TV licence ending dont want to renew

gayleanne

I just went online and informed them that I no longer needed a TV license, I was paying by direct debit, the following day I had a refund from TV licensing. It was really easy.

Serendipitious

I did my declaration online too with no problem. Told them I no longer watched TV which is true. They did come out to see me as a routine check after about ten months but they accepted the fact that I only used my TV to play DVDs and they were fine. Mine has a DVD player built in. They were very nice and pleasant and they said more and more people were going TV free these days. As long as you never use your pc to watch live broadcasts you are ok.

My home life has not included television for over sixteen months now, and I have not missed it at all.

Buzby

wiogs wrote: »

If they are harassing you give them fair warning then take legal action.

That tends to put them off.

Er, legal action for what? One person's harassment is another's right to seek a exchange of info. Further, harassment is not a civil wrong, but a criminal one. As such, harassment is not something an individual as any ability to pursue.

Irrational claims puts nobody off.

Cornucopia

Yes and no. Harassment is criminal, but there are also civil/common law aspects to it ie. the ability to take out an injunction. It's also possible to bring a private prosecution in a criminal matter, too.

If BBC/TVL had a valid need to capture information about people who legitimately do not have licences or to "visit" their homes, this would be incorporated in the legislation.... it isn't. That makes co-operation entirely voluntary.

I'm happy to an extent that people have followed the BBC/TVL process and had a good outcome from it. But the bigger picture is that we shouldn't allow large organisations to exercise any more authority over us than what is mandated by law. They and their employees come to expect it, and it just introduces difficulty and confrontation when someone does choose to exercise their legal rights. More importantly it effectively reduces everyone's freedoms and privacy, too.

Cornucopia

It's not an offence to lie to TVL.

In fact, citizens are free to manipulate the BBC's processes in a variety of ways within the law.

If Government(s) would have preferred it that lying to TVL was an offence, they would have made it one.

wiogs

No you wont get them coming round with search warrants.

Some years ago I received a number of letters from TVL saying they had no record of a licence at my premises.

Each time I phoned they said that they could confirm that I did indeed have a licence and that he letters would stop.

The letters did not stop, so I wrote to them and said if they continued to send me these threatening letters I would get my lawyer to write to them.

The TVL letters stopped.

wiogs

Buzby wrote: »

Er, legal action for what? One person's harassment is another's right to seek a exchange of info. Further, harassment is not a civil wrong, but a criminal one. As such, harassment is not something an individual as any ability to pursue.

Irrational claims puts nobody off.

I was being harassed in the sense that I had done no wrong, proved to the TVL I had done no wrong but yet they kept sending me threatening letters.

JimmyTheWig

If, for one reason or another, this then ended up in court I wouldn't be too confident of your chances when it appears that you lied to them.

I'd tell the truth and keep a copy of anything I signed.

Cornucopia

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

If, for one reason or another, this then ended up in court I wouldn't be too confident of your chances when it appears that you lied to them.

I'd tell the truth and keep a copy of anything I signed.

And I'll tell you again that lying to TVL is not an offence, nor is it relevant evidence in any offence.

TV Licence evasion is a summary offence - it has either occurred and is proven, or not. Motive and other elements of skullduggery are entirely irrelevant.

Where an organisation is over-stepping its authority, legally manipulating the flow of information to it in order to try to even the balance is entirely morally justified.

JimmyTheWig

Cornucopia wrote: »

And I'll tell you again that lying to TVL is not an offence, nor is it relevant evidence in any offence.

TV Licence evasion is a summary offence - it has either occurred and is proven, or not.

I disagree.
Obviously lying to TVL isn't an offence itself.
But where something is proven in court it is different to a mathematical theory being proven. It involves demonstrating to a judge (or a jury, in some cases) that something happened beyond reasonable doubt (or even on the balance of probabilities, in some cases).
A mathematical proof has to prove something beyond any doubt. In court it is only proven beyond reasonable doubt. There is an element of human decision involved in the process.

Now, lets consider two cases. In both case the defendant hasn't got a TV licence. In both cases they say, to the court, that they haven't been watching live TV. In both cases they own a TV (they say for watching DVDs, etc). In both cases they used to watch live TV and used to have a licence to do so.
In case A the defendant told TVL that they no longer watched live TV and so didn't need a licence.
In case B the defendant told TVL that they were moving abroad and so didn't need a licence.
It becomes apparent that the defendant in case B didn't move abroad and never had any plans to.
If it were up to me I would be much more likely to acquit the defendant in case A than I would the defendant in case B.

I see no scenario where the defendant in case B stands a better chance than the defendant in case A. So why put yourself at risk?