113 comments Add a comment
Well it looks as if the TV Licensing people haven't got the message yet, even though their enforcement officers paid us a visit just over a week ago. I moved to this house a few months ago by the way and have so far completely ignored all the warnings that they have sent demanding that I buy a TV Licence or possibly face a fine.
I don't see why I should communicate with these parasites every time I move house to tell them I still do not have a television. Why should I? It's a clear case of being guilty until you prove you are innocent. As for the enforcement officer with the TV detector van that turned up last week, well he wanted to come in and take a look around to make sure we didn't have a TV. Naturally I wasn't going to permit a stranger to come into my home without some more official looking documentation.
That TV Licensing badge looked authentic enough, but this guy could have been anyone and I didn't see a van up the street! He could even have been there just to case the joint for some future robbery or it could have been a distraction burglary, you hear about them all the time. I sent him away to get a warrant because he wasn't about to enter my house without one. He mumbled something about making a phone call and that they had detected a television in my house. I pointed out that the only thing they could have detected was the computer as I don't have a TV.
That was that I thought as I closed the door and I still haven't heard anything further regarding an inspection so who knows. I had thought that our little conversation was enough to set the record straight, tick in the box that this house doesn't have a TV etc. Apparently not though because I received yet another threatening letter from the TV Licensing people addressed to The Occupier. Very strange that, because the enforcing officer that turned up on my doorstep took a note of my name. I would have thought that information should have filtered through they system somehow.
Anyway, this letter from TV Licensing is actually the reason for writing this gripe (click on the image to read it in full). It's the tone of it that I really don't like. It comes across as very threatening and intimidating and if any other company were to send out this kind of material on a regular basis, I am pretty sure there would be a national uproar. How do they get away this?
It begins with the words OFFICIAL WARNING in underlined capitals. A warning of course means cautionary advice about something imminent (especially imminent danger). An official warning therefore carries more weight. It means you've done something wrong (or they think you've done something wrong). Even the typeface comes across as a bit official and stern and this is deliberate I think. Then there's the liberal scattering of words and phrases such as "police", "criminal" and "court appearance" in the text.
In my opinion this document isn't designed to help you buy a TV Licence, rather it is designed to SCARE you into buying one and that to me is just not on! When did it suddenly become okay for companies to send out a threatening communication like this?
As I mentioned earlier, I don't have a TV and I don't want one. But I also don't believe that I should have to inform these people whenever I move house that I still don't want a television. I especially resent being harassed (yes, that is exactly what this is) and treated like a criminal because I dare to stray from the norm and not buy a TV licence.
Can you imagine how an elderly person would feel having received a threatening notice like this? Not particularly nice is it?
By: Kenny
How to deal with TV Licensing
Avoiding TVL/BBC harassment
Someone very kindly sent in a link to this site. It contains lots of useful information about dealing with the TV Licensing people and in particular what they can and can't do. I'm inclined to draw your attention to the section called "Tips for avoiding TVL/BBC harassment" on the left hand menu at the top of the page.
Leave a comment
You've been lucky so far; but just remember the rest of us are subsidising your viewing!
I informed TVLA in writing (1999) with a fairly emphatic statement that ‘I did not have a TV, was not intending to purchase one, would of course inform them if I did, etc, etc’ after getting one letter that was slightly less threatening than usual. The letters stopped for 2 years and then the visits & letters restarted.
These people are ignorant trolls.
TVLA uses UKMail to collect letters (and get paid to do so) then UKMail uses Royal Mail who, as a 'common carrier', does not get paid to deliver (the expensive bit). So I now put the so-called reminders into a separate envelope addressed to TVLA Bristol, but without a stamp. This now means that poor old Royal Mail gets to charge excess postage when delivering TVLA's letter back to them! Cross-subsidising a truly useful service and hopefully causing TVLA grief and admin problems. My address still remains on the reminder’s envelope – I really do not care what they try on! They might get the message one day.
Please - everyone should do this!
And if they come a-visiting again, I still do not have a TV after 33 years…
A call to the citizens advice bureau might also be a good idea.
and can be seen online
Earlier this year on 9th April I discussed the organisation which is responsible for funding the BBC; TV Licensing. This organisation is also responsible for prosecuting those who watch TV in contravention of the law by not having a license. This body has the full trappings of a prosecuting authority with its own fines department, courts listing department and of course its own prosecuters. It also has its own publication department which sends to interested parties three or four times a year "In Brief" with information of interest.
This newsletter is sent out to all magistrates who are members of the Magistrates` Association. I have copied the current edition`s four pages at the end of this post. Roughly 10% of JPs choose not to join the Association. I would presume the Association receives a fee for this although I stand to be corrected on this assumption. 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 license is a criminal offence. It is also a criminal offence eg to be a ticket tout or 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. Indeed most of my colleagues on my bench would happily see TV license evasion be de-criminalised and tried as a civil matter.
Whilst the BBC is a nationalised business the requirement that using the service without a license is a criminal offence is arbitrary. It is time for change.
TWO Sidcup residents received court summonses for not having a television licence, when one did not even own a television, a court has heard.
Father-of-four Oluwagbenga Olaniyan, aged 45, of Oak Road, Gravesend, made up interviews with the Sidcup residents, because he feared losing his job, Maidstone Crown Court was told.
Olaniyan was working as a TV licence investigator and was given a target of tracking down one licence dodger an hour during his 37-hour working week.
Those who did not reach their targets were in danger of losing their £16,000-a-year jobs.
As a result, in 2005, Olaniyan fabricated four interviews, two with people in Sidcup and two in Gravesend.
The first they knew was when they received the summonses with a copy of their “interview”.
If Olaniyan’s activities had not been discovered, they could have faced fines of £1,000.
Olaniyan pleaded guilty to perverting the course of justice and four charges of false accounting. He was given a 40-week jail sentence, suspended for two years, and ordered to do 200 hours of unpaid work.
they have been known to try to tune in tvs to broadcasting stations.
if the householder has no aerial attached to the tv and the tv is not tuned into any broadcasting stations, then according to Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003,this type of action is illegal by the tvl people and they are breaking the law as they can be seen to install the tv set, but only if the owner has taken every precaution to ensure that the set cannot receive broadcast stations. this is law by ofcom, please read the following for guidance, Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003
one of the tvl inspectors, decided he needed to peep through the small gap in the curtains and seen the woman and her small child not properly clothed, the woman found out what had happened, and quickly took a case against tvl, on the peeping tom law also known as voyeurism and won her case, this was widely published in the newspapers at the time, and resulted in the tvl agent losing his job and i am sure compensation as well
Annoyed!