TV Licensing payment schemes?

[Deleted User]

Not sure if this is in the right forum, so Mods please move if not.



Any opinions on the following situation.

The TV Licensing payment scheme involves paying for your licence monthly, initially at twice the 1/12th per month rate.

This means that, after 6 months, you are paying for next years licence.

If a person decides to stop watching/recording live TV, they obviously cease to need a licence, so stop paying and, once the advanced payments are used up, the property becomes (in this case) legally unlicensed.

In response, TV Licensing will often send a letter, alleging they are "in arrears".

Subsequently, the "debt" is passed onto a DCA, commonly Iquor.

As I see it, since you are already ahead in your payments (as a result of paying the first year in 6 months), you can't be "in arrears".

Also, since no CCA was signed (and, in any case, AFICT, TV Licensing aren't a Registered Credit Broker), this "debt" cannot be enforced.

Any thoughts?

rtho782

TVL don't enforce debts anyway, are just a trading style of BBC, and Iquor is just another division of the same bunch of monkeys employed to extort money from people.

I haven't had a TV License in 8 years, I didn't have a TV at all until recently, now I have two I use as PC monitors that are not connected to an antenna or dish.

The letters get shredded. They come in a rainbow of colours including red ones, from various departments with various brands. They get more frequent when you buy anything TV related, eg. new bluray player for a birthday present, etc.

My doorstep visit (whereupon Mr License inspector will be asked for his search warrant then asked to leave) was scheduled "shortly" 7 years ago. I feel shortchanged as I was looking forward to it.

arcon5

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

[snip]

As I see it, since you are already ahead in your payments (as a result of paying the first year in 6 months), you can't be "in arrears".

[snip]

Any thoughts?

I suppose it could depend on how you would define 'in arrears'. If for example you agree to pay 6 payments of £x and fail to pay, then you have fallen behind with your payments and therefore 'in-arrears' - despite the account actually being in credit.

They could argue you are in breach of contract and liable for the costs, which I suppose could include cost of sending letters, processing payments manually and general administration. Similar to companies like Virgin who charge for paper bills, non-DD payments and the rest.

Although with no debt being owed I can't imagine a judge considering it to be 'reasonable' to attempt to enforce a non-debt.

Although lets face it, they won't spend much time trying to push this. Maybe a letter or 2, but we all know they like sending letters out

[Deleted User]

Would I be right in thinking, that a letter disputing the debt, and asking for a copy of the CCA, would stop Iquor in their tracks?

Andy_L

arcon5 wrote: »

I suppose it could depend on how you would define 'in arrears'. If for example you agree to pay 6 payments of £x and fail to pay, then you have fallen behind with your payments and therefore 'in-arrears' - despite the account actually being in credit.

They could argue you are in breach of contract and liable for the costs, which I suppose could include cost of sending letters, processing payments manually and general administration. Similar to companies like Virgin who charge for paper bills, non-DD payments and the rest.

Although with no debt being owed I can't imagine a judge considering it to be 'reasonable' to attempt to enforce a non-debt.

Although lets face it, they won't spend much time trying to push this. Maybe a letter or 2, but we all know they like sending letters out

The whole issue could have been avoided by cancelling your license rather than just stopping a, contractually, agreed payment. Simililiar to paying car insurance by monthly DD - your not paying for a months insurance at a time but for the whole years so unless you formally cancel you're subject to the total cost

[Deleted User]

Andy_L wrote: »

The whole issue could have been avoided by cancelling your license rather than just stopping a, contractually, agreed payment.

It could have been avoided in the way you describe, but I'm enquiring about the legal aspects of the situation.

antrobus

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

....Also, since no CCA was signed (and, in any case, AFICT, TV Licensing aren't a Registered Credit Broker), this "debt" cannot be enforced.

Any thoughts?

The CCA doesn't apply (inter alia) to agreements where the creditor is a "body corporate named or specifically referred to in any public general Act" and the BBC is 'specifically referred to' in the Communications Act 2003 - s16 CCA 1974

The CCA doesn't apply to an "agreement for fixed-sum credit under which the total number of payments to be made by the debtor does not exceed four, and those payments are required to be made within a period not exceeding 12 months beginning with the date of the agreement" - r3 The Consumer Credit (Exempt Agreements) Order 1989

Does that cover it?

arcon5

Andy_L wrote: »

The whole issue could have been avoided by cancelling your license rather than just stopping a, contractually, agreed payment. Simililiar to paying car insurance by monthly DD - your not paying for a months insurance at a time but for the whole years so unless you formally cancel you're subject to the total cost

Yes of course cancelling a DD is not the way to cancel a contract.

But I suspect ops asking a hypothetical question to satisfy a curiosity over the issue

The_Safordian

rtho782 wrote: »

TVL don't enforce debts anyway, are just a trading style of BBC, and Iquor is just another division of the same bunch of monkeys employed to extort money from people.

Not strictly correct. The BBC pays third parties to run TV Licensing. This includes PR companies like Fishburn Hedges, Capita,Iquor and a host of others

The be all though is the BBC have the final say so do pull all the strings. They wish to keep the public thinking the BBC is whiter than white

[Deleted User]

antrobus wrote: »

Does that cover it?

Well the second one certainly doesn't, because the payments are 12 per 12 month period.

antrobus

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Well the second one certainly doesn't, because the payments are 12 per 12 month period.

Ah, but the first one does eh?

I just thought I'd mention the second point because I know that TV licensing do offer a quarterly payment option, so that one would be doubly expempt from CCA.