TV licence

leitmotif

Hi all,

Last year we moved house. To cut a long story short, it was two months before we were able to receive television. My girlfriend sent off the form to pay for TV licence. However, she put the date as the date of moving, forgetting that we didn't have to pay for a TV licence for those first two months. I got hold of one of their refund forms off their website, filled it in and under Reason ticked the box 'error', explaining the above. They wrote back and said they don't refund less than three months as that is their standard policy and specified on the letter that this was a final decision and no appeals would be possible.

Should I put up with this? A genuine error was made, I provided evidence to them (a receipt for installing satellite dish dated two months after the move), and it was clear that we should not have been paying for TV licence for those two months. On what basis (other than shielding themselves behind 'policy') can they say they won't refund the money? And to say no appeals are possible?

Any advice appreciated. I know it probably adds up to less than £30 but that's £30 in my pocket rather than theirs.

Pete*G_4

check the T&C's for the License. does it say anything in there?

leitmotif

That's a good idea, thanks Pete. However, just checked Ts&Cs and nothing on not refunding less than 3 months. It's only mentioned on the refund claim form.

If they overpaid me for any reason, they would expect every penny back.

YasminTiara

Thanx Pete your advice is useful for me also

leitmotif

The website of the TV Licensing Authority (www.tvlicensing.co.uk) says that you may be entitled to a refund where "[y]our TV Licence was purchased by mistake" with a footnote stating that "[r]efunds are available for complete unused months that remain on your TV Licence". On the basis of this, the TV Licensing Authority turned down our application for a refund on the grounds that the months we wanted refunded were at the start of the licence, not 'remaining' at the end. They said as we still needed the licence for the property they would not refund. Still, on what legal basis can they do this? To draw an analogy, if you apply for council tax rebanding you may be told "sorry, our policy says if you've lived in your new house for more than six months you're not eligible for rebanding", but this policy has no basis in the legislation, so if you push the matter they have to review your banding. Surely the matter with the TV Licensing Authority is similar?

Former_MSE_Alana

Hi leitmotif,

We have received this response from the TV licensing team:

"We spotted your recent post and thought we'd get in touch. We do have a refund policy and I'd be happy to look into whether it's been correctly applied in your case.

If you could send your details to support@tvlicensing.info, then we'll take a look and get back to you.

Hope that's helpful,

Regards
TV Licensing Support
support@tvlicensing.info"

leitmotif

It's nice to see that the TV Licensing Authority saw the post and responded. I have looked into the legal side of things. Their refund policy is based on
Section 365, Article 3 of the Communications Act 2003 which states that the "BBC are entitled, in such cases as they may determine, to make refunds of sums received by them by virtue of regulations under this section". It seems that they have interpreted this very open clause to mean they can set their own policy as they see fit.

I then contacted the Citizens Advice Bureau and Consumer Direct. Consumer Direct advised that I write to the TV Licensing Authority and invoke the Sale of Goods and Services Act. Under said act, they said, it would seem that the TV Licensing Authority had not shown reasonable care and skill in accepting (and refusing to refund) money for a licence covering a period for which it was not required, particularly since it related to a fairly simple error and there would be no complications in refunding it, and due to the fact that they are retaining money to which they are not entitled. The CAB contacted the TV Licensing Authority and were told that the TV Licensing Authority would be happy to add two months to the term of our licence. That's absolutely fine by me, as it was something I had initially requested as an acceptable alternative to a refund.

Last month (March 2010) I wrote a letter in line with the above advice. I today received a response which says:

- they will not refund
- they have no legal obligation to refund, even when a licence is no longer required
- their policy is to refund only full unused quarters remaining once a licence is no longer required
- they will not extend by two months, and the TV Licensing Authority spokesperson that spoke with the CAB had "misinformed" us all
- that a TV Licence is neither goods nor a service, so the Sale of Goods and Services Act does not apply

Basically they say the Communications Act 2003 entitles them to do what they want and we have to drop the matter.

However, I'm not ready to drop the matter. The clause in the Communications Act 2003 does not exist in a legislative vacuum. There must be something that prevents organizations from holding on to money to which they had no claim in the first place. They're claiming the Sale of Goods and Services Act does not apply - this would turn on the definition of 'service', surely? They have accepted money for something intangible - is that not a service? What about licences for guns, dogs, fishing, etc? However, this aside, there still must be some kind of legislation that prevents them from holding on to the money purely because they are not obliged to give refunds under any circumstances (as the letter of the law makes clear).

Furthermore, I noticed the case of someone on the Thisismoney.co.uk website where the guy in question had been paying for two licences when he only needed one - for 7 years. They retrospectively refunded him 3 years only, saying that normally they would only refund at most 2 years for a mistake. In other words, they do sometimes refund for mistakes. It's one rule for some and another for others.

I intend to visit the CAB again after the weekend and if necessary pursue this in the small claims court. I am not going to let this rest! The web is full of disgruntled individuals who feel that they have been unfairly treated by the TV Licensing Authority. It amounts to bureacratic harassment. In the meantime it would be good to hear opinions!

P.S. I read elsewhere on the web that the Treasury reclassified the TV Licence 'fee' from a fee to a tax in 2006, but that this was not announced publicly and is not particularly common knowledge. This may be hearsay, but I'm sure it would affect the chances of pursuing legal action (either positively or negatively). If you overpay tax, you get a rebate. Would that be a line to pursue here?

lincroft1710

I would make the following neutral observations

From my experience CAB are not expert in that many fields (if any) so unless their advice in this case is from a senior person at TV Licensing or from a solicitor/barrister suitably qualified in such matters, it may not be helpful.

A TV licence is not subject to SOGA as it is neither a service nor goods, it is a fee (or tax) for the privilege of watching television.

The invoice for the date of the satellite dish installation only proves that is the date you had the dish installed. Unless you live in an area where it is impossible to receive terrestrial TV signals via normal aerial, you could have easily had TV reception and it would be difficult for you to prove this was not possible in your case. It would be up to you to prove you did not need a TV licence for the 2 months.

The guy with 2 licences has still paid for 1 licence, the analogy is not the same.

It will cost you £25 to make a claim on line, and you cannot claim against government departments, but I believe TV Licensing is not/no longer a govt dept, but you should obviously check.

Although I believe one should not pay for something one does not need/has not used there are occasions when one chases good money after bad especially if the law appears to be on the side of the opposition.

leitmotif

lincroft1710 wrote: »

I would make the following neutral observations

From my experience CAB are not expert in that many fields (if any) so unless their advice in this case is from a senior person at TV Licensing or from a solicitor/barrister suitably qualified in such matters, it may not be helpful.

Thanks for your reply, Lincroft. I will go back to the CAB on Monday and see if I can get one of those free half hour sessions with the sollicitor.

lincroft1710 wrote: »

A TV licence is not subject to SOGA as it is neither a service nor goods, it is a fee (or tax) for the privilege of watching television.

The invoice for the date of the satellite dish installation only proves that is the date you had the dish installed. Unless you live in an area where it is impossible to receive terrestrial TV signals via normal aerial, you could have easily had TV reception and it would be difficult for you to prove this was not possible in your case. It would be up to you to prove you did not need a TV licence for the 2 months.

In fact, we do live in an area where there is no signal. It was on this basis that we had to get a dish installed. But I find it strange that you would be 'guilty' until proven 'innocent'. I mean, if you were between cars the DVLA wouldn't tell you to prove that you didn't have a car in order not to have to pay road tax.

lincroft1710 wrote: »

The guy with 2 licences has still paid for 1 licence, the analogy is not the same.

Point taken, but I highlight the case not to draw an analogy. I highlight the case to show that the TV Licensing Authority will issue refunds for past errors.

lincroft1710 wrote: »

It will cost you £25 to make a claim on line, and you cannot claim against government departments, but I believe TV Licensing is not/no longer a govt dept, but you should obviously check.

What kind of claim is this, and with whom? You mean an online small claims thing or something? I will seek legal advice first.

lincroft1710 wrote: »

Although I believe one should not pay for something one does not need/has not used there are occasions when one chases good money after bad especially if the law appears to be on the side of the opposition.

It's not about the money here. If I based my decision on time vs. money I wouldn't even think about pursuing anything under £100. It's a matter of principle and I'm happy to devote some of my time to it.

Thanks again for your comments!

lincroft1710

But I find it strange that you would be 'guilty' until proven 'innocent'

But if you are trying to claim you had not needed a TV licence for the 2 months it is up to you to prove this.

What kind of claim is this, and with whom? You mean an online small claims thing or something?

Look at HMCS website re making claim for small amount online, cost is £25, paper claim is £30.

Something to think about.

You have a car and tax it for a year. A month later the engine develops a fault and you find you have to have a new engine. This takes two months during which the car is parked in your garage and is not driven on public highway. When car is back on road you realise you've paid for 2 months tax but never used car on the road which you can prove. Do you think DVLA would issue you with a backdated SORN and refund you 2 months tax?

Regarding the "principle", count up the time you've spent researching this, posting on here, going to CAB and cost it at a very, very reasonable £10 per hr (your time).

At the end of the day it's your decision. I'm just trying to post in the spirit of money saving.

Fire_Fox

There are two problems here, one is that you did not inform TVL when you moved in that you were unable to receive a signal and therefore did not require a license, and the other is that you subsequently completed the form incorrectly. I suspect TVL are not willing to bend the rules for you as they have no way of checking up retrospectively whereas it is very easy to demonstrate that the person who paid for two licenses did indeed hold two licenses. TBH the CAB are pretty busy with people in dire need of advice and support, if this is about the principle then do your OWN research - all legislation is online now.