarding the BBC licence fee.

Yours sincerely,

Andrew Bridgen MP
↧
Search

Reader Letter: TV Licensing Goon Threatens Return Visit

November 21, 2014, 12:51 pm
$
0
0

In today's post we respond to an email received from one of our readers.

Our reader writes:

Dear TV Licensing Blog,

The other day I was visited by an officer from the TV Licensing Authority, who came to see why I didn't have a TV licence. I've not watched any TV since they turned off the analogue signal a few years ago. They've visited before, but I've always been at work when they called. I told him that I didn't watch TV, but he was very insistent on coming in to check. He told me that the only way they would stop sending me letters was if I let him in to see that I don't have a working TV set. I had just about been persuaded into letting him in when the phone went, so I made my excuses at the door. He said "In that case I'll put you down as a refuser. We'll be back" so I'm worried about what might happen next. Please advise me.

Chantelle

TV Licensing Blog replies:

Dear Chantelle,

Thank you for taking the time to get in touch

From what you've said, you do not legally need a TV licence and therefore have no business with TV Licensing. That being the case, you should not be overly concerned about any veiled threats from their miscreant employees.

TV Licensing has previously employed thieves, liars and even rapists, so you should never voluntarily allow them access to your home. Despite their bluster and innuendo, TV Licensing goons have no more rights, or legal authority, than any other visitor to your home. The doorstep really is the best place for them.

In future we recommend that you passively film any TV Licensing goons that visit your home.

The TV Licensing Authority, as you described them, is actually the BBC. TV Licensing is a trading name used by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of TV licence fees and enforcement of the TV licensing system. Capita Business Services Ltd is the TV Licensing operations contractor, who employed the salesman that visited your home. An officer he certainly was not.

We hope that addresses your question.

Peter

If you have any questions you would like answered on the TV Licensing Blog, please email us with the words "Reader Letter" in the subject line. Our email address is in the sidebar. As mentioned on the About page, we can't guarantee to respond to every email but will try our best.
↧
↧

TV Licensing Goodwill Payment Guidelines

November 22, 2014, 12:23 pm
$
0
0

In the last six years TV Licensing has made more than £110,000 in compensation payments to victims of its woeful administration and menacing enforcement regime.

It's a story we first broke back in January 2014, but the Telegraph was quick to report on the back of our efforts. 

Veteran TV Licensing Blog readers might remember how we explained that TV Licensing was prepared to authorise £200 cash sweeteners to those individuals making "extremely high impact" complaints, including those wrongly convicted of TV licence evasion.

Most people would rightly consider £200 a derisory offer for someone wrongly named and shamed as a TV licence evader in their local newspaper. Funnily enough, despite being very keen to print TV Licensing's incessant stream of mass produced garbage, the papers are much less keen to set the record straight whenever TV Licensing drops a bollock.

Just back from the match (Newcastle 1-0 QPR) and with an added spring in my step, I decided there was no better time to wade through the thousand-page TV Licensing Ask Help script. We are grateful to WhatDoTheyKnow.com requestor Nath for seeking this information in the first place.

On page 218 of the script, under the heading "Commercial in Confidence", there are more details about the types of compensation TV Licensing is prepared to pay to complainants. The list includes the following:
  • £5 to cover the cost of postage or telephone calls.
  • £10 if TV Licensing gives incorrect information.
  • £10 if TV Licensing damages a death certificate.
  • £10 if TV Licensing is delayed dealing with a query.
  • £10 if TV Licensing promise to return a telephone call, but fail to do so.
  • £10 if the TV Licensing call handler has a bad attitude.
  • £10 if TV Licensing promise to take action in relation to mailings, but fail to do so.
  • £10 if the complainant has to waste their time contacting TV Licensing on more than one occasion to resolve the same query.
  • £15 if any 2 of the £10 complaints apply.
  • £20 if any 3 of the £10 complaints apply.
  • £25 if any 4 of the £10 complaints apply.
  • Over £30 if the complainant has wrongly incurred bank charges due to an error or omission on the part of TV Licensing.
This information, combined with our recent success in suing TV Licensing, means there has never been a better time to complain about their abysmal standards of service.

If your one of the thousands of people wronged by TV Licensing get on the phone, dig your heals in and insist that they pay for wasting your time with their incompetence

If you've found this article useful please share it with your friends and consider using our Amazon referral link for your Christmas shopping.
↧

TV Licensing Fact or Fiction: 20 Common Myths Debunked

November 23, 2014, 4:41 am
$
0
0
If there's one thing that drives us absolutely mad here at the TV Licensing Blog it's the fact that we spend half our time correcting the same few misconceptions.

It is a worrying fact that a significant proportion of the UK population believe that TV Licensing is justified in the way it terrorises non-viewers. They are seemingly oblivious to the fact that TV Licensing is the BBC's militant revenue generation arm, which has to meet stiff performance targets by selling as many TV licences as it can. They don't understand that TV Licensing "visiting officers" are actually commission-driven salespeople, who can double their paltry basic salary by hard-selling TV licences.

Here are some of the myths we have to set straight on a depressingly regular basis:
  • Myth 1: TV Licensing is an official Government "agency".
Fact: No it isn't. The BBC is the statutory Television Licensing Authority (see s. 180 of The Broadcasting Act 1990) responsible for all matters relating to TV licence administration and enforcement. The BBC contracts several private companies to undertake the majority of its TV licence functions (see TV Licensing website). These companies collectively operate under the name of TV Licensing. TV Licensing is a BBC trademark. The BBC retains overall legal responsibility for the administration and enforcement of the licence fee.
  • Myth 2: You need a TV licence if you own a TV.
Fact: No you don't. The legislation (see s. 363(1) of The Communications Act 2003) is that a television receiver must not be installed or used unless the property is covered by a valid TV licence. Mere ownership of a television receiver (or any other equipment) is not covered by the legislation. It is the act of installing and using a television receiver that is licensable.
  • Myth 3: TV Licensing employees work for the Government.
Fact: No they don't. As previously mentioned, the BBC contracts the majority of its TV licence functions to several private companies. The private company holding the operations contract is called Capita Business Services Ltd. TV Licensing "visiting officers" are employed by Capita. They work on a commission basis, which means they have a financial incentive to hard-sell TV licences and gather evidence of TV licence evasion. Their performance targets are very steep and we consider they are virtually unachievable for a TV Licensing employee playing by the rules.
  • Myth 4: You must inform TV Licensing if you don't need a TV licence.
Fact: No you don't. Would you inform Tesco if you suddenly decided to do your shopping at Asda? Would you think Tesco had the legal right to enquire why you didn't use their service? Anyone who doesn't need a TV licence, has no legal business whatsoever with TV Licensing. We strongly discourage non-viewers from providing TV Licensing with any assistance at all. Even if a non-viewer told TV Licensing they didn't require a TV licence, they would not be believed.

If you are cancelling an existing TV licence the situation is slightly different and we suggest you read our post all about it.
  • Myth 5: If you don't watch BBC programmes, you don't need a TV licence.
Fact: This is incorrect for the reasons mentioned in response to myth 2. A TV licence is required for the reception of any television programme service, regardless of the channel or where in the world the broadcast originates.
  • Myth 6: TV licence evasion is a civil offence.
Fact: This statement is very popular with FMOTL types (and the generally ill-informed) but totally incorrect. The legislation (see s. 363(2) of The Communications Act 2003) states that anyone who installs or uses a television receiver without a valid TV licence is guilty of "an offence". It does not say "a civil offence", as civil legislation conventionally does. The fact that the offence is tried summarily before a Magistrates' Court should also give an indication of its criminal status, but that distinction also seems lost on some people. The final proof, if any more were needed, is that the Government is currently exploring measures to decriminalise TV licence evasion. How could this be if it wasn't a criminal offence in the first place?
  • Myth 7: Only the police can caution someone under PACE 1984. TV Licensing can't.
Fact: TV Licensing employees should always caution the occupier of a property where they suspect TV licence evasion is taking place. The caution reminds the occupier of their right to remain silent, which we suggest they exercise at all times when dealing with TV Licensing.
  • Myth 8: TV Licensing employees have the right to enter private property.
Fact: Under normal circumstances TV Licensing employees have no automatic right to enter private property. TV Licensing rules state that their employees must always leave immediately when asked to do so by the occupier.

The only exception is the very rare situation when TV Licensing employees present a search warrant, in which case the occupier must allow them immediate unhindered entry.
  • Myth 9: You can't film or audio record TV Licensing employees who call at your property.
Fact: Yes you can. It is perfectly legal to film or audio record TV Licensing employees who call at your property. The occupier does not need inform the TV Licensing employee that they are being recorded and the TV Licensing employee does not need to give their permission. The only way a TV Licensing employee can opt out of being recorded is if they physically withdraw from the property.

We encourage readers to record all TV Licensing visits to their property for their own protection. TV Licensing employees are known to tell lies in an effort to inflate their commission earnings. A recording of the encounter reduces the chances of disagreement or foul play later on.

TV Licensing employees are not legally allowed to record on private property without the occupier's permission.
  • Myth 10: Your landlord, neighbour or broadband/cable provider could give information to TV Licensing.
Fact: They certainly shouldn't. TV Licensing rules are quite explicit that their employees should never attempt to gather information/evidence from third-parties unrelated to the property in question. The landlord or broadband/cable provider would almost certainly be committing an offence under the Data Protection Act 1998 if they provided any of your personal information to TV Licensing. Similarly a landlord should never be allowing TV Licensing, or anyone else for that matter, access to a tenant's property without their express permission.

We often hear from students concerned that their university might allow TV Licensing access to their hall of residence room. That should never happen and the universities are fully aware of that. If it did happen the student would have cause to complain in the strongest possible terms and could take legal action against the university.
  • Myth 11: TV detection equipment doesn't exist.
Fact: It's a controversial one this, not least because a fair few of our like-minded friends agree with the above statement. We consider that TV detection equipment does exist, but its use is not nearly as widespread as the BBC and TV Licensing would have people believe. TV Licensing has an army of PR harlots who exaggerate the effectiveness of detection for deterrent purposes.

The use of detection is strictly governed by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (BBC) Order 2001. Contrary to what TV Licensing would have people believe, they can't just hop in their magic detector van whenever they feel like it. Each use of detection has to be personally reviewed and authorised by a senior BBC manager. Under the Freedom of Information Act the BBC has previously told us that there are only two people who can grant authorisations, although we believe this has recently increased to three.

The BBC confirms that TV detection evidence has never been presented for scrutiny in open court. They are no doubt fearful about the effectiveness of their detection equipment being challenged in public.
  • Myth 12: The TV licence is not your responsibility, so you can't be prosecuted for TV licence evasion.
Fact: TV Licensing will attempt to gather prosecution evidence from any adult occupier of the property at the time TV licence evasion takes place. That person, irrespective of whether or not they are responsible for paying the TV licence fee, can be prosecuted for TV licence evasion.

Unless a tenancy agreement specifically states that the landlord is responsible for paying the TV licence fee, it is the tenant's responsibility to do so.
  • Myth 13: TV Licensing can't touch you if you issue WOIRA.
Fact: This dangerous falsehood has been mentioned a lot over recent months. In theory if you tell TV Licensing they aren't welcome at your property - known as withdrawal of implied rights of access (WOIRA) - they should keep away.

In practice it doesn't always work that way, with TV Licensing often ignoring perfectly valid WOIRA instructions and then pleading ignorance when challenged about it. TV Licensing normally acknowledge WOIRA instructions by sending the occupier a letter, but such an acknowledgement does not guarantee an end to their visits or harassment. Issuing a WOIRA instruction to TV Licensing also makes it more likely the occupier will be hit with a search warrant, as one of the conditions for obtaining a warrant is that TV Licensing cannot gain access to the property with the occupier's consent. That said, search warrants are still exceptionally rare and anyone without need for a TV licence should not be overly concerned by them.

Even if TV Licensing complies with a WOIRA instruction they could still obtain evidence from outside the boundary of the property, either by detection or by peering through windows etc. If the quality of evidence is good enough (or even if it isn't) TV Licensing might be able to persuade a Magistrate to grant a search warrant.

By issuing WOIRA the occupier is providing TV Licensing with confirmation of residency, so our advice would by to adopt the non-contact approach instead.
  • Myth 14: If you have internet access you need a TV licence.
Fact: See our response to myth 2. It's an unfortunate fact that technology is evolving much faster than legislation, so it is now possible for anyone with web-enabled computer to receive TV programmes within a few mouse clicks.

As previously mentioned, a computer can only be classed as a television receiver if it is actually installed or used for that purpose. People do not, as a general rule, install a computer with the intention of receiving TV programmes across the web. The fact they can receive TV programmes across the web is entirely coincidental. A licence is only required if a person actually does receive TV programme services across the web (e.g. intentionally navigates to live streaming of any TV channel).
  • Myth 15: You can't be caught watching TV programmes online without a TV licence.
Fact: Unfortunately you can, but it's not easy for TV Licensing to do that. Unlike GCHQ, TV Licensing does not have technology allowing it to snoop on peoples' web browsing habits. Even if it did, the use of such equipment would be very strictly controlled and totally unjustified in the pursuit of TV licence evaders. 
The only way TV Licensing can catch an online viewer evading the TV licence, is if they admit to doing it or a goon catches them in the act. We're sure you'll agree that neither of those situations is very likely.
  • Myth 16: You can only be convicted of TV licence evasion if you admit to the offence.
Fact: This is total nonsense. If it was true then nobody would ever be convicted of TV licence evasion, because they'd simply keep quiet and admit to nothing. Contrary to the drivel spouted in certain quarters of the web, there are certain unfortunate situations where the evidence of unlicensed TV reception is so overwhelming that it doesn't matter whether the occupier admits the offence or not. In these situations the occupier can still be convicted even if they refuse to sign the TVL178 Record of Interview form.

An example would be if the goon turned up on a search warrant visit at exactly 1 pm and saw the opening titles to the One O'Clock news on a TV screen inside the property. A bit of common sense should tell people that if it was as easy as not signing the TVL178 then nobody in the country would ever be convicted of TV licence evasion. Sadly, to our increasing frustration, there's a lot of people that lack common sense and believe anything they read on social media sites.
  • Myth 17: TV licence evaders face a criminal record and £1,000 fine.
Fact: Those convicted of TV licence evasion do technically receive a criminal record, but it is a non-recordable offence and their conviction won't appear on the Police National Computer or any Disclosure and Barring Service check. That said, TV Licensing do love to name and shame TV licence dodgers in the local newspapers, so it would be foolish for anyone to keep their conviction a secret from potential employers etc.

Technically speaking, the maximum penalty for TV licence evasion in England, Wales, Scotland and the Isle of Man is a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, which currently stands at £1,000. This value is oft-mooted by TV Licensing for its deterrent effect. In reality fines are rarely in excess of £200 for individuals or £500 for businesses. The average fine for individuals is probably around the £100 mark. Having observed the outcome of hundreds of TV licence evasion cases, the TV Licensing Blog has never seen a fine in excess of £500.

On Jersey the maximum fine is £500 and on Guernsey it is £2,000.
  • Myth 18: You can go to prison for TV licence evasion.
Fact: No you can't. As mentioned earlier, the theoretical maximum penalty for an individual is a fine of £1,000. Occasionally the courts will imprison someone who defaults on payment of their fines, but that is a separate offence. Imprisonment for non-payment of fines is exceptionally rare. In our experience, the court will always endeavour to make fine payment terms as convenient and manageable as possible.
  • Myth 19: Paying the licence fee is against people's human rights and funds BBC corruption.
Fact: That may well be true, but unfortunately TV licence evasion is an absolute offence. This means the offence is not open to interpretation - the occupier either received TV programmes without a licence or they didn't. The courts do not accept the argument that paying the licence fee deprives people of their fundamental human right to free information. Similarly, the courts do not accept the argument that paying the licence fee is illegal/immoral because it funds BBC corruption, maladministration and historical instances of paedophilia.
  • Myth 20: As a legitimate non-viewer, you just have to accept TV Licensing harassment and intimidation.
Fact: No you certainly do not. TV Licensing is currently under more intense public scrutiny than ever. People are realising that TV Licensing bullies, acting on behalf of the BBC, deceive and intimidate tens of thousands of people, when it is legally unjustified in doing so.

Anyone on the receiving end of TV Licensing threats and intimidation should complain in the strongest possible terms, demanding compensation and taking legal action as appropriate.

Definitions:
If you've found this article useful please consider liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.
↧

TV Licensing: Attending Court on TV Licence Evasion Charges

November 26, 2014, 1:19 pm
$
0
0
Anyone summoned to court on TV licence evasion charges should make every effort to attend the hearing in person, as it the only opportunity to make their voice heard.

Over the years we have become accustomed, although not immune, to the nauseating repetitiveness of TV licence evasion cases heard at the Magistrates' Court. These courts work at a blistering pace, disposing of literally dozens of cases every hour. 

The Magistrates' Courts are only able to do that because the overwhelming majority of defendants fail to respond to the summons, fail to attend on the day or simply plead guilty - regardless of whether they actually are - because they see it as the easiest option.

It is no exaggeration to say that well over ninety percent of TV licence evasion cases are dealt with in the absence of the defendant. The defendant, for whatever reason, has either failed to respond to the summons or failed to appear in person as they said they would. In either of these cases the Magistrates will only be presented with TV Licensing's version of events, whether or not that bears any resemblance to reality. 

Faced with only prosecution evidence the Magistrates have no option but to find the non-attending defendant guilty by default. The court would base its decision entirely on the unchallenged word of the Capita Court Presenter. There would be no need to consider primary evidence, like the completed TVL178 Record of Interview form.

We would encourage all defendants to attend court. By appearing in person the defendant will at least have the opportunity to make their voice heard. Even if they're only attending to plead guilty, then at least they can still explain their personal circumstances and highlight any mitigating factors. 

The presence of the defendant means the court will give the case more consideration than it would in their absence. Experience shows that the courts look favourably on defendants pleading guilty from the outset (e.g. when responding the summons), who then appear in person to face their responsibilities.

Whenever possible we encourage a defendant to plead not guilty, thereby forcing TV Licensing to prove its case. As discussed earlier, an uncontested case will invariably go in TV Licensing's favour.

It is only by challenging TV Licensing's evidence or procedures that the defendant has any chance of winning their case. In some circumstances TV Licensing will be so concerned at the prospect of its evidence being tested, that it will actually withdraw the charges before the trial date.

It's time to take the fight to TV Licensing. Stand up, make your voice heard and let the court listen.
↧

TV Licensing: Alarming New Search Warrant Tactics

November 29, 2014, 4:26 am
$
0
0
We are aware of an alarming new tactic being employed by TV Licensing in the aftermath of search warrant executions. 

It appears that even when TV Licensing wrongly searches a property the occupier could face unexpected search warrant obstruction charges months down the line.

Before going any further, let us stress that TV Licensing search warrants are exceptionally rare. Anyone who legitimately doesn't need a TV licence, should not be overly concerned about the threat of a search warrant. Further information can be found in our earlier post.

Steve, who was the victim of a TV Licensing search warrant despite being legally-licence-free, wrote a forum post explaining how the new underhand tactics had been used against him.

Posting on the TV Licence Resistance forums, he said: "I cancelled my Sky in December 2012 and made my last payment in January 2013 after both my Sky boxes stopped working. 

"I wasn't able to watch TV and therefore cancelled my TV licence on the 1st May 2013 and removed (TV Licensing's) right of access to my property."

Steve goes on to explain how TV Licensing - no doubt on the back of highly questionable evidence - successfully obtained a warrant to search his property, which it did back in May 2014.

The two TV Licensing goons executing the warrant were unable to get a TV programme on Steve's broken equipment and were satisfied that there was no evidence of unlicensed TV reception. They duly annotated the TVL178 Record of Interview form with a comment to that effect.

Scroll forward to October 2014 and Steve awoke one morning to find a rather nasty surprise in the post - a summons for obstructing TV Licensing's earlier warrant.

According to the completed Statement of Facts (the irony!) TV Licensing has now decided to bring charges on the basis that Steve failed to answer the door for two minutes after they first arrived at the property.

That's just TV Licensing's opinion, which is probably not borne out by any evidence at all. Steve's supposed delay in answering the door certainly wasn't mentioned to him at the time, nor did he notice the goons standing with a stopwatch when he first clapped eyes on them. 

The Statement of Facts continued that Steve and his wife, according to TV Licensing's interpretation of events, exploited those two minutes by running around the house and frantically hiding non-existent evidence of TV licence evasion they weren't committing.

We are extremely concerned by TV Licensing's willingness to offer such conjecture as "fact" when laying information to the court. The goons stood on the doorstep have no way of knowing what was happening in the property before the door was answered. They can't even be sure that their presence was heard.

In reality there are a myriad of legitimate reasons why it might take someone two minutes to answer the door. They may have been mid telephone call; they may have been in the bathroom; they may have been listening to music; they may have been in the back garden; they may have been plagued by God botherers or chuggers; Steve may have simply been waiting for his wife to answer the door or vice versa.

All of these are entirely plausible explanations for any short delay in answering the door. For TV Licensing to offer a more sinister and unsubstantiated opinion is breathtaking arrogance.

How can Steve be guilty of obstructing the warrant, when he probably wasn't even aware of who was at the door until he opened it? It's not as if he was expecting TV Licensing to call. Or is he meant to drop everything and hurl him self at the front door every time the doorbell goes?

In our opinion Steve's story is further evidence of TV Licensing's face-saving strategy of pursuing (trumped up) obstruction charges whenever a search warrant visit draws a blank.

It is again noted that TV Licensing has waited in excess of five months to bring this prosecution. We believe TV Licensing unscrupulously delays prosecution until the last minute, because it puts the defendant on the back foot. With the passage of time, the defendant is far less likely to remember the details of what they considered to be an uneventful TV Licensing visit. Of course the BBC don't admit to using that strategy, but last minute prosecutions happen too frequently to be coincidental.

TV Licensing visited Steve's home, found nothing to pin on him, so rather than face the embarrassment of leaving empty-handed decided to go for the consolation prize. He'd already told TV Licensing not to visit, so it probably had him pegged as a troublemaker anyway. 

It's a case of TV Licensing sour grapes, pure and simple.

If you've found this article useful please share it with your friends and consider using our Amazon referral link for your Christmas shopping.
↧
↧

BBC Watchdog in Doghouse Over Mobile Misinformation

November 30, 2014, 4:26 am
$
0
0

The BBC's Watchdog programme is making headlines for all the wrong reasons this morning, with news that it gave out inaccurate information to mobile phone users.

Here at the TV Licensing Blog we absolutely love Watchdog. We find it hysterical that the BBC dedicates a whole hour of its prime time schedule to the pretence that it's a consumer champion, oh so virtuous and whiter than white. 

In reality the same BBC has overseen years of sex abuse, corruption, incompetence and financial impropriety. Every day the BBC authorises TV Licensing to harass and intimidate thousands of people it knows do not require a TV licence.

In the programme broadcast on BBC One last Thursday evening, presenter Anne Robinson explained how criminals were stealing handsets and deliberately running up bills by calling premium rate numbers they had a stake in.

In many cases the mobile phone providers have claimed that the victim of the theft is responsible for call charges incurred before they reported the theft.

The programme led with the offending segment, which went as follows:
____________________
Anne Robinson (AR): Before that, mobile phones.

Hundreds of thousands of handsets are stolen each year. This sort of crime is huge and even has its own dedicated police team, because phones are no longer only stolen to be sold - instead criminals use them in a sophisticated scam whereby they rake in millions of pounds making continuous calls.

Now, you'd assume that since these calls happen after your phone has vanished, the networks wouldn't be pursuing you for the call. Wrong.


Riz Latif (RL): Nearly every single adult in Britain now uses a mobile phone, but it's not just of value to you - it's of value to thieves too.

That means if yours is stolen, you could have a lot more to deal with than just the trauma of the theft and the hassle of getting a new handset, because the biggest shock of all might not come until the end of the month, when your next bill arrives.

Orange customer Darren Buckley's mobile phone fell into the wrong hands last March and now he's desperately paying the price.

Darren Buckley (DB): I went on holiday to Barcelona with a friend of mine to watch the football, just for a couple of days. I got back to the hotel in the taxi and realised I'd lost the phone.

RL: Darren immediately rang home and asked his girlfriend to try and lock his phone remotely, using an online app. And all the signs were that this had worked.

DB: It reassured me a little bit. I thought "right, girlfriend's done it. I'll go and enjoy my holiday a little bit more".

As soon as I'd come home I rung up Orange straight away. I told them what had happened, obviously, they said "right, we'll cancel it".

RL: Darren thought no more about it, but then his bill arrived.


DB: The bill was for £2,144. I looked at it and there was just call after call. Every minute they were calling. I was gobsmacked.

RL: The app Darren's girlfriend had used to stop calls being made, hadn't worked.

In the 30 hours between the phone going missing and Darren reporting it stolen, someone had used it to make 200 calls, racking up charges of over £2,000 in the process.

But why would anyone need to make that many calls in such a short time? Are they desperate to talk to loved ones and friends? No. They are fraudsters, interested only in making money.

It's all part of a sophisticated crime. Getting hold of your phone is just the beginning. What these criminals are interested in is making calls - calls to premium rate lines that they own.

Calling these numbers can cost up to £3 a minute and whoever owns them gets a hefty chunk of that amount. So by using your phone to make calls, it's lining their pockets - and, they'll only stop when the provider eventually blocks the handset.

A complex premeditated crime, designed to be repeated time and time again, with Darren the unfortunate victim on this occasion.

So what do you think Orange did? Write off the debt? Not a chance.

DB: Orange said I was completely liable for the bill, up until the point that I reported it stolen. Normally my bill is £50 a month. It's quite clear that I never made them phone calls. After a bit of negotiation Orange knocked £600 off, but still leaving me with a bill of roughly £1,600.

RL: And it's not just Orange customers that receive little sympathy when their phones are stolen. 

Vodafone customer James McMillan also had his phone taken whilst on a night out in Barcelona. And even though he had no idea who had it, he felt confident they wouldn't be able to use it.

James McMillan (JM): I had a PIN on my phone at the time, so I thought my phone was pretty secure, and I thought it was just stolen for the value of the handset.

RL: James reported it to Vodafone the next morning, who blocked it. But, just as in Darren's case, a shock bill arrived a few weeks later.

JM: I received a bill that was over £6,000. I was totally in shock to see that kind of amount. It was crazy that such a huge bill could be run up in such a short period of time. It was just over about 30 hours.

RL: So how were the criminals able to do it, even though the phone is protected by a security lock? 

Because, sadly locking your handset won't stop this type of crime. It just means that no-one can make any calls from that particular phone.

But, take out the SIM card, and put it into another handset, and all calls made will still be charged back to you.

SIM cards can be protected with a PIN code too, but James had no idea about that before he was robbed.

JM:£6,000 is a lot of money. It's a car; it's a deposit for a house - you know, it's a lot of money.

RL: Which Vodafone is adamant James has to pay. But, he isn't taking it lying down and the case is now with his lawyers.

The stance of Orange and Vodafone in these cases isn't unusual. All mobile providers share the same policy: if your phone is stolen, you will be responsible for any charges run up on your bill until you report the loss.

But this position seems particularly unfair when you compare it to the way victims of credit card fraud are treated. If your card is lost or stolen you cannot be held liable for any unauthorised transactions made on it over the first £50, regardless of when you report the card missing. Why can't the mobile providers do something similar?

The Government certainly thinks they should. Last December it struck a voluntary deal with major phone companies EE, which owns T-Mobile and Orange, 3, Virgin Media and Vodafone, in which they all promised to introduce credit card style caps.

Those caps were supposed to have been in place by spring this year, yet so far none of the providers has taken any action whatsoever.

James Plunkett from the CAB (JP): People are coming to us every week in the situation where they've had their mobile phone stolen and they've had a huge bill as a result of that. 

We've looked at those cases and what we've found is that the bills range from about £70 in the smallest case, up to £17,000 in the maximum case. These are life changing amounts of money. 

It is completely unreasonable that the Government and the phone providers continue to delay on implementing this cap.

AR: So when can we expect caps to be put in place? Ministers are apparently due to meet the providers shortly to hammer out the details. We'll update you as soon as we know.

Orange says it works hard to tackle fraud and it picked up the unusual activity on Darren's account and had already blocked his phone by the time he called them. It's gone back to him today with an offer of £677 off his £2,100 bill - a total reduction of £68,000. We suggest he keeps bartering, because... Sorry 68%.

Vodafone have offered James a much better deal. It's prepared to reduce his bill from more than £6,000 to £500.

Now, both Vodafone and Orange say it's crucial customers report stolen phones as soon as possible and protect their SIM. All the networks have dedicated phone lines open 24 hours a day for this purpose.

Chris Hollins (CH): So how do you go about protecting your SIM? Here are the three best ways.

Number 1: Put a passcode on both the handset and the SIM. This can be done via the settings of most phones. Check the instructions to find out how.

Number 2: Make a note of the phone's IMEI number, as well as the phone's make and model. You may well need all three to get the phone blocked. The IMEI number is a unique 15 digit serial number. You'll find it behind your battery or by keying *#06# into your handset.

And finally, tip number 3: You could ask your provider to bar all calls to international and premium rate numbers, leaving the phone useless to thieves trying to commit this type of crime.

Well if you'd like to comment on that or any of the other stories we've featured tonight email us at watchdog@bbc.co.uk or join the conversation on Twitter, the address and hashtag are shown on the screen now.
____________________
Thousands of viewers trying to protect their SIM using the second step above found that their handset locked, because the programme omitted to mention important information - that a PUK code is also needed. Some Watchdog viewers trying to protect their SIM without a PUK code handy, found their handsets locked out of action for several hours.

Unbelievably, the erroneous segment is still live on the BBC iPlayer now, in exactly the same format as it was broadcast on Thursday evening.

Another glaring example of BBC incompetence.
↧

Reader Letter: Foreign Student Duped Into False TV Licensing Confession

November 30, 2014, 8:51 am
$
0
0

In today's post we respond to an email received from one of our readers.

Our reader writes:

Dear TV Licensing Blog,

Just this evening (29th November 2014) at 6 pm, my household was visited by an officer from TV Licensing Authority. We are a household of foreign students studying in the UK for the first time. He claimed that we were watching live TV (between 1 week and 2 days ago) and needed to pay for a licence immediately. We refused because we had not been watching any TV in the UK and did not even have a TV installed within the premises. He then gave us a deadline to pay by Monday.

He wanted to inspect our property, which we refused because his attitude was bad and he seemed very shady.

Finally, he ended up threatening us with a document which we now know as the notorious TVL178 form. He asked many questions and filled in the form. My housemate signed the form, thinking that it was a survey, just to get him out of the premises. Looking back at the form, it contains incorrect information. The TV Licensing man did not tell us he was interviewing us under caution or that the form could later be used in court.

Attached is a picture of the form.

The problem is there is no eye witness and unlike your other cases, the accusation here is hard to disprove (or prove). Another flatmate overhead the conversation (but minimally). We really need advice and help.

Side note: Your website is amazing. I wish we had met in better circumstances.

Sera


TV Licensing Blog replies:

Dear Sera,

Thanks for your email and kind words about our blog.

As you know already, a TV licence is needed for any property where equipment is used to receive TV programme services (e.g. TV programmes available to other members of the public at the same time).

It is unfortunate that your flatmate signed the TVL178 Record of Interview form, which incorrectly states their admission to watching live programmes without a TV licence. TV Licensing has no automatic right of entry to a property and I always recommend refusing them entry for this very reason - they cannot always be trusted to report the outcome of enquiries honestly.

Regrettably, your flatmate is at a disadvantage. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is unlikely a court would believe your flatmate signed such an admission without reading it first. I think their only way of escaping prosecution is by contacting TV Licensing and explaining that they are foreign, didn't fully understand the process and were coerced into signing the form by the irate goon. It is also worth mentioning, as you have done to me, that the goon made no attempt to conduct the interview under caution.

If the worst comes to the worst, you and your flatmate should be prepared to go to court and tell them exactly what you've told me - that no-one in your property receives TV programmes, the TV Licensing goon recorded inaccurate information and your flatmate was scared into signing them in the hope it would get him to leave. TV Licensing quite often drop a case before it gets to court, because they do not want their dishonest tactics to come under public scrutiny.

Please stay tuned to the comments below, as our readers may be able to offer more advice on this matter. I'd also appreciate if you'd keep me informed of developments in this case.

The very best of luck to you and your flatmate.

Peter

If you have any questions you would like answered on the TV Licensing Blog, please email us with the words "Reader Letter" in the subject line. Our email address is in the sidebar. As mentioned on the About page, we can't guarantee to respond to every email but will try our best.
↧
Search

TV Licensing: Getting Down and Dirty

December 6, 2014, 1:41 am
$
0
0

TV Licensing vagabonds are rummaging through wheelie bins, as they desperately graze for information about the occupiers of unlicensed properties.

That's the allegation made by a commentator on the TV Licensing Blog Facebook page a few days ago.

Facebook user Estella told us the following: "A TV Licensing (officer) was banging forcefully on my door today, then I saw him ripping rubbish bags in my wheelie bin and he found an envelope with my name on."

She wondered "Is he allowed to do that?"

No, he certainly is not. TV Licensing goons do not have any legal right to search wheelie bins or take anything from them. If, as it seems in this case, a TV Licensing goon does remove property from a bin, then that is an act of theft. There are no grey areas about that.

TV Licensing has previously employed thieves, liars, fraudsters, kiddy fiddlers and rapists, so we have little doubt that dishonest goons still frequent their payroll - dishonest goons who would try every trick in the book in order to ramp up their commission payments. 

Make no mistake that a significant proportion of TV Licensing goons are unscrupulous scumbags, who are only out for a quick buck.

From a personal security point of view, it is sensible to remove all personal information from rubbish before discarding it in the wheelie bin.

If you see a TV Licensing goon rummaging through your bins, try to get a couple of photographs and report the incident to the police.
↧

TV Licensing: Cornish Goon Reluctant to Identify Himself

December 6, 2014, 2:10 am
$
0
0

Cornish TV Licensing goon Justin Moses got more than he bargained for during a visit to a legally-licence-free property.

He was confronted by a TV Licensing goon's worst nightmare - a clued up occupier with a camera.

To his credit Moses conducts his enquiries in a polite enough manner, despite the occupier bearing down with increasingly assertive requests for him to leave. 

Indeed, had it not been for Moses' reluctance to leave the property and confirm his identity, this video wouldn't be featuring here on the TV Licensing Blog.

Moses claims to have taken up his immoral employment only recently, but it appears he has already adopted the strategy of reading out the property's address to the camera.


In our opinion the occupier engages in too much conversation with Moses. It is apparent that the occupier becomes increasingly agitated, which may play into TV Licensing's hands if they choose to make subsequent visits to the property.

A better option would have been to calmly say "I don't legally need a TV licence" and close the door. 

If a goon refuses to show their ID card to the camera, then the occupier can simply lower the camera, inspect their ID card, and announce clearly the name (and spelling if appropriate) written on it.
↧
↧

TV Licensing PR Harlots: Issuing Festive Threats on BBC Local Radio

December 6, 2014, 7:04 am
$
0
0

Gappy-toothed TV Licensing PR harlot Matt Thompson appeared on BBC Radio Leeds yesterday.

Thompson, who is employed by two-bit PR agency Finn Communications Ltd, featured on Richard Stead's show. Leeds-based Finn was awarded the £300k TV Licensing propaganda contract for the North of England on 1st April 2014 (no joke).

At one point Thompson was questioned about the status of TV Licensing, but he couldn't quite choke out the admission that it's the BBC's militant revenue generation arm. Instead he pissed around with some half-arsed piffle about TV Licensing being a consortium of different companies.

A transcript of the segment appears below:
____________________
Richard Stead (RS): Just indulge me for a bit please Matthew.

So do you prefer Matt or Matthew?

Matt Thompson (MT): I'm easy actually/

RS: Are you?

MT: It used to be Matt, but actually as I grow older I prefer Matthew now.

RS: Because I just jumped straight in there with a Matt there. I do apologise.

I'm of that age where I used to see these adverts - or infomercials as they would be - on the BBC, with this van driving around, and if I remember correctly there was like a mini satellite dish on the top.

Or then you'd see another one where it was set in a block of flats, and there was a gentleman walking with a handheld device that was...

MT: Yeah, yeah.

RS: I must admit, I have never seen a TV detector van. How do you find out if someone hasn't got a TV licence? And do these vans really exist?

MT: Okay, so tackling that question starting from the top, it's worth saying that the vast majority of people are correctly licensed. So there's 25 million licences in place.

There's a very small minority, around 5%, who are evading - actively evading the licence fee - and obviously we're working very closely with them, to ensure that are aware of their responsibilities and when they need to be correctly licensed. And if you are caught without a licence, and you're watching live television, then you may well face prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000. So it is very serious.

We use a number of different ways to detect those people who are evading the licence fee. Primarily we have a database of 30 million addresses in the UK, and that tells us at the click of a button exactly who's licensed and who's not. And it's really important to say, we only focus our attention on those people who aren't. And what we'll normally do is send through a letter to them, to ask what their situation is. If we don't hear back, then it is likely that an enquiry officer might pay a visit just to find out what the situation is.

RS: Will he be in a van with a satellite dish on the roof?

MT: We do have a fleet of detector vans.

RS: Do you?!

MT: It isn't a myth. So they do exist.

RS: Really? I've never seen one. Never seen one.

MT: Well, I guess for obvious reasons they're not particularly obvious.

RS: Do they have like a cloaking device? Kind of like on the movies?

MT: I couldn't give away too much in terms of their appearance (see one here)...

RS: Oh, you cunning monkey.


MT: ...but they do exist. There is a fleet of detector vans, which is in operation across the UK.

Obviously enquiry officers, they also have handheld devices, which again enables them to ascertain if somebody is watching live television. And it's worth pointing out again - it doesn't matter about the device. So if you're watching on an iPad, or you're watching on your mobile phone, if you're watching live we can still detect that. There's no issue there regardless of the technology or platform you're are using.

RS: We've got a question about that: "Technology has moved on so much, what if you watch programmes on iPlayer or 4oD?" Is that 4 on Demand?

MT: Yes.

RS: Those kinds of watch-again facilities that you can get, like you say, on a phone or a tablet, you still need a licence?

MT: So, it all comes down to "live". If you're watching them live - so as they're screened - then yes, you do require a licence to watch them.

If you're watching them a week after they were screened and they're no longer live, then there's no issue there. But it's all down to live, regardless of device, it's down to if you're watching live television, as it's screened - and this isn't just for example a live sporting event, it could be Eastenders at 8 o'clock tonight for example - if you're watching it as it's broadcast, regardless of the device - so if you're watching it on your iPad, mobile phone, it doesn't matter - if you're watching it live then you do require a licence.

RS: What if I only watch ITV.

MT: You still require a licence. If you're watching live programmes on ITV, then you require a licence.

RS: Who gets discounts?

MT: So there are a number of concessions in place. So the over 75s get a free licence, but it's really important that they get in touch to let us know that they have reached 75. We can obviously make sure from that point onwards that they're able to ascertain their free licence.

If they're 74 and not far off turning 75 they can get a short term licence as well, but again we just need them to get in touch and they can do by giving us a call 0300 790 6112 or go through the website, tvlicensing.co.uk. 

So you can do all of that through the website: you can let us know if you don't need a licence, you can let us know if you do need a licence and we can also look at any discounts. And there are further discounts as well.


RS: We'll repeat these details throughout the hour, so don't worry if you do miss them.

What for example - and I'm trying to think of a hypothetical situations and things here - what for example if you're 75/76, but the missus or the husband or whatever is 72 and the licence has always been in their name. Do you have to change it into your name?

MT: Change it into your name, but you would get a free licence. There's no issue there.

RS: As long as one of you is (over 75)?

MT: Absolutely, no issue there at all. All we'd ask is that people let us know. Obviously we've got this huge database of addresses. It's really important that people help us. We don't want to hassle anybody at all, but obviously if we do send a letter through to find out your status, if you can let us know - give us a call, go through the website, or get back in touch with us by letter - then that helps us to maintain our records, but ultimately we want to work with people. We don't want to prosecute wherever possible. We'd much rather people just came forward and paid for the licence.

RS: Neil says "Why are the TV licence department so aggressive in correspondence? If they think you have no licence they leave letters that say we know who you are". Firstly, is that true?

MT: Right I've not heard of that I must admit, but tones of letter do vary and I think it's worth saying that whilst the vast majority of people are correctly licensed there is a small minority who are persistently evading. And we do need to make sure that the tone of the letter is such that it is very clear on the consequences of not being correctly licensed, so we just try to be very clear. 

If somebody does receive a letter, and for example they have a licence and they've received it in error, please do let us know. If you let us know, you won't receive any further letters for a good number of years, but we do need to update our files. It's really, really important that people work with us.

RS: I think you've answered the question but just to give Neil his full platform there, he goes onto say "It also contains language like you are on our list etc. Why take this attitude? It must worry old and infirm people and makes the TV licensing department sound like third-rate gangsters".

I think to be fair you have answered his point, but that probably shows the extent of how Neil is concerned by maybe the attitude that he perceives that perhaps you take in pursuing people who you think don't have a licence.

MT: It is really useful feedback. I would say that tone varies in accordance with number of letters sent through. So clearly for starting at the beginning it's a polite enquiry, but after a while we do need to make sure that people are aware and I guess we need to use language as such that is very, very clear - it highlights the consequences in such a way that people are not in any doubt. But we never mean to cause offence. I think that is really, really important to say. We just want to I guess help people be correctly licensed and make sure they understand the consequences of not being correctly licensed as well.

RS: Alan in Pudsey has sent us a text. I think this is going to fall into the category of "I can't answer that". I'm pretty sure it is, but I think it's worth reading out as an example of something you can't answer.

"It has been reported that some BBC executives are being paid more than the Prime Minister. Is this an appropriate use of licence payer's money?"

MT: Yeah, unfortunately it's one I can't answer. I can't speak on behalf of the BBC.

RS: That's the BBC Trust?

MT: It is. That's the BBC. I'm obviously representing TV Licensing and TV Licensing has a very specific role which is collecting the licence fee as effectively...

RS: Are you part of the Government? Are you a Government department?

MT: Erm, no. We're under a trademark (of) consortium of different companies that are responsible for collecting the licence fee. So I couldn't answer that question in terms of BBC exec pay unfortunately. That would be a question for the BBC.

RS: Shaun is in Gildersome. Shaun you're through to Matt. What's your question?

Shaun: Apologies if I'm duplicating something. As I was ringing in there was something starting off in conversation, which may have superseded my question.

RS: Don't worry.

Shaun: But anyway. If a person in a household is 75+ and they get the free licence but their partner is 70 or whatever, but younger and ineligible for a free licence, and they're in the house on their own watching TV when your guy arrives and knocks on the door, does that person commit an offence, or because they're living with their partner does that qualify because there's somebody in the house all the time eligible for a free licence.


MT: Hi Shaun. Thanks for your question. So I guess the key thing to say is it all comes down to if you're correctly licensed. 

So you're quite right in saying that if you're over 75 you're eligible for a free licence. What you do need to do is get in touch with us to let us know that you've turned 75. We can then obviously update our records and make sure we've got you down as a free licence. It isn't an issue at all that your partner may be 70 and in the property by herself whilst your not there watching TV. That's no issue. You're covered. If you're over 75 you have that free licence, but you need to let us know so we've got you down - we can issue that free licence - but it isn't an issue if your wife of partner of 70 is watching TV in that property. You are correctly licensed.

Shaun: It was a hypothetical question, because thankfully I'm not 75 but I have to pay a licence, which I do. But it was just one of those things where there can be anomaly and people aren't sure if they qualify because they're younger than the person living in the house who's got a free licence.

MT: I would say move it (the licence) into the name of the person who qualifies for that free licence, then absolutely you're covered. But all of the time, if you're ever in doubt just contact TV Licensing. Either give us a call or go through the website. There's lots and lots of detail on the website. It really is fantastic and it covers all of those sorts of questions as well. And it is a good question and it is one we get asked quite commonly actually.

RS: Shaun thanks for your question. I appreciate that.

You can call us on 0345 303 3333 and we will give out that phone number. Without making broad brush generalisations I'm quite keen to do that, just in case perhaps people who are 75 and over don't have internet access. I know what you're saying about... I'm very aware that perhaps somebody might say... and you sometimes wonder don't you, that if you're not computer savvy then perhaps you miss out on one or two things.

MT: Absolutely, and I guess we'd say that there's the opportunity to pick up the phone. We do get hundreds of calls each and every day. That's great.

RS: Give us the number. Give us the number.

MT: The number is 0300 790 6112. And we'd welcome your calls, but at the same time we're set up so that if people want to go through on the internet there's no issue there, if people want to write to us again there's no issue. We need to be as accessible as possible to everyone.

RS: That was Matt in his best possible radio voice and I'll get him to do that three more times before midday.
____________________
Phew. Thank goodness for that. There we're a few other little bits, but my keyboard and ears have suffered enough abuse on this post already.

I'd invite readers to pick through Thompson's comments and see if they can spot any of the many flaws and inaccuracies in what he said.

If you've enjoyed our article then you might like to show your appreciation by sharing it with your friends and buying a pair of teeth just like Matt Thompson's from Amazon using our referral link!
↧

Update: TV Licensing Abandons Care Worker Prosecution

December 10, 2014, 2:34 pm
$
0
0
In October we wrote about Rahika, a West Midlands care worker who had been summoned to court after what she considered an uneventful TV Licensing visit to her home.

You might recall that a TV Licensing goon had visited her property, engaged her in conversation in the kitchen and surreptitiously completed a TVL178 Record of Interview form with inaccurate information.

Radhika did not legally need a TV licence, as she never used equipment to receive TV programmes within the property.

On our advice Radhika responded to the summons and indicated a not guilty plea. She attended Coventry Magistrates' Court on Monday, 8th December to deliver that same not guilty plea to the bench in person.

Well what do you know? The TV Licensing Court Presenter scuttled across the greet Radhika outside the courtroom and told her that the charges against her were being withdrawn. No further explanation was given.

Speaking in an email, she told us: "Just the thought of going to court made me so stressed and took over 3 months of my life, just thinking about the same thing again and again when you haven't done anything wrong. 

"I think most of the people just find it easy to plea guilty because just of the thought of going to court."

Radhika is on the button with that observation. TV Licensing thrives on the fact that many people just roll over an accept their fate for an easy life. As her case demonstrates once again, anyone who isn't guilty shouldn't be afraid of taking the fight to TV Licensing.

In all likelihood it'll be TV Licensing that rolls over, rather than have its sordid little secrets exposed in court!
↧

Yellow-Bellied TV Licensing Goon: Too Scared to Knock

December 14, 2014, 12:12 pm
$
0
0

A cowardly TV Licensing goon was so worried about knocking on the door of a legally-licence-free property that he crept up the garden path and discreetly left a calling card instead.

Video footage shows how the goon, bizarrely wearing a high-visibility vest, opens the garden gate with his handheld device in one hand and completed calling card in the other. He made no attempt whatsoever to knock at the door, choosing instead to push the calling card straight through the letterbox. The entire visit, which happened at 8.10 am this morning, was completed within 15 seconds.

Sadly the video is not clear enough to identify the goon in question, as the low light levels and rain droplets obscured the camera's view. The goon identified himself as "Young" on the card, which is shown below.
 

The goon's unusual behaviour may be explained by the fact that a previous TV Licensing visit to the property was filmed and uploaded to YouTube. On that occasion the goon, who was noticeably perspiring, broke TV Licensing rules by petulantly threatening the occupier with a search warrant.

A TV licence is only required for those properties where equipment is installed or used to receive TV programmes. Anyone who doesn't need a TV licence is under no legal obligation whatsoever to communicate or co-operate with TV Licensing.

If you've found this article useful please share it with your friends and consider using our Amazon referral link for your Christmas shopping.
↧
Viewing all 1019 articles
Browse latest View live
Search