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

TV Licensing Harasses Licence Holder

February 2, 2014, 3:03 pm
$
0
0

For the past six months TV Licensing has continued to harass the occupiers of a correctly licensed property, despite having been informed of their mistake on several occasions.

We came across this story yesterday when Twitter user Holly55093584 announced she was "disappointed by TV Licensing's response to my complaint" and "still getting threats despite having always had a licence". Curious to get to the bottom of things we contacted Holly and asked her to provide more information, so that we could further highlight TV Licensing's incompetence via the medium of our blog.

Holly has kindly provided us with scanned images of all of her correspondence with TV Licensing. This can be viewed in the gallery at the foot of the post. The licence is actually held in Holly's partner's name, which is why some of the letters are addressed to a man.  For the sake of convenience we shall refer to Holly and her partner as "the occupiers" from now on.

There is quite a lot to this story, so we shall outline the sequence of events in chronological order.

August 2013:
The occupiers moved into a new property at the start of August 2013. They correctly ensured the TV licence of their previous property was transferred across.

Towards the end of that month the occupiers received notice that TV Licensing had opened an investigation on their property. The routine threatogram, purportedly signed by Jane Powell of the Plymouth Enforcement Division, threatened a visit by Enforcement Officers if no response was forthcoming.

September 2013:
Two TV Licensing goons (VPNs 514831 and 514975) attended the property on separate visits on 12th September. They both pushed "We Said We'd Call" cards through the letterbox, thereby earning themselves a small commission payment. The property was occupied all day, so there is some doubt about whether the goons actually bothered to ring the doorbell.

The following day, 13th September, the occupiers contacted the TV Licensing call centre, who reassured them that there were no problems with the TV licence at that property.

Towards the end of the month the next routine threatogram arrived, which informed the occupiers they had 10 days to get correctly licensed.

October 2013:
On 5th October the occupiers wrote to TV Licensing explaining that they were incorrectly receiving threatograms, despite having earlier contacted TV Licensing to confirm their licence validity. The occupiers also explained that the address on the threatograms was slightly different to the actual address of the property.

On 15th October TV Licensing's Lynn Houston sent a letter of reply. She explained that TV Licensing gathered address information from a variety of sources, which could sometimes lead to two slightly different versions of the same address appearing on their database. Ms Houston confirmed that she had deleted the duplicate address from the system and reiterated that a valid TV licence was held on file. She explained that the next routine threatogram might already be in the post and concluded by thanking the occupiers for taking the time to help update TV Licensing's records.

Towards the end of the month the next routine threatogram arrived, which informed the occupiers that their address had now been scheduled for a visit by an Enforcement Officer.

November 2013:
No correspondence was received from TV Licensing.

December 2013:
Another routine threatogram arrived, which explained what to expect in court when prosecuted for TV licence evasion. We have previously dubbed this TV Licensing's most despicable mailshot.
 
January 2014:
On 3rd January the occupiers wrote again to TV Licensing, marking their correspondence for the attention of Lynn Houston. The occupiers were clearly exasperated by this stage, as the letter reads as follows: "I was astounded to find yet another letter, again with the incorrect postcode of [redacted] and date of December 2013, posted to me and threatening me with court action.

"To be threatened and harassed in this way is distressing and infuriating and I am no longer prepared to tolerate your bullying tactics."

The occupiers also explained that they would be forwarding all previous correspondence to their local Member of Parliament, Nick Harvey.

Towards the end of the month the next routine threatogram arrived, which explained that TV Licensing were proceeding to the final stages of their investigation. It also gave a break down of what to expect during the enforcement process.

On 27th January TV Licensing's Lynn Houston sent a second letter of reply. She explained that Royal Mail had updated TV Licensing's records with the same duplicate address that she had previously deleted. She had notified Royal Mail of their mistake and had again deleted the offending duplicate address from TV Licensing's system. Ms Houston asked the occupiers to contact Royal Mail directly to ensure their records were also corrected. She again explained that the next routine threatogram might already be in the post.

That's the situation to date, but we're sure you'll agree it is farcical in the extreme. 

This case perfectly illustrates TV Licensing's complete ineptitude when it comes to managing records and customer complaints.

Quite frankly, on the basis of this performance, TV Licensing would struggle to organise a piss up in a brewery. The worrying thing is that the BBC knows full well how utterly incompetent their TV Licensing contractors are, but turns a blind eye and denies any responsibility.
Holly TV Licensing Harassment Feb 2014
↧
Search

TV Licensing Threatens Comedian Dom Joly

February 6, 2014, 1:30 pm
$
0
0

A few days ago we brought you the farcical tale of how TV Licensing, in a feat of incompetence staggering even by their standards, had harassed the holders of a valid TV licence for the past six months.

Today the twittosphere is abuzz with TV Licensing critical comment by none other than Trigger Happy TV star Dom Joly.

Dom, who has a valid TV licence, is pictured above on the phone to the helpful people at TV Licensing. He tweeted earlier that he was "celebrating the receipt of my twenty-fifth threatening letter from @tvlicensing re going to court over a licence I have already paid for".

A few moments later he followed-up with: "The postage bill at @tvlicensing for stupid, empty threat letters must be what at least half our licence goes on".

He concluded by pouring scorn over TV Licensing's fanciful tales (e.g. dishonesty) about detection equipment: "Do you remember when @tvlicensing had ads pretending to have vans that could "detect" TVs in your house? Laughable..."


If he's not careful Dom is likely to find himself double-underlined in TV Licensing's little black book of YouTube and Twitter antagonists!

TV Licensing replied to Dom asking him to make contact to update his details. Based on their previously abysmal customer service that might not solve the problem!

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

Edit (8/2/14): Dom has just posted the following Twitter update:


The BBC/TV Licensing media monitoring harlots must be choking on their coffees! Not that the lazy bastards work on a Saturday.
↧
↧

Tesco Continues TV Licensing Notification, Despite Change in Law

February 8, 2014, 2:47 am
$
0
0

British retail giant Tesco has confirmed that it continues to provide TV Licensing with customers' personal information on a voluntary basis, despite there no longer being any legal requirement to do so.

Until 25th June 2013 (see our previous post) the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 compelled retailers of television receiving equipment to notify the Licensing Authority, the BBC, of all relevant sales within 30 days. The process, known as dealer notification, involved the retailer providing TV Licensing with the buyer's name, the address the equipment was to be used and a brief description of the equipment itself.

The relevant piece of legislation has now been repealed so that retailers, like Tesco, are now under no legal obligation to provide TV Licensing with information about the sale of television equipment. Worryingly, from a legal point of view, is Tesco's admission that it continues to send confidential customer information to TV Licensing, even though there is no legal obligation to do so. Such actions could constitute a breach of the Data Protection Act 1998, which obliges data controllers to protect any personal information they hold from unauthorised disclosure.

Anyone who is visited by TV Licensing on the basis of information Tesco has voluntarily fed it since the 25th June change in legislation, should consult a solicitor about the possible breach of their data rights.

We're absolutely astounded that Tesco's lawyers have not considered the legal implications of voluntarily continuing with dealer notification. Tesco is providing TV Licensing with information they are not entitled to, which is undoubtedly to the detriment of their customers. Picture the scene: Someone without a TV licence visits Tesco and buys a TV set for someone else as a gift; Tesco voluntarily grasses up the buyer to TV Licensing; the innocent buyer needlessly becomes the victim of TV Licensing's monthly threats. The buyer in that scenario had arguably become a victim of TV Licensing intimidation due to Tesco's blasé handling of their personal information. Worse still, as Tesco often passes Clubcard information to TV Licensing, there is a good chance that the buyer would be unaware this underhand practice had taken place.

Next time you're doing your shopping at Tesco, please pause to consider exactly what personal information they are collecting and who they might be passing it to. Can Tesco be trusted to handle confidential customer information in a responsible manner?

We shall certainly be thinking twice before entering a Tesco store in future.
↧

BBC Freedom of Information Farce: Another BBC Cover-Up Exposed

February 10, 2014, 11:35 am
$
0
0

A while ago we asked the BBC to disclose some more information about the famous Hartlepool door handle snatching TV Licensing goon.

On 9th October 2012 this TV Licensing goon attended the legally-licence-free property on routine enquiries (read more here). During the visit, which was thankfully captured in full on CCTV, the goon became aggressive and shouted some of TV Licensing's favourite threats through the letterbox. The video footage clearly showed the moment he tried to force his way back into the property, as the terrified lone-female occupant tentatively closed the door on his aggressive line of questioning. All this happened only a few miles away from where Gary Catterick, a TV Licensing goon at the time, raped his pregnant victim in Middlesbrough.

The BBC was first made aware of this incident when we published the story on 14th December 2012. Our article was timed to coincide with the release of CCTV footage of the incident. The BBC's response to our first FOIA request on the subject shows that they first raised questions about the goon's conduct on 17th December 2012, which was some two months after the incident happened. 

Very tellingly, cowboy TV Licensing contractor Capita, who employed the social misfit in question, had not considered it necessary to inform the BBC about the incident at the time, despite the police having taken an interest in the goon's aggressive doorstep patter. As it transpires, the police later decided not to pursue the case, choosing instead to believe the goon's highly implausible justification for why he'd tried to force the door back open. The first time Capita volunteered any information about this incident to their BBC bosses was in an email dated 17th December 2012. It is quite clear that had we not pushed the BBC for answers, Capita would have probably attempted to brush the matter under the carpet. We'd ask the BBC to consider just what else Capita is trying to keep behind closed doors.

The male occupier of the Hartlepool property, who was not present during the 9th October 2012 incident, subsequently wrote twice to the BBC's Head of Revenue Management, Pipa Doubtfire. His emails expressed concern about TV Licensing's aggressive style of enquiry, with particular regard to the Capita knuckle-dragger that had terrified his wife. Ms Doubtfire, who is the senior member of the BBC's TV Licensing Management Team, replied in some detail to each of those emails.

On 28th September 2013 we sent a second FOIA request to the BBC, seeking disclosure of the Hartlepool occupier's emails. We didn't mention to the BBC that we have had, all along, copies of those emails in our possession. The only reason we wanted the BBC to disclose the information was for their self-embarrassment.

It should come as little surprise that the BBC, with a chequered history of covering-up and denying scandal, refused to disclose any of the emails in question. According to them, their refusal was on the basis that it would have been unfair to the Hartlepool occupier to release any of his personal information to a third-party. 

The BBC's refusal to disclose struck us as a bit disingenuous, as having read the emails carefully we could not see anything that directly identified the occupier. In an attempt to force the BBC's hand we contacted the occupier and asked him to consent to the BBC's release of the emails in response to our request. Even after receiving that explicit consent, it would appear that the BBC wants to keep the content of those emails under wraps. Five months after our asking, they have still not released the information requested.

 Image © Dixie Allen, webclipart.about.com

We've got a spot of bad news for the BBC. Having been pissed around for the last five months, we've finally decided press print on the emails they've been trying to keep hidden. We consider there is a legitimate public interest in the BBC's response to the Hartlepool incident, as the BBC is ultimately responsible for all aspects of TV licence enforcement and administration. It's also fair to say that the BBC continues to receive regular and fully justified criticism for the dubious conduct of its TV Licensing operation.

You can read the text of the emails at the following links:
As you'll see, it would appear that BBC's cries of "we're protecting the occupier's personal information" were a complete crock of shit. Their handling of this request is another clear indication of their deep-seated culture of FOIA evasiveness.

In this new promised era of BBC transparency and accountability, it would seem they're still prepared to deal with information requests in a less than transparent manner.

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

TV Licensing Goes Paperless

March 2, 2014, 5:32 am
$
0
0

TV Licensing are saving the hard-pressed licence-fee payer lots of cash by going paperless, or at least that's what they want people to believe.

A press release on their website explains their intentions:

"With the cost of the licence-fee frozen until 2016, the amount people pay for a TV Licence has not changed since 2011. TV Licensing has written to around 14 million Direct Debit customers letting them know they will no longer receive an annual paper licence as long as they automatically renew and pay on time.

"The costs saved by not issuing an annual paper licence to these customers is expected to total £3m over the next three years. The money saved will be used to off-set national rises in postage costs."

PR harlot Stephen Farmer said: "We're always looking to find savings in order to deliver better value for the licence-fee payer.  

"By not issuing the annual paper licence to Direct Debit customers TV Licensing will have saved around £5m from the start of the initiative to Charter Renewal in 2016. Those customers won't require a paper licence until 2016 as we know their property is correctly licensed and their payment plans won't change until then."

Before anyone starts celebrating this recent "good turn" by the BBC's militant revenue generation arm, please pause to consider the following:
  • By its own admission, TV Licensing has just posted letters to 14 million households to announce that they won't be posting them a paper TV licence over the next two years. In a perverse act of hypocrisy they've used a huge mailshot to boast about saving on future mail costs.
  • As the licence-fee has been frozen since 2011, the BBC has already missed the opportunity to avoid issuing two-year's worth of paper licences. Such lack of foresight is sadly very typical.
  • £5 million, even if TV Licensing does manage to achieve such a saving, is small change compared to the BBC's recent abandonment of the £100 million Digital Media Initiative and the millions it will have to pay in compensation to sexual abuse victims.
  • TV Licensing will still be sending some 21 million threatograms a year, at an annual cost in excess of £5 million, to unlicensed properties. By TV Licensing's own admission more than 80% of those threatograms are going to properties that have no legal need for a TV licence.
Funny how TV Licensing never mention any of those statistics in their regurgitated propaganda pieces!
↧
↧

Proposed Decriminalisation of BBC TV Licence Evasion

March 8, 2014, 2:07 am
$
0
0
A very pleasant surprise as we awaken this morning to find that decriminalisation of TV licence evasion is back on the agenda.

Sky News is currently giving this subject particular prominence, highlighting the fact that TV licence evasion accounts for almost 1-in-9 cases before the Magistrates' Courts. It also mentions, quite correctly, that The Magistrates' Association has been campaigning for decades to decriminalise an offence they view as both unjust and an unnecessary burden on valuable court resources.

The law requires that any property where equipment is used to receive TV programmes services must be covered by a valid TV licence. Revenue from the fee is used almost exclusively to fund the frivolous spending habits of the BBC, which includes the recent £100 million abandonment of the much-maligned Digital Media Initiative.

The licence-fee is a regressive form of taxation. It penalises the most those that can afford to pay the least. Women are twice as likely to be convicted of TV licence evasion as men; those on benefits are twice as likely to be convicted as those in employment.

Last year a Bill seeking to decriminalise TV licence evasion was laid before Parliament. The BBC Licence Fee (Civil Debt) Bill 2013-14 was the brainchild of Conservative Philip Hollobone MP, who represents the good people of Kettering.

As a Private Member's Bill it was never likely to make it to the statute books, and sure enough the Bill was killed before its second Commons reading earlier this year. Despite its now defunct status, the Bill did serve the very useful purpose of keeping BBC incompetence and corruption firmly in the Parliamentary eye.

According to today's Telegraph article more than 100 backbench MPs now support the idea of decriminalising licence-fee evasion. Crucially, the Culture Secretary, Maria Miller, and Justice Secretary, Chris Grayling, are also said to favour such a change in the law.

Mr Grayling told the Telegraph: "The Culture Secretary and I both agree that this is a really interesting idea - particularly given the pressure on our courts system. Our departments will be doing some serious work on the proposal."

Unsurprisingly the BBC, which currently receives £3.6 billion of licence-fee revenue on a silver platter, has given the plans a lukewarm reception. A BBC spokesman is quoted as saying: "Legislation is a matter for the Government, however changing the law could lead to higher evasion. Just a 1 per cent increase in evasion would lead to the loss of around £35 million, the equivalent of around 10 BBC Local Radio stations."

Whether anyone would actually notice the disappearance of 10 BBC local radio stations remains a point for debate, but £35 million is roughly the same amount the BBC spends on "Red Button" interactive TV services.

As TV Licensing contractor Capita Business Services Ltd currently makes £50-100 in court fees for each successful prosecution, we don't suppose they'll be too happy with a change in the law either.
↧

TV Licensing Goon Reciprocal Filming Strategy

March 9, 2014, 6:00 am
$
0
0


We find it absolutely fascinating every time a TV Licensing goon is captured on film in the greedy pursuit of their next commission payment.

Watching their doorstep encounters is a marvellous insight into the behavioural characteristics of one of the nation's most despicable creatures.

It is perfectly legal for the occupier of a property to film/record TV Licensing goons that visit. The BBC has acknowledged that fact on several occasions, but it appears that their enforcement contractor, Capita Business Services Ltd, strongly objects to people exercising their legitimate right to film.

Capita, the outsourcing equivalent of septic tank sludge, would understandably prefer the public not to see the dubious conduct of some goons, so make regular attempts to expunge TV Licensing critical content from YouTube.

Just as rats eventually develop immunity to warfarin, it would appear that TV Licensing goons are evolving to combat the increasingly prevalent threat of the being filmed. We have previously mentioned a new goon trick of reciting the occupier's address in the misguided belief it would prevent them from publicly sharing their video footage.

It would appear that TV Licensing has adopted a new anti-filming strategy, which involves the threat of filming the occupier back. We have now seen two instances of the threat of reciprocal filming, as we'll call it. Back in January lemming-like Northern Irish goon Paul Beale, allegedly not a man to drive your car next to, threatened to fetch his camera (and the police) when he saw that he was being filmed. Last week a second thus far unidentified TV Licensing goon, shown in the video above, threatened to reciprocate when he saw that he was being filmed by the occupier.

There is no doubt at all about how much TV Licensing goons despise being filmed. We would encourage anyone visited by TV Licensing to passively film the encounter in full. The occupier should keep the video recording safe, as it provides a full and accurate account of everything that is said on the doorstep. This will prove invaluable if there is any disagreement over the circumstances of the visit later on.
↧

BBC's Liz Kershaw Reveals Suicide Journalist Link

March 12, 2014, 2:25 pm
$
0
0

In the worst kept BBC secret since Jimmy Savile was unmasked as resident kiddy-fiddler, 6 Music's Liz Kershaw has finally confirmed that she is the woman linked to the suicide of a local radio journalist.

Russell Joslin, 50, took his own life in October 2012, three days after being admitted to a psychiatric hospital after deliberately walking in front of a bus.

He had previously been employed as a reporter for BBC Coventry & Warwickshire, where he had the misfortune of working alongside piggy-nosed Breakfast Show host Kershaw. In the months leading up to his death Russell accused Kershaw of sexual harassment, after she allegedly aimed a series of inappropriate comments and telephone messages in his direction. He reported his concerns to BBC bosses, who it later transpired had failed to act on them.

Shortly after Russell's death the guilt-ridden BBC commissioned a report into its handling of his earlier cries for help. The report, written by HR consultant Lesley Granger, included several witness comments critical of "Colleague A", including: "Everyone knew that the [person] in question was very difficult to work with, even for people in positions of authority"; "Managers were scared to confront [Colleague A]"; "No-one would challenge her". One can only speculate what expletive was used in place of "[person]" in that first quote.

Russell's father, retired Warwickshire Police Chief Constable Peter Joslin QPM, recently gave an interview to BBC Radio 5 Live's Victoria Derbyshire. He recounted the unwanted attention Russell claimed to have experienced after spurning Kershaw's advances.

Kershaw, who coincidentally has a book to sell, has decided it makes economic sense to break her silence. The way she tells it, Russell spent a lot of time down the pub, moping about his faltering career and moaning about his bosses. 

That opinion stands in stark contrast to Peter Joslin's comments that "Russell was a real journalist who loved his job" and saw his time at the BBC as "the pinnacle of his career".

They can't both be right, but we know who we're believing!
↧
Search

TV Licensing's Latest Court Defeat

March 15, 2014, 2:02 am
$
0
0

TV Licensing has recently experienced defeat at Liverpool Crown Court, when the judge decided to overturn another of their more dubious Magistrates' Court prosecutions.

Lee's story, which we consider the tip of a very large iceberg, reaffirms our long-held belief that some TV Licensing goons try to get a result (thus bump up their commission) by whatever means they can. Experience shows that a significant proportion of TV Licensing employees cannot be trusted, so anyone who legitimately does not require a TV licence, just like Lee, is strongly advised to avoid all contact with them.

Lee tells his story below:

On 18th October 2013 I had a knock at my door. I was confronted by a Marstons debt collection agent, who informed he had come to enforce a warrant for non-payment of a £250 fine, plus costs making it up to £350 in total. Apparently I had been using a TV illegally without a licence.

I contacted the Liverpool Magistrates' Court where, unknown to me, I was convicted and a sentence passed in my absence on 9th November 2011. It turned out that a doorstep agent from TV Licensing (Capita) had knocked on an ex-partner's address. Whatever transpired there ended up by me having a TV licence put into name, which involved someone signing my signature on the declaration form. Basically, a TV licence was fraudulently put in my name. This case was taken to court without any attempt to ensure the correct person was named on the licence. In my absence, due to the fact I had no clue about it, I was tried and convicted.

Not being able to attend the court to make a Statutory Declaration I had to write to the Crown Court to make an out-of-time appeal. This was first refused due to a Crown Court Judge deciding that I had not given enough evidence to prove I had never lived at the said address. Writing back to the Crown Court I included a written statement from Liverpool City Council stating that I had never been a resident at the said address and reiterating my threat to take the court procedure further. 

On the 10th March 2014 my appeal was allowed and the conviction overturned.

It infuriates me to think that some members of the public would receive these fines and pay it purely out of fear of receiving a criminal conviction. To those people I say DON'T! Stand up and fight, I am now in the process of suing TV Licensing (Capita Business Services Ltd) for negligence. When a doorstep agent attends an address ID should be shown to the agent by the person who is signing the declaration. This will ensure that TV Licensing has the correct individual's name, rather than allowing anyone to claim they are someone else. This is what I will be fighting for. I will also be seeking damages for myself and my partner, as this whole process put a lot of stress on us both. We have wrongly had to endure debt collectors and High Court Enforcement Officers waiting outside our house to pounce on any opportunity to take our personal belongings. All this hassle for a TV licence fraudulently put in my name.
↧
↧

TV Licensing Detector Van Involved in Collision

March 18, 2014, 2:54 pm
$
0
0

A TV Licensing detector van collided with another vehicle as it sped away from one of its surveillance targets.

Last Saturday (8th March 2014) the occupier of a Stoke-on-Trent property noticed a white VW Transporter van, registration number VX09 VEK, parked on the opposite side of the road. He also noticed what appeared to be a camera lens aimed from the van in the general direction of his front room window.

Clearly clued up on goon enforcement tactics, the occupier exited the property, camera rolling, and ran across the road to challenge the occupants of the suspicious looking vehicle. The occupier's video footage, shown in the video below, shows how the van sped off as he approached.



The video doesn't show what happened after the van sped off, which is unfortunate because it almost defies belief. We apologise for the circumspect nature of the remainder of this post, but there is the real possibility that people will end up in court for the events that followed.

The occupier hopped into his car and followed the van in an effort to confirm the identities of the shady-looking characters inside. The camera continued to roll throughout that journey. That video footage, which we are declining to publish at the moment, shows that the occupier's car and the van collided with each other on at least three separate occasions. It is clear that damage was sustained to both vehicles, but for whatever reason the van kept going despite the occupier's attempts to make it stop. The incident captured on video really is more akin to dodgems at the funfair than responsible driving on a public highway.

The occupier contacted the police shortly after the incident and explained that the driver of the van had failed to stop and provide any details. The police helpfully disclosed the name and address of the van's registered keeper, who may or may not have been the person driving. On this occasion we won't share those details here, but they are not difficult to find if you look hard enough. The BBC has previously confirmed that TV Licensing detector vans are registered to the relevant Capita detection manager for the sake of convenience.

We shall be following the progress of this particular incident with a very keen interest.
↧

TV Licensing Blog on Facebook

March 22, 2014, 2:38 am
$
0
0

Unaccustomed as we are to self-promotion, we thought we'd take the opportunity to highlight the existence of the TV Licensing Blog Facebook page.

As a lot of you are aware, we have been very active Twitter users for several years now. Twitter is very useful for spreading short snippets of information rapidly, but it's not a medium for the distribution of lengthy diatribes about the BBC or TV Licensing. Facebook is far better suited to that purpose.

As well as using Facebook as an alternative way of sharing our blog articles we are going to try, as best as possible, to post some content exclusively to Facebook. An example of this is the TV Licensing detector van crash footage, which we have just shared on Facebook but will not be posting directly on our blog.

If you like what we do here at the TV Licensing Blog, please consider liking us on Facebook as well. 

We thank all our loyal readers for their continued support and the valuable contributions they make to our blog. If current media reports are anything to go by, the tide really is turning on the BBC's despicable TV Licensing operation.
↧

BBC News: Dishonest TV Licensing Terrorises Grieving Widower

March 25, 2014, 1:53 pm
$
0
0

We're that used to the BBC proclaiming how great the BBC is, that we were pleasantly surprised to see a TV Licensing-critical report airing on BBC News today.

The minute-long segment shows recently bereaved widower Marcus Greenhouse, who was summoned to court for TV licence-fee evasion just a few weeks after the unexpected death of his wife. 

His words are quoted below:

"Ill in depression, I recently lost my wife; unexpected death, she died at the age of 36 and, like I say, I've been in and out of depression and it (the TV licence) was just one thing that slipped my mind. The wife sorted all of the bills out and it was just one of those things.

"The inspector come and knocked on my door. I held my hands up and told him 'yep, I admit, I've not bought a licence', but what got me was I paid there and then. I bought a full licence on the day and they said no further action would be taken. The next thing I know I'm here today (Warwickshire Magistrates' Court) dealing with a summons that's been issued to me.

"I was a few weeks, a month, 6 weeks maximum out. Pick on the ones who haven't had one (a licence) for 12 months or 2 years - the ones that don't want to buy a TV licence. For somebody that's a few weeks out and then come and knock my door and I get victimised, I think it was wrong."

Marcus was convicted of TV licence-fee evasion. He received a £35 fine and has to pay £60 in costs and a £15 victim surcharge.

A grieving man criminalised on the dishonest word of a TV Licensing goon who would probably stiff his granny for the price of a Mars bar.

The word sickening doesn't quite cut it.
↧

TV Licensing Legal Process: Asking Awkward Questions

March 29, 2014, 3:56 am
$
0
0

Longer-term readers of the TV Licensing Blog might remember the case of YouTube user j2LightWorker, who had several run ins with TV Licensing back in 2012 despite having no legal need for a TV licence.

One of j2's more memorable encounters was with TV Licensing resident hard man Mr Grumpy, who is shown in the image below. Mr Grumpy, who is still employed in the West Yorkshire area by TV Licensing operations contractor Capita Business Services, is a particularly repugnant bottom-dweller even by their gutter standards.


Mr Grumpy oozed his way onto j2's Bradford doorstep back in January 2012, his nostrils flared with rage and brow furrowed with disapproval. Just like a politician the deceit rolled fluently from his forked tongue and with each forced utterance spittle flew high through the air. You can read all about that first encounter in our earlier post on the subject.  Indeed there are several earlier posts referring to Mr Grumpy, so you may wish to use the search facility to gain a full appreciation of his despicable modus operandi.

Anyhow, back to the story at hand. Towards the end of June 2012 TV Licensing actually executed a search warrant at the address in question. On what was a balmy summer's day two TV Licensing goons and two police officers entered the property through the already opened door. Like locusts they moved from room to room, looking for that nugget of evidence that would prove j2 had been receiving TV programmes without a valid licence. Sadly for them, they found nothing at all of significance. Despite invading j2's home and rummaging through his personal belongings, there was no TV receiving equipment. The goons left empty handed with their heads down and tails between their legs.

Scroll forward 2 years and j2 has now moved to a new home, but he remains perplexed, as we all do, about how TV Licensing were able to convince a Magistrate to issue a search warrant in the first place.

TV Licensing's use of search warrants is authorised under section 366 of the Communications Act 2003. In order to obtain a warrant TV Licensing has to convince a Magistrate that there are reasonable grounds to suspect the following:
  • That an offence under section 363 of the Act has been or is being committed (e.g. unlicensed TV reception);
  • That evidence of the commission of an offence is likely to be on the premises specified; 
  • That entry to the premises will not be granted unless a warrant is produced;
  • That the purpose of any search may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless the search is carried out be a person who secured entry immediately on arrival at the premises.
During the search warrant application process a TV Licensing employee swears an information, on oath, before a Magistrate. That sworn statement, known as a Deposition, contains TV Licensing's rationale for wanting to search the premises. If the Magistrate is satisfied that the conditions above have been met, then he/she grants the application and authorises the search. Warrants granted under section 366 must be executed within one month and allow entry to the specified premises only once.

j2 has never used equipment for the unlicensed reception of TV programmes. He has always maintained that standpoint, which is reinforced by the fact that TV Licensing's search found nothing. Given those circumstances, it is difficult to imagine the evidence TV Licensing gathered in order to form the reasonable suspicion that an offence was being committed.

In order to satisfy our curiosity j2 has been in contact Kirklees Magistrates' Court for a copy of the Deposition, as it was a Magistrate at Kirklees who granted the warrant on 6th June 2012. After several weeks of being passed from pillar to post, j2 eventually managed to speak to the Deputy Justices' Clerk, who is apparently the man that gets things done.

The Clerk has advised j2 that new rules mean he must contact Capita and inform them of his application to view the Deposition. Capita has 14 days to make any objections to his request, although doing so would obviously serve to heighten our curiosity even further. A copy of j2's letter to Capita is shown in the image below:


j2 has also been in regular contact with his MP, David Ward, who is assisting with enquiries on his behalf.

To be blunt, as we've said before, we believe that TV Licensing are sometimes more concerned about settling grudges than acting judiciously. The Shakespeare case is the most glaring example of TV Licensing's persecution of an innocent, albeit outspoken, opponent of their's. It is our belief that TV Licensing's desire to search j2's property stems more from the fact he had publicly humiliated goons on YouTube, rather than any solid evidence of unlicensed TV reception at his address. By viewing the Deposition we'll be able to evaluate the quality of TV Licensing's evidence for ourselves.

We eagerly await the outcome of this one, so stay tuned for further updates.

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

TV Licensing Detector Van Sighted

April 5, 2014, 4:36 am
$
0
0

Another TV Licensing detector van was positively identified in Liverpool a few days ago.

Footage of the van, registration number VX09 VZP, has been uploaded to YouTube by fellow TV Licensing opponent HHS. The registration number of this van is very similar to that of the TV Licensing van damaged in a collision only a few weeks ago. 

Prior to March 2014 all TV Licensing detector van sightings involved vehicles with CV09 FF? registration numbers, which leads us to believe the BBC has re-registered the vehicles in a lame attempt to restore their anonymity. Sadly for them, an increasing army of people are willing and able to identify TV Licensing vehicles and report their observations back to people like us.

HHS thinks the occupants of the van were conducting surveillance on his legally-licence-free property. He went outside with his camera and began to film events from the safety and comfort of his parked car. The goon in the back of the van exited, hopped into the front passenger seat and then the vehicle drove away.

The van had to drive within a few feet of HHS's parked car, so he got a clear view of both the driver and registration number. HHS confirms that the driver of the van was the same goon coincidentally snapped in a marked TV Licensing Transit a few day's earlier. The goon driver's image is shown below.


It might be time for TV Licensing to buy a few more toupees and fake moustaches for goons working in the Merseyside area, as we know most of them pretty well now!
↧

TV Licensing: Licensed to Fleece Viewers

April 12, 2014, 2:47 am
$
0
0

TV Licensing are ripping-off viewers by charging those that pay by quarterly Direct Debit a £5 premium on top of the £145.50 licence fee.

According to The Sun, who published the shocking revelations yesterday, the BBC benefits to the tune of £15 million a year by imposing the extra charge.

The article, which began on the header of the front page, begins:

"Three million hard up Brits are being forced to pay an extra £5 a year to watch telly - because they pay for their TV licence in instalments.

"The scandal is the latest to be highlighted in our Rip-Off Britain campaign."

It continued on page 11 as follows:

"The BBC is raking in an extra £15 million a year - by fleecing viewers who pay their TV licence quarterly.

"People without the cash to buy the £145.50 licence up front are stung with a £1.25 premium four times a year.

"It means 3 million budget conscious people hand the Beeb an extra £5 a year just to watch telly.

"And millionaires end up shelling out less for a licence than quarterly payers.

"The Sun today highlights the issue as part of our Rip-Off Britain campaign.

"Our own Del Girl tried to confront staff at TV Licensing's Bristol HQ to give them one of our Rip Offscars - for fleecing the needy. They refused it - so we posted it instead.

"A spokesman for TV Licensing last night said: "The TV licence fee and instalment payment options are a matter for the government."

The Sun also published a comment piece, which can be read in the image below:


We have previously discussed the way monthly Direct Debit payments also penalise poorer TV licence payers.
↧
Search

TV Licensing Dodgy Search: Deposition Received

April 28, 2014, 2:44 pm
$
0
0
Last month we explained how j2LightWorker, whose property was wrongly searched by TV Licensing, was seeking a copy of the search warrant Deposition.

The Deposition, for the benefit of those unfamiliar with the process, is the sworn information TV Licensing presented to the court in their application for a search warrant. In our earlier post we explained some of the finer points of the search warrant application process, so we shan't repeat ourselves here. In order for TV Licensing to obtain a search warrant there are certain procedural and evidential hoops for them to jump through - at least that's the theory.



After multiple telephone calls, letters and the intervention of his MP, j2 has finally received a copy of the Deposition in question from Kirklees Magistrates' Court. It hasn't been an easy task and we admire j2's dogged determination in pursuing the issue.

Below is the complete text of the sworn statement the local Capita Court Presenter made to Magistrates on 6th June 2012. We apologise for the litany of grammatical errors, but the document is reproduced as is:
_____________________________________________________________

THE INFORMATION of [REDACTED], this being his deposition in support thereof, is taken on oath this 6th Day of June 2012 before me the undersigned, a Justice of the Peace for Kirklees Magistrates Court, on an application for a search warrant authorising any employee of Capita Business Service Ltd, authorised on this behalf by the British Broadcasting Corporation, with or without constables, to enter the premises at [REDACTED](herein referred to as “the Premises”) at any time within one month of the date of the warrant and to examine and test any television receiving equipment found there.

AND the said [REDACTED] upon his oath says:

1. I am employed by Capita Business Services Ltd and apply for a Warrant under Section 366(1) of the Communications Act 2003 to enter and search the Premises and to examine and test any television receiving equipment found therein and I produce a copy of the authority of the British Broadcasting Corporation.

2. On the 7th December 2011 at 17:52 hours, Fred Clay a TV Licensing Enquiry Officer visited the Premises. As the officer approached the premises he noted that 4 adults and 2 children could be seen inside. The officer knocked on the door and spoke to a female occupier who he described as being of a slim build, with long light brown hair and between 5'5" and 5'7" in height.

3. The officer asked to speak with a "Miss Broadhurst" who was the previous recorded licensee at the address; at this point a male occupier joined the female at the door and asked who the officer was. The officer identified himself and the male asked the officer to wait a minute, upon returning to the door the officer noticed that the male was holding a camera and asked the officer "do you mind if I film you?" The officer advised that he did mind and asked the male to turn the camera off, to which the male replied, "I'm in my rights to film you". The officer advised that he was also in his rights to ask the male not to film him.

4. The male then asked to see the officer identification again and took a close up of the officers ID. The officer again asked if the male lived at the premises and the male replied, "I don't need to answer". The officer advised the male that he would be applying for a search warrant and left the premises. The officer described the male as being about 6 foot tall and of a slim build with brown hair and about 30 years old. The officer also noted that a television set could be seen to be installed through the front room window.

5. On the 7th January 2012 at 13:35 hours, Mr Philip Oldcorn, a TV Licensing Enquiry Officer, visited the Premises. The officer knocked on the door and spoke to a male occupier. The officer asked the male if he lived at the premises and he said yes. The officer identified himself and the male asked him to wait a minute disappearing in to the premises. When the male returned to the door he was holding a mobile phone and started to film the officer. The officer asked the male not to film him and the male started shouting at the officer.

6. On the 24th February 2012 at 13:05 hours, Mr Paul Moores a TV Licensing Enforcement Officer visited the premises. As the officer approached the premises he noted that loud music could be heard coming from within the premises. The officer knocked on the door a couple of times but received no answer, as the officer was walking away from the premises the door was opened by a male occupier matching the description as on previous visits.

7. The officer asked the male if he was the occupier and he replied, "Am I obliged to answer that? Who are you?" The officer produced his identification and the male asked him to wait a minute. The male returned to the door with his mobile phone and said, "You don't mind if I film you, do you?" The officer smiled at the male and began to walk away from the premises. The male then said, "You come here showing your ID why does a video scare you off".

8. The officer noted upon leaving the premises that an old satellite dish was affixed to the gable end wall of the premises.

9. As the officer left the premises he noted that a television set could be heard in use. The officer described the male as being about 5'10" in height, of a slim build with brown hair and about thirty years old.

10. The visit was generated as a result of there being no licence recorded at this address. An unlicensed property will generate a suite of reminder letters, which will ultimately result in a visit request.

11. The occupiers were sent a letter on 27th March 2012 urging them to buy a licence and warning them that a search warrant would be applied for if they failed to do so. This letter was returned via Royal Mail on 26th April 2012 marked as 'refused' with the comments 'unwanted junkmail, no contract, no consent, not interested...'

12. At no time during the visits was there a record of a television licence in respect of the Premises. In the circumstances it is believed that television-receiving equipment is in use at the Premises. Television licensing records reveal no trace of a current television licence held by any person authorising the use of television receiving equipment at the Premises.

13. From the information I have been provided with, there are reasonable grounds for believing that an offence under section 363(1) and (2) of the Communications Act 2003, is being or has been committed at the Premises, that evidence of the commission of the offence is to be found at the Premises and that it is necessary to apply to the Court for a Warrant under section 366(1) of the Communications Act 2003 to search the Premises and test any television receiving equipment found there.

14. The request for a search warrant is a last resort. All other reasonable methods of obtaining evidence have been exhausted.

15. The issue of a warrant in these circumstances is a necessary and proportionate measure. Entry will not be granted unless a warrant is produced.

16. A warrant was previously applied for and granted on 26th April 2012 however, we were unable to execute the warrant. Sufficient manpower is now in place which will allow the execution of the warrant along with the required police assistance.

TAKEN and SWORN this 6th Day of June 2012

Before me the undersigned

A Justice of the Peace for Kirklees Magistrates Court.
______________________________________________________________

We are in the fortunate position of being able to compare the evidence above directly against video footage of the goon visits. Having quickly done that we can already spot a few potential discrepancies, which will no doubt make an interesting point of future discussion.

Stay tuned for further updates, as there's more to come on this particular story.

TV Licensing Blog Mention in Dispatches: Awarded to student consumer crusader Harry Barnes, who recently wrote an article all about TV Licensing Fleecing Students.
↧

TV Licensing Blog: Reader Challenge

April 30, 2014, 1:23 pm
$
0
0


The video above shows the moment TV Licensing goon Paul Moores visited a legally-licence-free Bradford property on 24th February 2012.

We've had a copy of this video since the day it was shot. The footage is exactly the same now as it was back then. It has not been edited in any way.

According to Moores, he heard a TV set on in the background as he walked away from this visit.

You can read all about it in point 9 of the Deposition we published yesterday: "As the officer left the premises he noted that a television set could be heard in use".

We have now listened to the audio of this video several dozen times and we cannot hear anything resembling the sound of a TV set. The microphone is quite good. We can hear the door unlatch, the occupier sigh, a gentle gust of wind, clear voices in conversation, but try as we might we just can't hear anything at all like TV noise. This despite the fact that the microphone is considerably closer to the inside of the property, and presumably the non-existent TV noise, than Moores' ears ever are.

If anyone can manage to hear a TV set, please drop us a comment below. It could be quite significant.
↧
↧

Qmee: Get Paid to Search

May 4, 2014, 8:50 am
$
0
0


Today we're taking a step back from our usual crusade against those dastardly villains at TV Licensing to review a new paid to search website, Qmee.

We apologise in advance to any regular readers offended by the off-topic nature of this post, but do hope you'll please bear with us.

Background Information
A few years ago there was a very popular programme called My Search Funds, which effectively paid users to search Yahoo! That may sound a bit strange, giving money away for almost nothing, but the idea of "paid-to-search" is a fairly common form of web arbitrage. The idea was that the user would type their normal search queries into the special My Search Funds toolbar, which generated Yahoo! results as normal, but which paid a small reward for every sponsored result clicked. A user would typically make 2 or 3 pence by clicking on a sponsored result, which isn't much but quickly added up over the space of a month. There was also a referral programme, which incentivised the promotion of their scheme by webmasters. Sadly My Search Funds died a couple of years ago, and there has never really been anything to plug the gap until the launch of Qmee.

What is Qmee?
Qmee is the newest kid on the paid-to-search block. It works in a similar manner to that described earlier, but this time it is rewarding clicks made on selected Google/Amazon/eBay search results.


Typical Qmee Amazon search results.

How Does Qmee Work?
The user installs the special Qmee app, which blends seamlessly into the background of their regular browser. Every time they perform a Google/Amazon/eBay search the app checks for relevant sponsored results, which then appear in a small side window. A reward is earned every time one of these results in clicked. According to Qmee each click can earn anywhere between a few pence and a pound. Our experience, as shown in the image below, is that most clicks generated between 5 and 10 pence. We estimate that regular users of Google/Amazon/eBay could easily make close to £1 a day by using the app. Heavy users will obviously make more, but the key thing is that the searches must be natural. Qmee has measures in place to detect any unusual search activity, which is designed to defraud their advertisers.


Typical Qmee eBay search results.

Payment by Qmee
Qmee has a massive strength over most other paid-to-search programmes in that the user can choose to withdraw their earnings or donate them to charity whenever they like. Qmee sends payment by PayPal almost immediately, so there's no hanging around waiting for the cash to arrive. Better still, as Qmee is aimed at the North American and UK markets, there is the option to receive payment directly in GBP. We've been using Qmee for a few months now and as the image below shows it really does pay:


Qmee is not going to make anyone a fortune, but with regular use it will certainly earn enough for a few refreshing pints or ice creams this summer. 

If you'd like to try Qmee please use our link to tell them we sent you: Try Qmee now.
↧

More BBC Misinformation

May 4, 2014, 12:10 pm
$
0
0
Or should that be disinformation?

Having experienced what we shall politely describe as "BBC information irregularities" on several previous occasions (see here, here and here), we really can't work out if they're deliberately evasive or just plain incompetent. In reality, given several recent high profile cases of the BBC being less than transparent, it's probably a combination of both those factors.

Our latest observation is a fairly trivial discrepancy between what the BBC says and what it means, but it serves as yet another example of how they sometimes release information into the public domain without confirming its accuracy. The BBC finds a way to weasel out of more than half of the information requests it receives, so you'd think they'd invest a bit more time ensuring the accuracy of the few responses they do bother to provide.

Back in July 2013 we asked the BBC to provide some information about TV Licensing's attempts to indoctrinate certain members of the Magistracy with their ideas about TV licence law and enforcement.

In response to that request, the BBC told us the following: "We are providing you below with details of the Magistrates Courts which have received a TV Licensing briefing during the financial year 2012/13 - Ballymena, Stafford, Lisburn, Haverfordwest, Merthyr, Omagh, Strabane".

Towards the end of September 2013 Mr Mark Salter, who is clearly a kindred spirit, asked Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunal Service to provide copies of the Magistrates' Court training materials used by TV Licensing. As well as providing a copy of TV Licensing's presentation, they confirmed the following: "Neither Merthyr Tydfil Magistrates Court nor Stafford Magistrates Court received a 'TV Licensing Briefing' during the financial year 2012/13".

It therefore follows that either the BBC or HMCTS is wrong about which courts received TV Licensing brainwashing sessions in the financial years 2012/13. 

We know who our money's on!
↧

TV Licensing Magistrates Brainwashing Material

May 5, 2014, 8:31 am
$
0
0
As mentioned in our previous post, TV Licensing's PR harlots regularly deliver information sessions to members of the Magistracy.

The author of the influential Justice of the Peace blog has previously commented on this unusual state of affairs, which effectively sees TV Licensing touting for business in the courts: "TV Licensing is but one of many prosecuting bodies which use the Magistrates' Courts system to enforce their regulations. For those unaware, using a TV without a licence is a criminal offence. It is also a criminal offence to be a ticket tout, to ill-treat an animal, or to contravene planning regulations. The organisations responsible for bringing prosecutions on those matters do not send regular information to Magistrates. I question why TV Licensing does so. Is it to inform Magistrates who adjudicate on such cases or to subtly influence them in general? If the latter I can assure them that they have failed totally."

For all TV Licensing reluctantly admits to holding Magistrates' Court indoctrination sessions, they are less forthcoming about the information they actually convey to the Justices on such occasions. Several previous attempts have been made to obtain a full copy of the TV Licensing Court Briefing presentation from the BBC, but all have resulted in only partial disclosure. 

It seems, for whatever reason, that the BBC really doesn't want the public to know what they're telling Magistrates on slide 11 of the presentation.

Unfortunately for them Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service has a more transparent approach when it comes to divulging information aimed at the judiciary.

The full contents of slide 11, which the BBC tries to keep hidden from public view, is shown in the image below.


In particular note that if you're a first-time evader TV Licensing shouldn't, in theory, prosecute you if you buy a licence immediately when caught.
↧
Viewing all 1019 articles
Browse latest View live
Search