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

TV Licensing Abandons Flawed Prosecution

May 15, 2014, 12:21 pm
$
0
0
Last week we were contacted by a lady called Julie, who has been having a few problems with TV Licensing.

Julie told us how she was visited by a female TV Licensing goon on 9th December 2013. The goon informed her that the TV licence, which had always been paid by Direct Debit, had lapsed and consequently her property was unlicensed.

Julie was horrified to end up in such a situation, particularly as her licence payments had always been kept up to date. She explained to the goon that she was sure she was correctly licensed and unwittingly signed the TVL178 Record of Interview (or self-incrimination) form under the misapprehension it was just to confirm the goon had visited. Julie was not in the right frame of mind to argue or ask questions of the goon, as her father was very ill at the time and it was weighing heavily on her mind.

A few days later Julie contacted the bank and discovered that the Direct Debit had been cancelled by mistake. Keen to make amends, she immediately set up a new monthly Direct Debit with TV Licensing and thought that would be the end of the matter.

Skip forward six months and in early May 2014 Julie received a summons for the offence of receiving TV programmes without a valid licence on 9th December 2013. With the summons was a copy of the completed TVL178 form, which incorrectly stated that the goon visited on 9th February 2014. This discrepancy spurred Julie into making contact with us, in the hope we'd be able to tell her that such a procedural oversight automatically rendered the prosecution invalid. Sadly it doesn't, so we couldn't.

We advised Julie to contact TV Licensing's prosecution team directly, highlight the inconsistencies on the TVL178 form and indicate her willingness to challenge it in court.

Not for the first time, the threat of having the inadequacies of their seedy little operation exposed in court persuaded TV Licensing to drop the case.

In terms of their ability as a prosecuting authority, TV Licensing's incompetence is second only to that of the CPS. Their paperwork is often littered with errors, which immediately draws into question the accuracy of anything they tender as evidence.

Anyone accused of TV licence evasion should study TV Licensing's paperwork closely and challenge any inconsistencies that arise. As in this case, TV Licensing would often rather withdraw a prosecution than risk the embarrassment of being discredited in court.
↧
Search

TV Licensing Bogus Callers

May 24, 2014, 3:23 am
$
0
0

What kind of a depraved individual would be sick enough to pretend to be a TV Licensing goon?

According to press reports, there are currently fake TV Licensing goons prowling the streets of Lincolnshire. These fake goons, just like their BBC contracted counterparts, demand the occupiers hand over cash or face a hefty £1000 fine.

Given their tactics are virtually identical to those used by most legitimate BBC TV Licensing goons, it's hardly surprising that the occupiers of some properties have been coerced into compliance with their deceitful demands.

If someone purporting to be a TV Licensing goon calls, remember the following key steps to protecting your family and home:
  • No-one is under any legal obligation to communicate or co-operate with TV Licensing goons. Do not engage in any conversation with them. By far the most effective tactic is to remain silent and close the door immediately.
  • BBC TV Licensing goons carry an ID card, which they must show at the start of a visit and on request. A copy of the ID card is shown above. That particular example was found in the personal effects of a recently-deceased honorary goon (as was the full unredacted copy of the TV Licensing Visiting Procedures currently doing the rounds).
  • TV Licensing goons have no automatic rights of entry. They must leave the moment the occupier asks them to. If they get aggressive or refuse to leave, then call the police.
  • It is perfectly legal, and encouraged, to film all BBC TV Licensing goon encounters in their entirety. Apart from reading out the goon's name in a nice clear voice, spelling it out phonetically if necessary, the occupier is advised to stay silent as the camera rolls.
If you do make the mistake of engaging with a TV Licensing goon, then it could end up costing you a lot more than £145.50.

Keep the door closed and the scumbags out.
↧
↧

BBC Asks How To Avoid Licence Fee Prosecution

May 28, 2014, 5:37 am
$
0
0

The writing must really be on the wall for the BBC, with even their own employees seeking advice on how to avoid prosecution for TV licence fee evasion.

It's pretty simple: Stop receiving TV programmes and totally ignore TV Licensing.

In the unlikely event that you still get summoned to court, perhaps because a goon claims to have heard non-existent programmes on your non-existent TV, then please follow the advice in our earlier article.

↧

TV Licensing Intimidation: Baldy and Beardy Named and Shamed

May 28, 2014, 6:26 am
$
0
0

The above TV Licensing bottom dwellers were rude and aggressive during the execution of two separate search warrants in the Durham/Teesside area back in December 2013.

We can now put confirmed names to both their faces. Baldy goon is called Terry Docherty and Beardy goon is called Burgess Nasr.

Their earlier activities can be seen in these two posts:

Not pretty viewing or reading.

TV Licensing has now decided to proceed against the occupier of the Hartlepool property searched by these two miscreants on 19th December 2013. He has been summoned to attend Teesside Magistrates' Court on obstruction charges at the end of June. As no television receiver was found during the search, it would appear that TV Licensing has very sensibly decided not to pursue any charges of licence fee evasion. Perhaps they didn't want Baldy questioned about why he'd tried to misquote the occupier during the search?
↧

TV Licensing Goon Beale Snapped Again

May 31, 2014, 9:09 am
$
0
0

TV Licensing's Paul Beale, the highest profile skip-licker in Northern Ireland, has been captured on video for a third time.

The effeminate-sounding goon, who has previously demonstrated anger and honesty issues, was filmed a few days ago trying to access the back yard of an unlicensed property. In the video Beale can be heard commenting on the fact that a young child can be seen playing in the secured yard, but that doesn't deter him from rattling on the gate regardless. Also of note is the fact that Beale has decided to snoop around at the rear of the property, instead of taking the conventional front door approach.

In Beale's last video encounter, described in this earlier post, he told a bare-faced lie by denying his employment with TV Licensing. He was also seen to strike out at the occupier's camera and threatened to report him to the police. Given our vocal criticism of his tactics back then, we really hoped that he would have taken up alternative employment by now. The BBC and TV Licensing are fully aware of Beale's actions, but have seemingly decided to ignore them.

Given the increasing number of people filming TV Licensing goon encounters, we feel it's only a matter of time before Beale's next performance on camera.
↧
↧

The BBC and Ministry of Justice: Two Cheeks of the Same Arse

June 7, 2014, 9:01 am
$
0
0

Last month we mentioned an unusual situation where the Ministry of Justice had released information about TV Licensing court presentations and subsequently attempted to un-release the same material by claiming it didn't exist.

It really was a bizarre state of affairs. Quite how the Ministry of Justice can hope to un-release something it claims doesn't exist, but whose existence is evident for all to see, is a bit of a mystery. The material in question was an unredacted version of TV Licensing's Magistrates' Court brainwashing presentation, which the BBC would rather Joe Public didn't know about.

Mark Salter, the author of the original request at WhatDoTheyKnow.com, has been doing some digging around to discover the Ministry of Justice's rationale for trying to censor their own Freedom of Information response. It should come as no surprise that the BBC's grubby little paw-prints are all over the Ministry of Justice's change of tune.

In an email dated 23rd December 2013, shortly after they became aware of the "data leak", the BBC said to the Ministry of Justice: "As discussed, we are very disappointed that this presentation has been made publicly available on the WhatDoTheyKnow website. 

"Whilst the presentation should not have been shared externally in the first place, TV Licensing would have expected to be notified of the request as a matter of course - as was the case for the FOI received by the Ministry of Justice - so that we could advise on any sensitivities".

So there you have it, straight from the donkey's mouth: If anyone asks any public authority about TV Licensing the BBC wants to know about it, so it can no doubt attempt to influence any subsequent disclosure of information.

It's a situation not unlike TV Licensing's arrogant belief that it is entitled to peddle shite to members of the Judiciary in the first place.

Freedom of information? There's a joke.

Back scratching and institutional cover ups. That's more like it.
↧

Taking a TV Licence Fee Holiday

June 7, 2014, 10:33 am
$
0
0

Simply turning off from TV programmes and stopping payment of the licence fee, is a perfectly legal course of action according to the BBC.

A while ago fellow TV Licence Resistance forum member dwesty wrote to TV Licensing asking them about the validity of taking what he described as a "TV licence fee holiday". 



In his email query, the response to which can be viewed here, he asked: "Is there any legal/lawful objection to a cash-strapped household taking a 1 year 'TV Licence Fee Holiday' by simply switching off their fully functional TV and ensuring that, without exception, it remains switched off for a 12-month period, thereby spending the entire year never using it to watch or record live programming as it is broadcast?"

TV Licensing's Operations Director Alison Roberts, or rather one of her minions, replied: "There is no objection to a household taking this decision.

"Legally, the ownership of a television receiver does not require a TV licence. Therefore if you choose not to switch on your television receiver for twelve months, you do not require a TV licence for that period.

"Under the Communications Act 2003, a TV licence is only required to watch or record live television programmes".

Roberts then went on to explain why TV Licensing recommends disconnecting the aerial and power supply as a precautionary, not mandatory, measure in these circumstances.

This information was disclosed by the BBC to the TV Licensing Blog under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (BBC reference number: RFI20140730).

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

Rolf Harris: Can You Guess What He Is Yet?

June 30, 2014, 12:52 pm
$
0
0

Yes, he's yet another convicted nonce strongly related to the BBC.

Rolf Harris, the 84-year-old musician and singer-songwriter, has been found guilty of all 12 counts of indecent assault by a jury at Southwark Crown Court.

The charges relate to a string of offences committed by the veteran entertainer between 1968 and 1986. One of the victims was childhood friend of his daughter Bindi and another was an autograph hunter aged only seven or eight.

Harris, just like BBC grandees Jimmy Savile and Stuart Hall before him, arrogantly assumed his celebrity status put him beyond the reach of the law.

The judge, Mr Justice Sweeney, said a custodial term was "uppermost in the court's mind", but he wanted to see a medical report before sentencing.

Harris will be sentenced on Friday.
↧
Search

Disgusting BBC TV Licensing Barrack Room Lawyer Goon

July 5, 2014, 4:45 am
$
0
0

The TV Licensing goon shown above is clearly in the wrong line of business, as he seems to think he's the modern day Rumpole of the Bailey.

During this three minute encounter the unshaven, scruffy-looking goon decides to make up Data Protection laws and ignore TV Licensing rules, despite being captured on camera.


As TV Licensing contractor Capita has a habit of blubbing to YouTube every time a video of one of their cannon-fodder is uploaded, we shall transcribe the entire episode below.

Before we do that, we'd like to clarify a few of points of law:
  • TV Licensing ordinarily has a common-law implied right of access that allows them to call at the front door of an unlicensed property to make enquiries. This implied right of access can be removed by the occupier at any time by simply informing TV Licensing that they are not welcome to visit (see our earlier post). The occupier can initiate this withdrawal of implied rights of access (WOIRA) over the phone, in writing (letter or email) or verbally to a TV Licensing goon. BBC and TV Licensing policy is to record and respect any WOIRA instruction they receive, although experience shows that they often don't.
  • The occupier of a residential property is well within their legal rights to film any TV Licensing goon (or anyone else) who visits that property (see our earlier post). The occupier does not need to inform the goon they are being filmed; the goon does not need to consent to being filmed; the goon cannot stop the occupier from filming. Occupiers who make video or audio recordings at their own property are not considered Data Controllers and are therefore not subject to the provisions of the Data Protection Act 1998.
  • It is perfectly legal to walk in a public area and film events, or people, that occur there. This includes following and filming a TV Licensing goon all the way back to their vehicle. However, if the person following says or displays anything likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress to the goon, then they could be in breach of the Public Order Act 1986. By far the best advice is to film passively from a distance.
The transcript:

[Occupier is heard unlocking the front door]

Occupier: Hiya

Goon: Do you live here sir?

Occupier: What you after?

Goon: Do you live here?

Occupier: I might do.

Goon: Oh, okay.

Occupier: Who are you?

Occupier: Just to let you know I am recording you for my own safety.

Goon: Okay.

Occupier: If you'd like to move back please.

Goon: Move back where?

Occupier: If you'd like to step back please.

Goon: Yep, okay.
[Goon does not step back. Goon holds hand-held device towards the occupier's camera]

Occupier: What's that?

Goon: This is my hand-held device.

Occupier: Right.

Goon: Can I ask why you are recording me?

Occupier: For me own safety.

Goon: Why? Who do you think I am?

Occupier: I've not got a clue who you are...

Goon: Okay.

Occupier: ... there've been two murders in the area.

Goon: Right.

Occupier: I don't care. You've shown me no identification whatsoever.

Goon: No, I appreciate. No, I haven't. You haven't given me that opportunity yet.

Occupier: No. So that's why.

Goon: Okay.

Goon: Can I also point (out) that under the Data Protection Act...

Occupier: ... wrong...

Goon: ... I have a right to ask, first of all, that you don't record me.

Occupier: You're on private property.

Goon: No. It doesn't matter whether I'm on private property or anywhere else.

Occupier: It does. You go on someone else's property...

Goon: No sir. Once I'm in your house you have every right to do that.

Occupier: No, no. I don't think so.

Goon: [Inaudible]

Goon: I have implied rights of access to actually come and knock on your door.

Occupier: You do not. I am refusing your implied rights of access to enter these premises.

Goon: I will happily accept that when you put it in writing to me.

Occupier: Right. Will do.

Goon: Okay.

Occupier: Yeah.

Goon: Now [that I've called] can I ask what you are using that video camera for?

Occupier: For my own safety and protection...

Goon: Okay.

Occupier: ... the conversation is being recorded...

Goon: I will happily...

Occupier: ... so that nothing can be twisted.

Goon: I will happily accept that, on the condition that it's only used for your personal use.

Occupier: It is for my personal use.

Goon: If it is broadcast anywhere else, I will personally come back and take civil action against you.

Occupier: Wrong. Absolutely nothing you can do. There is no laws stating that you can't film in a public place.

Goon: Under the Data Protection Act if you take a personal image of me and use that without my use... without my express approval...

Occupier: Wrong.

Goon: ... you're in breach of the Data Protection Act.

Occupier: You're on my private property.

Goon: No I'm not sir.

Occupier: Whose property is it then? You're on private property.

Goon: No. There is implied rights of access...

Occupier: No, no, no...

Goon: ... for me to knock on your door.
[The occupier is correct, because he withdrew TV Licensing's implied rights of access earlier in the conversation. The goon is now trespassing]

Occupier: .. no there isn't.

Goon: I'll show you my ID.
[Goon momentarily flicks his ID card towards the occupier]

Occupier: Let's have a look at the ID for the camera.

Goon: No, no.

Occupier: For the camera. Anybody can make them IDs.

Goon: I'll give you that now sir.
[Goon attempts to hand the occupier a "We Said We'd Call" card]

Occupier: I'm not accepting anything.

Goon: That's fine.

Occupier: I am not accepting anything from you.

Goon: That's fine. I'll leave it there for you.
[Goon drops WSWC card into an empty shopping trolley adjacent to the front door]

Occupier: Right, okay. For the camera, thrown in there.

Occupier: He's now leaving.
[Goon is seen exiting the garden and walking away from the property]

Occupier (to goon): (I) do not wish to contract with you.
[Occupier follows the goon at a distance]

Goon: Okay, that's fine. Don't follow me down the street now.

Occupier: I can follow you where I want.

Goon: I'm phoning the police.

Occupier: I'm in a public place. I film where I want. I can do whatever I want. Phone the police. There's not a thing you can do about it.

Occupier (to goon): Go on. Ring the police. Yay! You're on camera mate. You'll be showing. YouTube. Yay!
[Occupier now stops following the goon]

Occupier: Ha! Full of shit.
↧
↧

TV Licensing: Two Years, Forty-Thousand Complaints

July 16, 2014, 1:13 pm
$
0
0

TV Licensing received 40,000 complaints in two years, according to alarming statistics recently released by the BBC.

TV Licensing is a trade mark used by the companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of TV licence fees and enforcement of the TV licence system.

WhatDoTheyKnow.com member D. Nicholls asked the BBC to provide the following information: "Would you advise the total number of complaints received(by telephone, email, letter or in person) regarding any communications with or from any agency that deals with the collection of payments for TV licences during the last two years?"

The BBC's Rupinder Panesar replied: "The majority of complaints handled by TV Licensing are initiated following some form of contact with TV Licensing therefore we (are) interpreting your request as relating to all complaints received by TV Licensing.

"I can confirm that the total number of complaints received through all channels for the period 20 June 2012 to 19 June 2014 is 39,957."

Anyone who has cause to complain about TV Licensing is asked to consult our earlier post about compensation payments.
↧

Heated TV Licensing Goon Encounter

July 20, 2014, 5:56 am
$
0
0

A video recently appeared on YouTube showing an angry confrontation between a TV Licensing goon and the occupier of the legally-licence-free property he had just visited.

The goon knocked at the occupier's front door, but walked away before the occupier had a chance to answer. The occupier looked from his window and saw the goon getting back into his car. The occupier decided to approach the goon parked outside to establish his identity. To cut a long story short, despite TV Licensing paperwork being visible on the passenger seat, the goon refused to confirm his identity and the exchange between the pair became heated.

In all honesty, as the passage of time suggests, we would not be writing about this incident had it not been for the follow-up actions of TV Licensing.

Shortly after the goon's visit the occupier phoned TV Licensing to complain about his aggressive behaviour and failure to identify himself. The occupier explained that he had filmed the encounter and uploaded it to YouTube for closer public scrutiny. 

At this stage the occupier still had no confirmation that the anonymous caller had been from TV Licensing, but subsequent events would confirm that was the case. A couple of hours later the occupier received a call from someone purporting to be Mark at TV Licensing. Mark, one of TV Licensing's resident experts on all things legal, incorrectly told the occupier that displaying the goon's image (shown above) and car details (white Ford Fiesta, 5-door hatchback, reg EA56 YBW) on YouTube was in breach of the Data Protection Act 1998.

Having evidently consulted the "Crapita Guide to Imaginary Law", Mark also claimed that filming the goon was in breach of the Representation of the People Act 2000, which actually governs the conduct of elections. Mark's natural ability to spout bullshit had, in our mind, clearly reinforced his status as a TV Licensing admin bitch. The occupier, however, was becoming suspicious of Mark's ludicrous comments and beginning to suspect the call was a wind-up. The occupier made a further phone call to TV Licensing, which confirmed that Mark's call had been genuine.

Had it not been for TV Licensing arrogant attempts to censor perfectly legitimate YouTube footage we would not be writing this now. TV Licensing routinely tries to censor critical footage on YouTube. Anyone would think they are ashamed of their goons' behaviour and would prefer it kept hidden.

If a TV Licensing goon calls at your property remember these important facts:
  • A TV licence is only required for those properties where equipment is used to receive TV programme services (e.g. programmes broadcast on normal TV channels, which are available to other people at the same time). 
  • Anyone who does not require a TV licence is under no legal obligation to co-operate with TV Licensing. We recommend they ignore TV Licensing completely.
  • TV Licensing goons have no automatic right of entry and must leave immediately if the occupier tells them to. If they become aggressive or refuse to leave then call the police.
  • TV Licensing rules require goons to show ID at the start of every visit and on request.
  • It is perfectly legal to film TV Licensing goons that visit your property. The goon does not need to consent to being filmed. The goon can't legally prevent the occupier from filming. Experience shows that TV Licensing goons often tell lies, whereas the camera generally doesn't. 
  • TV Licensing goons are commission-driven salespeople, which often skews their interpretation of the law. In reality they have no more legal rights than any other visitor to your property.
  • It is perfectly legal to film TV Licensing goons in a public place.
  • It is perfectly legal to upload video footage of TV Licensing goons to the web.
If you've found this article useful please consider liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.
↧

Help Wanted: TV Licensing Search Warrant Numbers

July 20, 2014, 7:50 am
$
0
0
We have just made a Freedom of Information request to Her Majesty's Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) on the subject of TV Licensing search warrants.

Contrary to what the BBC and TV Licensing would have people believe, the use of search warrants is neither widespread nor common. Assuming TV Licensing plays by the rules, which is by no means guaranteed, then there are certain legal hoops to jump through before applying for a warrant. Information gleaned from a previous Freedom of Information request reveals that Sheffield Magistrates' Court, the busiest court in South Yorkshire, granted a total of only SIX warrants in 2011, 2012 and 2013.

HMCTS has previously responded to a similar request, so there is no reason why they shouldn't respond again (notwithstanding the fact that the BBC is known to nobble them). We would appreciate the help of our readers in making similar requests relating to their local courts.

The Freedom of Information Act 2000 is both applicant and purpose blind: this means that anyone can request information from a public authority for whatever reason they like, even if a similar (or identical) request has been made by someone else previously.

If you live in England or Wales, here's how you can help:
  • Look at this list of Magistrates' Courts used by TV Licensing. Choose the court nearest to your home.
  • Sign up to WhatDoTheyKnow.com or use an existing account there.
  • Scroll to the HMCTS page and make a new request to them.
  • Copy and paste the request text below. Be sure to insert the name of the relevant court and your own name.
  • Send your request to HMCTS.
Please note that for the request to be valid you technically have to use your real name, however, there are certain ways you can disguise your name if you want to. 

Someone with the name "Alan Robert Jones" could use that full name, the name "A. R. Jones" or the name "A. Jones". Women can sign the request in their maiden name if they prefer. 

If you choose not to provide your real name the request will probably still be processed, but you will not be able to complain to the information watchdog (the ICO) if you are dissatisfied with the response you receive.

Text of request:

Dear Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service,

I am making this request under the terms of the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

This request only relates to information held by [Insert Name] Magistrates' Court since 1st January 2011.

Please provide me with the following information:

1. The number of search warrant applications made by employees of the BBC/TV Licensing/Capita Business Services Ltd in accordance with Section 366 of the Communications Act 2003.
2. Of those applications, the number granted or refused.
3. Of those applications granted, the number with information laid to the effect that detection/detector van evidence had been (allegedly) obtained by the BBC/TV Licensing/Capita Business Services Ltd.

HMCTS has previously released similar information (your ref: FOI/86722) so I trust will have no problem doing the same again, notwithstanding the BBC/TV Licensing's probable future attempts to deter/hamper your efforts.

Yours faithfully,

[Insert Name]
↧

TV Licensing PR Harlots Issue Caravan Threat

July 22, 2014, 6:57 am
$
0
0

If there's one thing even more predictable than barbecues this summer, it's TV Licensing's seasonal threat to members of the camping and caravan community.

One of the major advantages of owning a mobile home, caravan or tent is the freedom to escape from the tedium and technological trappings of everyday life. It would appear that ditching television, even for only a couple of weeks spent in Torquay, is a step too far for some people.

The overwhelming majority of campers, caravanners and mobile home owners are already licensed to receive TV programmes during their travels, by virtue of the fact that their home address is covered by a valid TV licence. 

Anyone whose home address is covered by a valid TV licence is also covered to receive TV programmes elsewhere, as long as they use a device powered by its own internal battery and without an external aerial (e.g. an unplugged laptop, tablet or smartphone). Anyone stopping in a static caravan is covered by their home TV licence, as long as no-one is receiving TV programmes in their home at the same time.

TV Licensing PR harlot Richard Chapman, speaking in the Dorset Echo, said: "Being caught watching TV without a licence could put a real dampener on your holidays – we want people to ensure that they stay on the right side of the law. The law says that anyone who owns a static caravan or mobile home, and watches or records TV there, is not covered by their home licence if TV is simultaneously being viewed by someone else in their main residence.

"In this case, a separate licence is needed to cover the holiday accommodation."

Stay tuned to the newspapers because we're pretty confident that Chapman's soundbites will be repeated, verbatim, by his scummy TV Licensing PR harlot colleagues elsewhere in the UK.

Edit: Just as predicted, Chapman's soundbites have been repeated verbatim as follows:
↧
↧

BBC TV Licensing Annual Review 2013/14

July 25, 2014, 3:28 am
$
0
0

The BBC has just published its TV Licensing Annual Review 2013/14.

TV Licensing is a trade mark used by the companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of TV licence fees and enforcement of the TV licence system. The BBC, as the statutory Television Licensing Authority, retains overall responsibility for all aspects of the TV Licensing operation, which includes the despicable way it terrorises legitimate non-TV viewers in their homes.


The 15-page Annual Review is a clear attempt to promote the BBC's misguided belief that TV Licensing delivers an efficient and cost-effective service to licence-fee-payers. 

In particular, the BBC asserts that complaints about TV Licensing have fallen 10 % over the past year, the cost of collecting the licence-fee stands at an all time low of 2.7 pence in the pound and the evasion rate stands at an all time low of 5-6 %. The BBC also claims that TV Licensing PR campaigns, like that recently targeted at campers and caravanners, have reached out to 82 % of the population. 

In the last year the BBC's TV Licensing "policy team", whatever that is, responded to an average of 17 Freedom of Information requests per month, most of which were from people like us. In our experience, which is not highlighted in the Annual Review, they failed to respond to a similar number. Almost 72 % of TV licence holders pay by Direct Debit and we're willing to bet that most of those don't realise that it actually costs them more to pay by that method.


If you'd like to read the BBC's TV Licensing Annual Review 2013/14 you can download it here.

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 Collision: BBC Denies Knowledge

July 25, 2014, 4:53 am
$
0
0

Today we're again highlighting the serious lack of communication and transparency between TV Licensing contractor Capita and their BBC bosses.

As you might remember, back in March 2014 we described how a TV Licensing "detector van" was involved in a collision with another vehicle. Video footage clearly shows that the white VW Transporter van, registration number VX09 VEK, made contact with the other vehicle on at least three separate occasions. The driver of the other vehicle, who had earlier observed the occupants of the van conducting surveillance on his property, had pursued the van in an effort to establish the identities of the shady-looking characters inside.

Before going any further can we make it perfectly clear, for the benefit of the BBC and Capita stooges reading this, that we do not doubt for one moment that the van involved was a TV Licensing detector van. Furthermore, we do not doubt that the occupants of that van were Capita employees conducting surveillance authorised by the BBC.


Using the Freedom of Information Act 2000 we asked the BBC to provide us with any information it held about this TV Licensing detector van collision. The BBC has previously confirmed that it retains ownership of all TV detection equipment, so we reasoned that Capita might have told the BBC that the van had been damaged in mysterious circumstances. Given the quality of driving captured in the video, it would not have been unreasonable for Capita to at least warn the BBC of the risk of negative publicity.

In their response to our request, which can be read here, the BBC denies holding any information about this incident. This seems a bit unusual, because we know that the BBC spent hours reading our blog post all about it back in March. Supposing, for one small hypothetical moment, that the BBC really doesn't hold any information - that would suggest that Capita "forgot" to inform the BBC that the van was involved in a collision. We are reminded of the Hartlepool incident, where Capita similarly forgot to inform the BBC that one of their goons was being investigated by the police over allegations he'd tried to force his way into a residential property.

Given the inconsistencies in the BBC's response we have asked them to conduct an internal review. We wait with bated breath for the outcome!
↧
Search

TV Licensing: What To Expect In Court

July 27, 2014, 4:16 am
$
0
0

A few days ago we were contacted by a reader who was clearly distressed about receiving TV Licensing's "What To Expect In Court" threatogram.

The reader, who we'll call Anna, recently moved into a new student house with two of her university friends. About a fortnight into the excitement and security of her new home, the wind was taken out of Anna's sails when she received a copy of TV Licensing's most menacing threatogram to date.

A TV licence is only required for those properties where equipment is used to receive TV programme services (that is any programme broadcast on a normal TV channel, which is simultaneously available to other viewing members of the public). Anna does not legally require a TV licence and nor do any of her housemates.

The letter, shown above (it's an old image, but that's still the current format), is designed to intimidate TV Licensing non-respondents by threatening them with court action, for an offence they probably haven't committed. Their only "crime" is to have ignored TV Licensing's previous requests for information - despite the Licensing Authority, the BBC, having confirmed that non-TV users are under no obligation to respond to any of TV Licensing's mailings.

Close examination of the letter shows it has been carefully crafted to look official and sound as menacing as possible. The implication of the letter is clear, but the threats are diluted with the words "may" and "if". The BBC has previously confirmed that it checks, authorises and condones the wording of every TV Licensing routine letter.

For anyone left in any doubt at all, the way the BBC and TV Licensing enforce the licence fee is truly despicable. As we have seen time and time again they hide behind legal jargon, half-truths and veiled threats to coerce licence fee payment, often where none is due. If you ask them any uncomfortable questions about the seemingly indiscriminate way they enforce the fee then they hide behind the law to avoid answering. This is despite the BBC Trust saying it would take action to temper TV Licensing's accusatory tone.

Anyone who genuinely doesn't receive TV programmes can safely discard TV Licensing letters where they belong - the bin or shredder. We strongly recommend they ignore all TV Licensing correspondence and employees, as co-operating with TV Licensing is often a futile exercise and provides them with information they aren't legally entitled to.

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

No TV Licensing Search Warrants Granted in Major Scottish Cities

July 30, 2014, 4:59 am
$
0
0

Over the last few weeks the TV Licensing Blog and its readers have been engaged in a campaign asking the Scottish Court Service for information about TV Licensing search warrant applications.

The BBC has previously admitted that the success of its TV Licensing enforcement operation relies heavily on the public perception that detector vans are effective and widespread, evaders face punitive fines and search warrants are granted whenever TV Licensing clicks its fingers. We know, as a matter of fact, that all three of those BBC-propagated rumours are farcically untrue. 

The aim of this campaign was to publicly unpick and discredit TV Licensing's propaganda about the virtually non-existent threat of search warrants. As we've said before, much to the amusement of our learned friend TheJesusofKayaking, discrediting TV Licensing is as easy as shooting rats drowning in a barrel of piss. This latest campaign has proved no exception to that rule.

We drafted a template letter, which we published in an earlier post. We asked readers to adjust the template so it related to their local Sheriff Court and then submit it to the Scottish Court Service as a request for information under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002. In Scotland the Sheriff Court is responsible for dealing with TV Licensing search warrant applications and court cases.

It is still early days, but the responses received so far show a definite trend: TV Licensing has not applied for any search warrants in several major inner-city Scottish Sheriff Courts since 1st January 2011. The responses received so far apply to the Sheriff Courts in Glasgow, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, Dundee, Dunfermline and Kirkcaldy. All of the responses take the same format, which you can view here.

In the 2011, the last official statistics available, the population of Scotland was just shy of 5.3 million. The Sheriff Courts in question serve almost 2 million individuals. In other words, having sampled almost 40 % of the Scottish population (about a quarter of whom are under the age of 18 or over the age of 75) there is not one instance of TV Licensing having applied for a search warrant since 1st January 2011.

That, we're sure you'll agree, is statistically quite significant. It would suggest that TV Licensing apply for a infinitesimally small number of search warrants in Scotland, if any at all.

We are very grateful to the Scottish Court Service for having provided such timely and efficient responses to our information requests. We encourage readers to stay tuned for the results of our investigation into TV Licensing search warrant applications in England and Wales, which we hope to publish shortly.

TV Licensing in Scotland: All bark, no bite at all.

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

TV Licensing: Finn Communications PR Harlot on BBC Radio Manchester

July 30, 2014, 8:01 am
$
0
0

Newbie TV Licensing PR harlot Matt Thompson took questions on BBC Radio Manchester's In The Hot Seat programme on 29th July 2014.

TV Licensing is the name used by the companies contracted by the BBC to administer and enforce the TV licence system. The BBC, as the statutory Television Licensing Authority, retains overall responsibility for all matters relating to TV Licensing. Radio interviews like this are effectively the BBC promoting methods of funding the BBC, which always makes us laugh!

Thompson is employed by Leeds-based PR outfit Finn Communications Ltd. Finn was recently appointed as the regional TV Licensing PR agency for north of England in a deal worth £300k. Its 4-year contract began on 1st April 2014 (no joke).

Sian Healey, TV Licensing Head of Policy and Communications and avid TV Licensing Blog subscriber, spoke optimistically about Finn's appointment: "Finn will have an important part to play in our work to communicate to the public when they need a licence, and our extensive stakeholder campaign working with a wide range of organisations, including those specialising in money advice."

Originally we had the bright idea of transcribing the entire hour-long programme, but after ten minutes of listening to TV Licensing drivel aimed at the people of Manchester we'd lost the will to continue. Listening to the crap pumped out by your own BBC local radio station is often akin to Chinese water torture, but enduring someone else's local radio is even worse. To his credit Thompson had provided accurate information until the point where we turned off, but let's not be distracted from the fact that people of his ilk are there purely to serve the purposes of the BBC.

Thanks to the marvels of modern technology, you can also experience the same levels of torture by listening to the Sweeney and Thompson show on the BBC iPlayer (available for 6 more days only).
↧

Bizarre TV Licensing Search Warrant Failure

July 30, 2014, 2:00 pm
$
0
0
TV Licensing goon Phillip Carvill trying to work the TV set.

Two TV Licensing employees and two police officers executed a search warrant in the Dartford area of Kent at around 8 am this morning.

The video footage, shared by the Active Resistance to the TV Licence Facebook page, is the most bizarre search warrant episode we have seen to date. It's bizarre in the sense that the occupier acted reasonably throughout, yet the TV Licensing goons, who were clearly frustrated at having found no evidence whatsoever of unlicensed TV reception, still indicate a desire to "get him" on trumped-up obstruction charges.

Clipboard-wielding apprentice goon.

Before going any further, let us reassure readers that TV Licensing search warrants are exceptionally rare (even more so in Scotland). The occupiers of legally-licence-free properties should not be overly concerned about the threat of being searched, as TV Licensing will never (theoretically) be able to obtain the evidence needed for a warrant.

The entire episode is transcribed below:
____________________________________________________________________________
[The goons and police are on the doorstep at this point]

Goon 1 (Phillip Carvill): [Inaudible] mucking around now.

Occupier: I'm not mucking about at all.

Police 1 (with beard): Just listen to these gentlemen. They are here to conduct a warrant on behalf of the TV licence.

Occupier: Is that signed by a legal Justice?

Goon 1: Yeah, it's all legal. Do you want to check it? [offers occupier the paperwork]

Occupier: Okay. Erm, firstly I don't watch live TV broadcasts.

Goon 1: Can we come in and check then?

Police 1: Sir, just allow them to do their job. They're acting on behalf of a warrant that's been issued.

Goon 1: Here's our ID [offers ID card]

Goon 1: That's mine.

Occupier: [Reads out Goon 1's name]

Goon 1: Here's my colleague's [Goon 1 sways towards occupier, as if to fully enter property]

Occupier: Hold on. Excuse me officer.

Goon 2: [Offers ID card and states his name]

Occupier: Okay, fine [opens door wide and allows entry]

Goon 1: Here's your copy by the way [offers paperwork to occupier as he enters property]

Goon 1: Where's the TV apparatus?

Occupier: The TV apparatus is here [gesturing towards open living room door]

Goon 1: Okay [entering living room and approaching TV set mounted on wall]

Occupier: As stated, I do not watch live TV broadcasts and as such I do not require a TV licence.

Goon 2: Can you just switch it on for me, can you? [gesturing towards TV set]

Occupier: No. There's nowhere on your warrant that says I have to switch it on. If you want to examine the apparatus that's up to you.

Goon 1: You'll not turn it on for us?

Occupier: No.

Goon 1: You're refusing to turn it on? [To Goon 2] Okay, fill out that form. We'll go through it.

Occupier: To turn it on to what? There's no TV signal.

Goon 1: My colleague has to complete the form and then if you could answer his questions as accurately as possible.

Goon 2: Can I get your first name please?

Occupier: No.

Goon 1: You're refusing your first name? [gesturing towards camera] I don't know why you're doing that.

Occupier: It's for my own protection. You've turned up with two officers that are armed. I'm a law abiding citizen.

Police 1: We're here to prevent a breach of the peace sir.

Goon 1: What's your surname?

Occupier: I'm not at liberty to say.

Goon 2: [Reads out address]. Can I just confirm your postcode with you please?

Occupier: I don't know it off the top of my head.

Goon 1: [To Goon 2] Have we got a postcode?

Goon 2: Yes [reads out postcode]. Have you got a licence for the television?

Occupier: I don't need a licence. I do not watch live broadcasts.

Goon 1: Put your telly on for me [gestures towards TV set]

Occupier: Excuse me. Don't get agitated with me in my home.

Goon 1: Not at all [smiling]

Occupier: The officers are here to prevent a breach of the peace. I'm the householder, a law abiding citizen. I've committed no offence. I do not watch live broadcasts. I do not require a TV licence.

Goon 1: If you'd like to read your copy (of the paperwork) it actually tells you that now. What we've just said to you. For your records [gestures towards camera] if you want to look at your second copy? We've stated that we have all the authority to...

Occupier: To do what?

Goon 1: To perform the inspection of the television equipment.

Occupier: Please inspect it.

Goon 1: Okay. Where are the remote controls?

Occupier: [Looking around room] Erm, they are somewhere [finds remote down side of sofa and offers it to Goon 1]

Goon 1: It's your [inaudible]. You know how to turn it on. I'm not sure how to.

Goon 1: I take it all this [gestures at cables in corner of room] has been unplugged here, yeah? This all the stuff? Is this all to do with the TV?

Occupier: It's all to do with the sound system and the DVD player, for watching DVDs.

Goon 2: There's a television here and there's no record of a licence.

Occupier: It is not an offence to have a TV that isn't receiving live TV streaming.

Goon 2: Clearly you're refusing to co-operate and therefore I'll have to... 

Occupier: I'm not refusing.

Goon 2: Well can you put in on for me please?

Occupier: I'm pushing the button. Look. Well, it'll need plugging in first.

Goon 1: Well go on then sir [gesturing towards unplugged cables in corner of room]. It is your property.

Occupier: I'm under no obligation to set the equipment up.

Goon 1: Alright [moves to plug in cables]

Occupier: You can inspect it. I'd like to note that the TV licence man is installing the equipment for the television so it can receive live streamed pictures, which presently at the time of the visit it was not [Goon 1 is clearly seen plugging in a power lead and aerial lead]

Goon 1: Okay then.

Occupier: You're the boss, by the looks of it [hands Goon 1 the remote]

Goon 1: No, not really. It's just I want to do what I've been sent here to do.

Goon 1: We will need to take your name though.

Occupier: I'm under no obligation to give my name.

Goon 1: So basically you're obstructing this search warrant [as he is holding the remote and playing with the TV set]

Occupier: Not at all. I've allowed yourselves in.

Goon 1: No, we need your name as well sir.

Occupier: No.

Goon 1: So, you're actually refusing to give us your name? So, for the record you are refusing to give us your name?

Occupier: I've already answered that.

Goon 1: So the answer is, you're refusing?

Occupier: [To police] Officers, have I committed an offence?

Police 2 (clean shaven): By doing what?

Occupier: By allowing these people under, as you said, the warrant into my home.

Police 2: The warrant obviously says that they've got the power of entry, the power to come in and to test equipment. By not giving your details you're basically hindering the investigation, aren't you?

Occupier: Is it your investigation or theirs?

Police 2: It's their investigation, not mine.

Occupier: Okay. I'm not obliged to give any details then.

Goon 1: So you're obstructing?

Occupier: There's the law [gesturing at police]. I'm not the law. You've obviously, erm...

Goon 1: Right. As it's your equipment you probably know better how to turn it on. Would you turn it on for us please?

Occupier: No. I only watch - it is on - the DVD player. That's how I watch TV. I only watch DVD films.

[Goon 1 is seen pushing buttons on the remote, but nothing happens]

Goon 2: That's the Sky remote.

Goon 1: Have you got the TV remote?

Occupier: I haven't got a TV remote.

Goon 1: Well you won't be able to use that [shows Sky remote] to get your DVD working, will you? That is for Sky.

Occupier: Right. Pioneer [gesturing at logo now showing on TV screen], Pioneer [gesturing at DVD player]

Goon 1: Yes fine, but you'd some sort of another (remote), which you've obviously got somewhere, which we need.

Occupier: May I just point out that the TV Licensing man has plugged in the TV aerial to try to enable the telly to receive live broadcasts.

Goon 1: I plugged in the leads that are there.

Occupier: Under a search warrant officers, erm, I'm unsure of the law obviously...

Police 2: So you are letting him test the TV [Goon 1 is currently pushing buttons on side of TV set, which is displaying a menu screen]

Occupier: Right, okay.

Police 1: If you read the paperwork that they've given to you sir, that will confirm things.

Goon 1: I'm not sure how to use this [looking confused at menu screen on TV] 

[Goon 2 moves in to help with TV menu screen, but actually turns the TV set off]

Goon 1: Right, so basically you're not really going to co-operate with these questions?

Occupier: Well, no. I'm under no obligation legally to speak to yourselves. If the officers want to take me down to the station and question me under caution then I'm happy to come down with you now.

Police 2:  Well, it's better to do it here. You don't need to come to the police station to do it (inaudible).

Occupier: Well, if I've committed an offence officer then I'm perfectly willing to speak to yourselves. You represent the law, I'm happy to talk to yourselves.

Police 2: Yeah, well it's their investigation. It's not for us.

Goon 1: I'm going to ask you some questions, okay? But obviously it's under caution [this is the first time either of the TV Licensing employees have mentioned the word "caution" and we're now more than 8 minutes into the visit]

Occupier: I'm not at liberty to answer any questions about legal obligations.

Goon 2: [Reads out caution]. Do you understand?

Occupier: No.

Goon 1: Well then he'll read it again and explain it to you, so that you understand. Read it back again.

Goon 2: [Repeats caution]

Occupier: I understand the caution.

Goon 2: Do you understand?

Occupier: No, because I only understand and recognise the caution by the representatives of the law [gestures towards police]

Goon 1: In this case...

Occupier: Yourselves work for Capita, who are employed by the TV Licensing agency. You have no legal authority of arrest over me, only the law does. If I've committed an offence then I am happy to come down to the station and answer any questions from these officers that they want to pose to me. I haven't got any obligation. As I say, I'm a law abiding citizen.

Goon 1: With the TV licence, we're governed by PACE, which is the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, which enables us to give you a caution. Now we can explain the caution to you...

Occupier: I don't recognise your caution.

Goon 1: You're not accepting - you won't accept our explanation of the caution?

Occupier: No.

Goon 1: [To Goon 2] Just put down that he won't accept an explanation of the caution, but he would understand it if the police gave it. [To occupier] So you'd understand it if the police gave it?

Occupier: If the police would like to ask me any questions at all down the station and I'm under arrest or caution, then I'm happy to do that.

Police 2: It's not our investigation though, is it?

Goon 1: How long has the television been here?

Occupier: I don't know.

Goon 1: You don't know?

Occupier: No.

Goon 1: When did you last have a licence? There has been a licence at this address.

Occupier: Oh, has there? I wouldn't know, because I don't need one.

Goon 1: [inaudible]

Occupier: What's in the past - we're talking now at the time of the search and what's history is history, I believe.

Goon 1: Well it is, unfortunately. Obviously you're being uncooperative with this investigation, okay? So what we'll have to do - we'll terminate the interview now, but it will be obstructing our investigation. Just to let you know, okay? So we'll be following it up with that side of it, okay? You've got your copy (of paperwork), okay?

Occupier: Right. Thanks for coming [goons and police start leaving property]. Sorry your time has been wasted officers [goons and police exit property]
____________________________________________________________________________

This video footage is very fresh, so we're expecting further developments on this story over the next few days. In the meantime, we shall highlight a few of our observations and concerns about that way the goons conduct the visit:
  • The occupier allows TV Licensing entry very quickly, as soon as he has checked their ID and established the purpose of their visit. The time stamp on the video shows that the goons were inside the property within 45 seconds.
  • The occupier immediately shows the goons where the TV set is and offers them the chance to examine it. At no time during the visit does the occupier stand anywhere near the TV set, or attempt to block the goon's access to it.
  • The occupier rummages around to find the remote control and attempts to hand it to the lead goon. The lead goon refuses to take it, instead trying to get the occupier to incriminate himself by turning on the TV set. It is entirely understandable that the occupier refused to turn on the TV set in these circumstances.
  • The Notice of Powers and Rights (view here), a document given to the occupier that outlines TV Licensing's rights during the search, does not state that the occupier needs to answer their questions or help them turn on equipment.
  • The lead goon actually installs the TV set by plugging in the power and aerial leads himself. Even if TV programmes had been seen, it is difficult to reconcile how the occupier could have been guilty of an offence due to the goon's actions of installing the equipment.
  • Both goons clearly lacked the technical ability and mental aptitude to operate and inspect the equipment present. On several occasions they are heard to say "I don't know how this works".
  • The occupier remained calm, well-reasoned and civil throughout. He had the forethought to explain his actions throughout the video. He also clearly explained the goons' actions during the video.
  • The goons made no attempt to caution the occupier until about 8 minutes into their visit, by which time the younger one had virtually completed the TVL178 Record of Interview form. Given this elementary breach of procedure, we'd suggest the completed form is evidentially worthless.
  • At no point was any TV programme image ever displayed on the TV screen (in case anyone tries to superimpose a frozen image from The One Show later on). The only images seen were the DVD player's welcome screen and the TV's own internal menu screen.
  • Chapter 16, Section 2 of the TV Licensing Visiting Procedures (which is usually redacted by the BBC) states the following in bolded print: "NB - a refusal to provide name, to cooperate with the interview or to otherwise be "difficult" does not amount to an obstruction of the warrant".
We look forward to seeing how TV Licensing pursue this case, so stay tuned for further updates.
↧

TV Licensing Rules on Multiple Occupation

August 3, 2014, 2:55 am
$
0
0

In response to one of yesterday's Facebook comments, we thought we'd take the opportunity to clarify TV Licensing's rules on single and multiple occupation.

These rules are particularly applicable to those living in student properties or halls or residence. For reasons that will become apparent below, we consider the rules on multiple occupancy grossly unfair and another TV Licensing money-making con.

Before delving any deeper, let's explore the meaning of what we describe as a "liveable unit" in our free ebook, TV Licensing Laid Bare. A liveable unit is a self-contained space where a person/people share the majority of their everyday living. In practical terms it is properties that are licensed: not equipment and not individuals. A single liveable unit is covered by one TV licence. Any amount of TV receiving equipment can be installed or used in that liveable unit once it is correctly licensed.

As a general rule of thumb, a property shared by family members is likely to be a single liveable unit; a property shared by non-family members is likely to be more than one liveable unit unless an agreement (e.g. shared tenancy) is in place that allows them equal access to all parts of the property.

There are various permutations as to what a liveable unit actually is. Generally speaking a normal residential property, where all of the occupants have free access to all of the rooms, is considered one liveable unit and is covered by one TV licence. If one of the rooms was let to someone else then they would require a separate TV licence to cover the use of TV receiving equipment in that room.

Students can find the rules particularly confusing. A student renting a room in a hall of residence would require their own TV licence to cover the use of TV receiving equipment in that room. TV equipment provided by the college/university in communal areas is usually covered by that institution’s own TV licence.

If a student property was occupied by several people named on a joint tenancy agreement then that property would be covered by a single TV licence. If, however, the property was shared by several people with separate tenancy agreements for different rooms in the property then each person would require their own TV licence to use TV receiving equipment in their room. Furthermore, they might also be required to buy another TV licence to cover the use of TV receiving equipment in communal areas of the property, like the living room or kitchen.

The rules, as implemented by TV Licensing, are archaic, unenforceable and grossly unfair. As things stand the situation could arise where a four-person student property required five TV licences, whereas the identical four-person family property next door only required one, whereas the identical single-person property next door to that only required one. It really is a ludicrous state of affairs, which is designed purely to maximise TV licence revenue for the BBC.

Of course, if you follow our golden rule of non-communication/co-operation with TV Licensing, then they'd probably be none the wiser about the number of liveable units hidden behind your front door!

If you've found this article useful please consider liking us on Facebook, following us on Twitter or downloading our free ebook.
↧
Viewing all 1019 articles
Browse latest View live
Search