letter to TV Licensing

Cornucopia

Buzby wrote: »

If the address {does} not have a licence, such contact is currently legitimate...

Depends what you mean by legitimate.

The BBC say that they can work around the Right to Privacy, because they operate with the consent of the target households.

Various problems with that:

1. It would be a pretty feeble Right that could be set aside with simple consent. (Can I consent to an unfair trial? - no). Therefore I believe it is fundamentally ill-conceived and probably unlawful.

2. The general legal principle is always for informed consent, and yet BBC/TVL go out of their way to mislead and misinform the public about what their rights are.

3. Many households express a desire to retain their privacy in informal ways, and BBC/TVL ignore their wishes.

4. BBC/TVL have already presumed consent will be given well before the possibility of soliciting consent arises. How can a basic right be subject to such prior assumption?

Buzby wrote: »

It fails on the definition of harassment.

There is a clause in the 1997 Act that exempts "law enforcement" activities from being deemed to be harassment. The BBC has stated that if challenged, it would rely upon that exemption. However, recent case law suggests that the activity must be directly and tightly involved in law enforcement, otherwise it could be considered harassment. A Judge would have to rule, but I think there is a good case to be made that the repeated letters fall outside of rational and reasonable law enforcement.

In addition, the Malicious Communication Act does not have a law enforcement exclusion. I am presently waiting to accumulate some of BBC/TVL's most hateful letters before beginning a complaint under this Act.

Cornucopia

GingerBob wrote: »

I found this on a thread relating to debt collectors. It strikes me as a useful letter for those without a TV who are being harassed by TV Licensing. Any thoughts?

Dear Sirs,

I have noted your repeated attempts to contact me over the past few weeks and these have been duly logged by time and date. Should it be your intention to arrange a doorstep visit, please be advised that under OFT rules, you can only visit me at my home if you make an appointment and I have no wish to make such an appointment with you.

AFAIK, BBC/TVL are not answerable to the OFT. Therefore this section of the letter is probably not legally valid.(In my experience, they don't seem to be answerable to anyone, which is both very worrying, and explains how the (probably) unlawful approach has arisen).

There is an implied license under English Common Law for people to be able to visit me on my property without express permission; the postman and people asking for directions etc (Armstrong v Sheppard & Short Ltd [1959] 2 QB 384. per Lord Evershed M.R.). Therefore take note that I revoke license under Common Law for you, or your representatives to visit me at my property and, if you do so, you will be liable to damages for a tort of trespass and action will be taken, including but not limited to, police attendance.

Yours faithfully

This is spot on. Or you can shorten it to the acronym: WOIRA.

yangptangkipperbang

All you need to do is write to TVL and inform them that you are are removing their Implied Right of Access to your property.

I did this, they acknowledged it - if they turn up again I can take action against them with no further notice...........

Cornucopia

It's worth saying that some people have been reluctant to do this. For 2 reasons:-

1. Because they resent having to take pro-active action of any kind when TVL have no right to make any kind of imposition.

2. Because they are concerned about drawing attention to themselves.

Now that there are 7500 WOIRAs in place, reason 2 becomes a little implausible, I think.

Reason 1? Well, no pain, no gain.

PasturesNew

They should just bin the license fee ... it's got no place in modern society. Bring back dog licenses instead....

[Deleted User]

Buzby wrote: »

If the address does not have a licence, such contact is currently legitimate as failure to comply can lead to a criminal conviction.

Failure to comply with what exactly?

[Deleted User]

!!!!!! wrote: »

If the person can stand on the pavement or be in the communal hall of a block of flats and knock on your door then there is nothing you can do.

Wrong.

WOIRA is the withdrawal of their right, to access your door.

Knocking on the door would be a breach of WOIRA.

[Deleted User]

Buzby wrote: »

A judge would find the enquiry reasonable, and expect your response to confirm you didn't need one and ask them to note this on their files.

There is no legal requirement for you to respond, so why would a Judge expect you to respond :huh:

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

AFAIK, BBC/TVL are not answerable to the OFT.

However, I would imagine Iqor is.

Cornucopia

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

However, I would imagine Iqor is.

Good point. I wonder if any of the people who are being pursued by them has gone down this route?

(Iqor is the debt collector for TVL. Sometimes they are or appear to be collecting a non-existent debt... which is obviously an offence).