Tv licence agent threatening behaviour

lucylucky

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Yes.


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.

Have they?

I hope they took TVL to the cleaners when it was proven they were wrong.

sarahg1969

p00hsticks wrote: »

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

https://tvlicensing.metafaq.com/templates/tvlicensing/emailforms/noSet

Only hassle for them. Ignoring them is no hassle to you.

WhiteHorse

lucylucky wrote: »

I hope they took TVL to the cleaners when it was proven they were wrong.

Unfortunately not.

In any event, how does TVL actually prove illegal use? There's no way to do so other than catching you red-handed (thus providing visual evidence). If they choose to make that claim, then quite how do you disprove it? You are right - it can be done, but in the case of TV sets it's very difficult.

If they are willing to make unfounded allegations it comes down to whether or not the Bench will take their word for it.

Dave101t

how exactly does this happen, they have records of the households with licences, is the op living in a sink estate (sounds like it)?
i get letters through whenever i buy a new tv, a 20 second phone call telling them to check their records sorts it. reasonable behaviour is reciprocated.

watsinaname

but don't you need a licence to watch programs on iplayer...thought i had a warning on my screen once when i watched a program that way.... now im confused.

lucylucky

Dave101t wrote: »

how exactly does this happen, they have records of the households with licences, is the op living in a sink estate (sounds like it)?
i get letters through whenever i buy a new tv, a 20 second phone call telling them to check their records sorts it. reasonable behaviour is reciprocated.

I wish it were that simple.

It took me months to sort it out, not a quick phone call.

lucylucky

WhiteHorse wrote: »

Unfortunately not.

In any event, how does TVL actually prove illegal use? There's no way to do so other than catching you red-handed (thus providing visual evidence). If they choose to make that claim, then quite how do you disprove it? You are right - it can be done, but in the case of TV sets it's very difficult.

If they are willing to make unfounded allegations it comes down to whether or not the Bench will take their word for it.

No it comes down to them proving their allegations.

lucylucky

watsinaname wrote: »

but don't you need a licence to watch programs on iplayer...thought i had a warning on my screen once when i watched a program that way.... now im confused.

Not if you use it as a catch up service.

If you watch any programmes live via the iplayer than yes you do need a licence.

Gers

p00hsticks wrote: »

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

https://tvlicensing.metafaq.com/templates/tvlicensing/emailforms/noSet

Why should anyone have to 'prove' that they are not watching live broadcasts? Simply owning a TV is not against the law, even if it can receive live broadcasts, watching live broadcasts without a licence is the offence. As an earlier poster wrote, these people are involved in SALES and you wouldn't let (for instance) a salesperson from Kirby or Zanussi in the door to prove that you don't own one.

http://www.televisionlicence.info/tvl/innocent

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/

hermum

I got rid of my tv a while months ago, when my last license ran out, I filled in the form online saying that I only watch catch up services online.
I was told that an agent may call to check, nobody has. I don't know whether they've been in the area & checked with the detecting thingy that I wasn't watching telly. A few weeks ago I had a letter saying that I wouldn't hear from them for 2 years.