.jpg)
We have been approached by the legal occupier of a legitimately licence-free property, who had the recent misfortune of coming face to face with a TV Licensing goon.
The occupier, who we'll call Tony for sake of argument, claims to have moved into the property only three weeks before TV Licensing came-a-knocking. He hadn't even had the chance to unpack all of his boxes. According to Tony his TV was only set up to watch pre-recorded DVDs, which definitely does not require a TV licence.
Tony recounts his story on the TVLR forums: "On 12th November (2012) I got a visit from TVL.
"I hadn't discovered this website or heard of the tactics they use. Feeling I wasn't committing any offence I allowed him in. He looked at my TV and noticed it wasn't connected to any receiving equipment. He then asked me to connect it to my Sky box so he could check reception."
Tony claims to have followed the goon's instructions and connected the Sky box to his TV. As a result of Tony's naive compliance the goon, his eyes no doubt flickering with pound signs, gleefully announced that an offence had been committed. Fearful of legal consequences Tony signed up for a TV licence there and then, even though he claims not to have been receiving TV programmes until the goon's visit.
He continues with the worrying allegation: "Today I got a summons for the so-called offence of using a colour TV without a licence. When I checked the evidence, which consisted of the TVL (record of interview) form, I was shocked to see that information had been added after I signed it. The form now states that I admitted to have been watching TV without a licence for 18 days."
Should Tony's story be an accurate representation of his goon encounter, then you'd be forgiven for thinking he'd been lured into incriminating himself.
We have no way, at the moment, of verifying any alleged discrepancies between Tony's copy of the TVL178 and the evidential copy that the goon delivered to his bosses. That said, close examination of Tony's copy, shown above, reveals several contradictions and inconsistencies in what the goon has written. For a start, according to the goon's own timings, it took him only 3 minutes to enter Tony's property, question him, caution him, test his equipment and leave. Those timings seem a bit far-fetched. The goon also claimed that the TV was "on now", but contradicts that by saying no programmes were seen or heard. Even stranger, given the goon's claims that no programmes were seen or heard, is that he claims to have tested "Channels 1-5".
We have advised Tony of the inherent flaws in TV Licensing's evidence and are encouraging him to attend court and plead not guilty. Having heard several allegations of TV Licensing "creativity" in the past, we are inclined to believe Tony's chain of events. We're very much looking forward to the outcome of this case.