TV Licence - misleading and confusing

olias

Lol. Just cancelled my DD and tried to fill the cancellation and refund form in online, and sure enough, as stated in previous posts, this popped up....

Include your printed and signed application form and a photocopy of relevant evidence, to show that you no longer require a licence, in an envelope. Examples of evidence include a photocopy of:

• Final utility bill (Gas / Electricity / Water only)
• Council Tax bill
• Confirmation of college terms
• Property Bill of Sale or confirmation
• Solicitor's letter on headed paper
• Letter from hospital or care home confirming admission
• Re-direction confirmation letter from the Post Office
• Tenancy Agreement

Well apart from the fact that I do not have a printer, none of the above relate to me - I am simply stopping watching or recording live TV and will simply watch catch up TV. This is purely and simply to avoid paying out to a bloated, corrupt and scandal hit organisation that I do not in any way shape or form provides value for money for the five billion - thats £5,000,000,000!!!!!!!!!!!!!! revenue that it receives.


If they think I am going to pay to have my solicitor write them a letter as 'evidence', then they have another thing coming! rofl.


Olias

davidlizard

real1314 wrote: »

What sort of logic is that?
The BBC "costs" £12 a month for the full range of TV, radio and web-based programming and services it provides.
Sky / Virgin cost double that, by your reckoning.

Doesn't that make the BBC better value ??

And you should note that Sky & Virgin also get advertising revenues as well as your fees. :cool:

Depends how much of each you watch as to whether BBC represents better value or not.

Being only interested in news and sport, I struggle to recall the last time I watched anything on BBC, whereas I probably watch about 15 hours of Sky/ESPN per week. Therefore if you work out £/hour in my case BBC is about 20 times more expensive than Sky/ESPN.

sniggings

Olias will you be sending them a letter saying you withdraw the implied right for them to send someone round to check you do not need a licence?

Wow 5 billion a year, I didn't think it was that much :eek:

I'm just about to move to only catch-up TV too and just trying to work out the best process, up to now I think I will be...

1, cancelling my DD
2,filling in their form to say I will only be viewing catch up TV
3, sending a letter saying I do not require a visit and withdraw any implied right for them to send some round

anyone know if this is the right way to go?

olias

Not really sure. I guess I should at the very least print off the form at the library and send it in. As for the 'evidence' they request, well as far as I am concerned, the signed declaration/form is surely my evidence...

I may consider sending a letter as you and another poster has stated, but would be unsure as to how to word it - anyone have any ideas or a link to a standard wording that can be used?

Olias

real1314

sniggings wrote: »

well if you consider that Sky and Virgin etc have a fraction of people paying for their service that pay the TV licence fee, it does make only a doubling in the cost seem good value.

Yes Sky get a lot of their revenue from advertising, not sure how that makes the BBC better value because they don't? if they did then the £12 a month cost could be dropped to only a few pounds, if anything at all.

Sky total revenue £6.8bn
BBC total revenue £4.4bn (not £5bn - and the £4.4 includes revenue from programme sales)

Your query on the advertsing is back to front.

Sky charge circa £24 a month, but also get advertising revenue as well
BBC charge £12 a don't have advertising.

If Sky didn't have adverts, how much would they be charging? £36? £48? £60?

I haven't checked viewing figures, but I'd bet that BBC stacks up well against Sky. :cool:

olias

5.086 Billion actually according to their own annual reports 2011/2012

Olias

Dollardog

olias wrote: »

Not really sure. I guess I should at the very least print off the form at the library and send it in. As for the 'evidence' they request, well as far as I am concerned, the signed declaration/form is surely my evidence...

I may consider sending a letter as you and another poster has stated, but would be unsure as to how to word it - anyone have any ideas or a link to a standard wording that can be used?

Olias

I didn't do any of that. I just spoke to them on the phone!!

I had been paying my license by DD but one month my expenses were late and I hadn't got enough money in the bank to pay my DD's, rather than get hammered by the fees, I stopped some of the DD;s I couldn't pay and restarted them when I was paid. I forgot all about the TV license and because I was in credit, didn't hear from them for a while. Then I got a phone call from a very nice lady reminding me that I wasn't paying for the licence and it had run out.
I said I would pay the fee but I had not actually watched any live tv for a while as since the digital switch over, I can't get the channels now and I only watched catchup on my laptop but I would pay the license as I did not want anyone coming round and bothering me. She said she wasn't happy taking my money if I never watched live tv, I don't because it doesn't stream very well and keeps cutting off saying 'insufficient bandwidth', so I download from i-player etc.
She insisted that I shouldn't pay it and filled in the details there and then. I did get a letter asking me to confirm with a signature that I didn't watch live tv, which I signed and sent back, that was about a year ago and I haven't heard anything from them since.
There was no filling in of a form or providing any proof. In fact, I asked her how I could 'prove' I didn't watch live tv if anyone called, as I do have a laptop which in theory can get live tv and my tv is still plugged in to the aerial, although it isn't tuned into anything. She said I didn't have to 'prove' anything, it was up to them to 'prove' I was if they came round and found I was watching it.
There are other threads on here that stress not to let them in - they have no right of entry - and do not sign anything that any callers give you as they do try and trap you into signing things that say you were watching it.

sniggings

I watch iplayer through my freesat box, so still can get live feeds so how does that work, as clearly I can receive live feeds but choose not to watch them, so is not watching enough to be within the law or do I have to somehow disable all the channels apart from iplayer channel?

paulwellerfan

ok i guess i am being a bit blond here.
i have two tv in the house.
one for me and one for my daughter.
Neither of us watch live telly,
as we are both working full time so we both record stuff on the Tivo boxes and watch them when we get home late at night.
cant stand the adverts
does that mean we are watching live telly or not.

Dollardog

sniggings wrote: »

I watch iplayer through my freesat box, so still can get live feeds so how does that work, as clearly I can receive live feeds but choose not to watch them, so is not watching enough to be within the law or do I have to somehow disable all the channels apart from iplayer channel?

I told the lady from the tv license place that in theory, I could watch live tv on my laptop, but I never did - and still don't. She said that as long as I didn't watch it, I didn't need the license.
If anyone came round and looked through the window and saw you watching live tv then obviously they would have the proof they needed but if you don't watch it and tell them you don't, they would have to prove you did to prosecute.
Its not against the law to have the equipment to watch it, just against the law to use it for live tv without a license.