Tv licence agent threatening behaviour

WhiteHorse

cyberbob wrote: »

Yes the OP has not mentioned that also they have had TV License people visit before so there is obviously some sort of issue.

Not at all. They routinely harrass people who don't have a TV.

WhiteHorse

lucylucky wrote: »

Just because you own a TV does not mean you need a licence.

Technically, this is true, but an unreliable defence. The courts assumption would be that you were using it illegally.

WhiteHorse

p00hsticks wrote: »

True, but it can save a lot of hassle if you simply let them know...

And which notification they routinely ignore [MSE passim].

TVL is a private for-profit operation. If they can pressurise (their letters are borderline illegal), people into getting licences even when they don't need them, it's money for them.

lucylucky

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Technically, this is true, but an unreliable defence. The courts assumption would be that you were using it illegally.

But TVL would have to prove that you were using it for purposes which require a licence. The onus is on them

moonrakerz

Best way to get rid of these scum bags ? Write to your MP - honest, it works !

WhiteHorse

Dealmad wrote: »

I quickly opened my window to shout out what are you doing, as you are trespassing on private property

Although you may exclude just about anyone you like from access, until you do so, there is an implied right of access to 'conduct legitimate business'. Thus, at this point he was not trespassing.

, he shouted out that he was here because im breaking the law

Firstly, was he genuine? secondly, write to TVL complaining that their agent falsely accused you of criminality.

i said what the hell are you on about and get the off my property.

At this point consent is withdrawn. Now he becomes a trespasser.

He then said he has a right to do this as he is a tv license agent

Being a TV licence agent gives him no particular rights.

because I've had tv license agent checking my property previously.

Possible harrassment.

He was becoming more rude and shouting so all my neighbours could hear.

This could be a Breach of the Peace.

I must admit i was shouting back and i did say some swear words because i was so angry, he then said to me come down here then and see who's the big man then.

Implied threat of violence. If you felt that he intended to use unlawful force against you, then you were assaulted.

I feel so mad and angry right now , i just rang the tv license people to be told that i need to ring back before 5pm to speak to the right department.

Pursue this, but do it in writing. Do not under any circumstances deal with them over the telephone.

What should i do about this and can i get done for threatening to set my dogs on him if he didn't leave my property?

Awkward. At this point he might be able to claim assault. Had you actually set your dogs on him, certainly.

WhiteHorse

lucylucky wrote: »

But TVL would have to prove that you were using it for purposes which require a licence. The onus is on them

True. Unfortunately, if you possess a television set, you would have a very hard job convincing the Bench.

lucylucky

WhiteHorse wrote: »

True. Unfortunately, if you possess a television set, you would have a very hard job convincing the Bench.

Not at all, there are posts on here that show how people have demonstrated to TVL that they have a TV but do not watch live TV on it.

This seems to have satisfied TVL who have something to prove rather than you having to disprove it.

WhiteHorse

davidlizard wrote: »

Unless you are silly enough to invite them in, the only way they can gain access is by applying for a warrant from the court (which requests under the freedom of information act has revealed that simply not appearing on the BBC database and non cooperation with BBC will not result in a warrant being issued) and only then in the presence of a uniformed police officer.

The info about FOI is interesting.

Yes, they can apply for a Search Warrant. They can execute it on their own, but due to the fact that agents have been assaulted in the past, they usually ask for a police officer to be present (could a PCSO do this? That's an interesting question).

I came across a case some while ago in which a JP granted a TV licence warrant without making adequate enquiry as to the grounds for the application.

The person whose house was searched was able to prove not only his innocence, but that there were no grounds for suspicion at all (in fact, the agent, a particularly nasty jobsworth, had lied). He then made a formal complaint and threatened legal action, landing both the licencing agent and the JP in hot water.

WhiteHorse

lucylucky wrote: »

Not at all, there are posts on here that show how people have demonstrated to TVL that they have a TV but do not watch live TV on it.

Yes.

This seems to have satisfied TVL who have something to prove rather than you having to disprove it.

Yes again.

The problem is that it's not consistent. People have been wrongly convicted of TV licence evasion.

The defence that the equipment concerned does not require a licence is, as you say, a perfectly valid one. You are quite right. However, where television sets are concerned, it is not one that I would care to rely upon.