TV Licence - misleading and confusing

Buzby

Rather then get complacent, for those who have 'security access' I suppose it came a a surprise to residents when a team of 4 Crapita guys went knocking at a building of this type in the late afternoon. I watched them wait until someone exited, and they then visited their targets. This was in August 2010, but I don't think much will have changed since then.

The issue remains the capability to receive, if you can you need to prove you don't (or can't). Proving a negative is a hard task. Without the means, the onus is with them to prove you did or could - so checking the capability is the first task.

Cornucopia

There are a couple of misleading statements over the past few posts on this thread.

- Just because Capita people have gained access to the communal areas of apartment blocks does not mean that they have any rights to enter individual apartments. In the absence of a search warrant (which are very, very rare) they have no such right, and the occupant can simply ignore them or tell them to go away.

- If you do speak to TVL "visitors" you are under no obligation to prove anything to them. For that reason, the best advice is not to let them in, despite the promises that they may make. In this country we do not have door-to-door demands for proof of innocence by the authorities, and long may it remain that way. Let's not fall for the BBC's pretence that it is otherwise.

- The fine is not fixed at the level of the licence fee. It varies between courts, between perceived severity of offences and between offenders with different levels of income. A typical fine *is* about the same as a licence fee, but (a) that's a coincidence, and (b) being fined in the court does not remove the obligation to buy a licence if you need one.

I agree that TVL HQ staff are generally polite and helpful. The doorsteppers vary, and there are now a large number of videos on YouTube that show a variety of behaviours that are both rude and breach the BBC's official policies.

[Deleted User]

Hooloovoo wrote: »

I am shocked at the wording on the form and what it requires. Listing all sorts of "proof" and "evidence" you have to supply if you have moved house or if the licence holder has died.

Nothing is "required", nor do you "have to" supply any evidence.

[Deleted User]

Lifeforms wrote: »

they can be quite nasty to "get paid" and will spout all manner of rubbish to scare people into paying.

Quite.

The last one to call on me, told me it was illegal for me to take his photo (a lie) and that he was phoning the police (a threat).

[Deleted User]

sniggings wrote: »

I agree he shouldn't have let him in.

It's not a case of "he shouldn't have let him in".

He doesn't have to let them in.

[Deleted User]

sniggings wrote: »

but reading 120,000 people got fined last year it makes you wonder, were they all caught watching TV or do we misunderstand and having the equipment connected is enough or did they all admit to watching TV?

Most answer the questions and sign the form.

In simple terms, they confess.

sniggings

would me having an old sky dish on the side of the house and the TV being visable from the window be enough to get a warrant?

I now use the dish for freesat but if stopped paying for the licence would use it for receiving iplayer, but it would still be able to pick up live TV, anyone know the situation with my setup?

[Deleted User]

sniggings wrote: »

would me having an old sky dish on the side of the house and the TV being visable from the window be enough to get a warrant?

Not according to BBC/TVL.

9.1 Detection and search warrants will be used as a means of last resort where:

there is reason to assume that television receiving equipment at the address is being used to receive television programme services AND

it is believed that access to the premises will never be gained.

sniggings

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Not according to BBC/TVL.

but the dish and the visable TV could be "reason to assume" TV equipment is being used and I won't let them in as they would then see the freesat box which would be used for receiving iplayer, so would then have "proof" in their eyes I needed a licence, I have seen a copy of a warrant and they state it is for "testing" any equipment to see if it can receive a live feed? all very confusing.

First it seems that just having the equipment is not enough to fine, then it seems, you can have it if it's not able to keep up a signal, but their own site says you need to be using it to watch a live feed, so surely the only evidence allowed in court is me sitting watching a live feed, but the warrant from court stated it's for testing the equipment :mad:

Heinz

I find it very hard to imagine a magistrate ever granting a warrant for such a purpose.

Sounds like website BS to me.