Fined £275 for watching YOUTUBE

[Deleted User]

"a few letters and the odd knock on the door" :huh:

That's a long way from the actual situation.

bazster

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

"a few letters and the odd knock on the door" :huh:

That's a long way from the actual situation.

I'm sure it can get difficult if you choose to make it so instead of allowing it to be what it really is for most people i.e. a complete non-issue.

[Deleted User]

In what way do you suggest I "allow it to be" a complete non-issue?

bod1467

Nothing constructive to add. Just wanted to note that Bedsit Bob had the 100th and now 200th replies in this thread.

(The thread first caught my attention when I saw 100 replies on the main page).

bazster

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

In what way do you suggest I "allow it to be" a complete non-issue?

1. Ignore the letters, or reply to them, or paper your walls with them, as you see fit.

2. When they knock on the door, politely tell them the truth i.e. that you don't watch live TV (if that is the truth; otherwise 'fess up and buy a licence).

Always worked for me, but then I'm not an antagonistic bore with an axe to grind.

shaun_from_Africa

bazster wrote: »

I fail to see what the problem is with someone visiting to "confirm the facts".

The problem was mentioned in my earlier post.

I was selling a house and as I had moved out and it wasn't furnished

The property was unoccupied so there wasn't anyone living there to meet with an inspector, and they were clearly aware of this fact, a statement which they were basically saying was false.
I was living in Ireland (the house was in Sussex) so it wasn't possible for me to be there to meet an inspector.

Another problem I had with them visiting was that I had sent them a signed statement saying that there was no TV reception equipment in the property.
If I don't have a car I don't have to prove this to the DVLA, so why the difference with a TV?

bazster

bod1467 wrote: »

Nothing constructive to add. Just wanted to note that Bedsit Bob had the 100th and now 200th replies in this thread.

(The thread first caught my attention when I saw 100 replies on the main page).

Possibly the most constructive post on this thread to date...:beer:

[Deleted User]

bod1467 wrote: »

Just wanted to note that Bedsit Bob had the 100th and now 200th replies in this thread.

Is there some special meaning to the 100th and 200h replies :huh:

bazster

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

The property was unoccupied so there wasn't anyone living there to meet with an inspector, and they were clearly aware of this fact.
I was living in Ireland (the house was in Sussex) so it wasn't possible for me to do it.

Sorry, I still fail to see the problem. If you'd ignored their letters then they would've had several fruitless visits to an obviously-empty property, which would've inconvenienced you in no way whatsoever, since you weren't there!

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

Another problem I had with them visiting was that I had sent them a signed statement saying that there was no TV reception equipment in the property.
If I don't have a car I don't have to prove this to the DVLA, so why the difference with a TV?

Well if you want to get aerated about a point of principle then fine, and I have a degree of sympathy with your point, but that has nothing to do with being threatened, harassed or intimidated, as some of the more deranged posters here are claiming.

Pollycat

I'm sure the last 7 or 8 pages have helped the OP no end with his/her situation. :cool: