TV licensing threats

Kayak10

Well done for what Uve done although I don't agree with fighting wars
And thanks for supporting what I am trying to do
I just wonder if their letters are even legal ? God knows how much it costs the BBC to sub contract to the TVL
I've started paying them £5.00 a week as that's all I can afford so will be interesting what they do
Despite what someone else said if you buy something on finance you start paying on receipt of the goods not 6 months before That is my argument Apart from the nasty letters :mad:

Kayak10

nobbysn*ts wrote: »

I've got an empty house. I found the tv licensing letter could be a little disconcerting; it started 'When you go to court'. Apparently I haven't contacted them, so they immediately try the heavy handed tactics. I won't be contacting them to tell them I don't need a licence. Every letter costs them a few more pennies in my view!

Exactly my point they treat EVERYONE as criminals When I first moved in I had someone know my door from TVL and even his attitude was aggressive

Kayak10

Kayak10 wrote: »

Exactly my point they treat EVERYONE as criminals When I first moved in I had someone know my door from TVL and even his attitude was aggressive

Meant Knock NOT know sorry

gwapenut

For as long as I can remember TV licensing have been THE most aggressive letter writer. Even when you move into a new property they start the heavy handed tactics. And the language is unnecessarily scary, sent many an OAP into shock and panic.

Someone should have looked at getting government agencies' houses in order first (harrassing people before they've missed a payment) before focusing on utility companies pursuing real debtors. Like the Inland Revenue, wanting to notify you of a reduction in real salary due to new tax code a month after it happens, whereas every other company - utilities included - need to abide by the direct debit guarantee and give X days' advance notice.

chattychappy

gwapenut wrote: »

For as long as I can remember TV licensing have been THE most aggressive letter writer. Even when you move into a new property they start the heavy handed tactics. And the language is unnecessarily scary, sent many an OAP into shock and panic.

Someone should have looked at getting government agencies' houses in order first (harrassing people before they've missed a payment) before focusing on utility companies pursuing real debtors. Like the Inland Revenue, wanting to notify you of a reduction in real salary due to new tax code a month after it happens, whereas every other company - utilities included - need to abide by the direct debit guarantee and give X days' advance notice.

In my experience public officials are very good at making rules for the nasty profit making private sector, but never think that the same principles should apply to them.

Hooloovoo

Kayak10 wrote: »

I've started paying them £5.00 a week as that's all I can afford

Just stop watching live broadcast television and then you don't have to pay anything. Stick to watching catch-up services. More convenient and cheaper!

Cornucopia

chattychappy wrote: »

In my experience public officials are very good at making rules for the nasty profit making private sector, but never think that the same principles should apply to them.

It's not just a question of whether the rules apply or not, but also a question of the sheer confusion of the responsible parties.

One of the reasons why a private company would never get away with what BBC/TVL are doing is that the ASA would prevent them. Now, the BBC Trust says that TVL "direct mail" is covered by the ASA.... and the ASA says that it isn't - in fact, that the "direct mail" isn't actually direct mail for the purposes of enforcement at all.

It's a mess, and the upshot is that the BBC may be taking false credibility and false comfort from the claim, whilst anyone with any knowledge of ASA rules would immediately know that they are in breach of many sections of the Codes.

This angle is being pursued at the moment...

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

I just wonder if their letters are even legal ?

It's a good question. The legislation would be the Protection from Harassment Act and the Malicious Communications Act.

The issue is the exemptions within both of those Acts. In the case of PFHA, there is an exemption for law enforcement activities. (Therefore it would need a judge to decide whether TVL activities are truly law enforcement or something else).

In the case of MCA, there is an exemption for communications in pursuit of a "proper purpose". Again, a Judge would need to decide whether TVL activities are proper.

On the side of them being "proper" is the requirement for BBC to enforce the law in the Communications Act. On the side of them being improper is the ban on public authorities interfering with citizens' privacy (in the absence of explicit legislative justification) in the Human Rights Act.

Kayak10

Hooloovoo wrote: »

Just stop watching live broadcast television and then you don't have to pay anything. Stick to watching catch-up services. More convenient and cheaper!

I think you will find you still need a license as always these sort of bodies close any loopholes they can in this case tv licensing :mad:

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

I think you will find you still need a license as always these sort of bodies close any loopholes they can in this case tv licensing :mad:

No - Hooloovoo is correct. You can watch solely catch-up TV, and you don't need a licence.

BBC/TVL are not happy about it, and there is an on-going debate on the subject, but for the time being, that is the law.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ103