TV licensing threats

Kayak10

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

I am talking from experience, four and a half years of it.

In that time, I have received 55 letters (13 of which were "What you need to know about the enforcement process/final stages of our investigation" letters, and 14 of which were "What to expect in court" letters), and 14 visits (three of which I was in for), and I have yet to get so much as a whiff of a summons.

You have obviously been VERY lucky But I'm sure like any business the odd minnow always slips through the net
I'm sure like me the many thousands that do end up in court would not agree with you

Kayak10

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Who exactly are these summonses addressed to?

I have no idea in other cases but my was first I believe to the occupier then finally to ME personally I don't remember as it was about 5 years ago
And before you fire off another one of your posts They CAN I'm sure obtain all the info they need to take someone to court

Cornucopia

We're beginning to go round in circles, now. It would really help if you, Kayak, clearly and concisely told us how you came to be prosecuted. (Not your supposition, but the actual facts).

In fairness to TVL, whilst there are *way* too many false prosecutions, and whilst there are probably quite a few evaders getting away with it, and whilst many people will never accept that their chosen process is valid.... they actually don't do an awful job in distinguishing the mass of evaders from the mass of LLF people - IMHO.

That's based on the relative lack of noise from the c. 200,000 people who are found guilty of evasion each year and the conviction rate, which is way up in the 90%+ range.

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

They CAN I'm sure obtain all the info they need to take someone to court

And yet they don't.

I've never come across a case where there was any serious suspicion as to how a defendant's name came to be on a summons. (Obviously with ghost cases, the summons shouldn't exist, but the name itself originated uncontroversially with existing TVL records or information provided by one of the occupiers of a property).

Kayak10

Cornucopia wrote: »

Indeed - and that's what you did?

What is it about that article that you think is misinformation? You do understand that it is broadly critical of BBC/TVL, and that it shows them to be (at best) dangerously incompetent in bringing charges against an innocent person in the absence of any accurate evidence against them whatsoever.

It also shows how failings in the Court system can dovetail with TVL issues to create a perfect storm of a completely unacceptable consequence for an innocent person.

I can tell you that I've helped with literally hundreds of such cases - and they always come back to negligence or corruption at TVL, or a combination of the two. (Although in my opinion, successful corrupt employee behaviour is always indicative of management negligence).

One of the underlying sadnesses about TVL is that the Courts are way too willing to treat many repeat occurrences of this as "mistakes". That's simply not consistent with their knowledge that the vast majority of defendants do not attend court. If they were taken more seriously, then the BBC could be made to improve its processes and to weed out rogue employees (though I understand they have a cultural issue with that kind of thing).

May be you should send some of your " evidence " to Ms Doubtfire " ???? as she seems to be in a position to deal with TVL

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

You have obviously been VERY lucky But I'm sure like any business the odd minnow always slips through the net
I'm sure like me the many thousands that do end up in court would not agree with you

Minnows? The BBC themselves have published figures showing that nearly 10,000 households have used a common law device called WOIRA to ban TVL staff from their premises.

And that's coming from a position where WOIRA was not widely known, and was not popular amongst those who knew about it.

Expect that figure to grow exponentially as it becomes obvious to people how powerful it is, and that TVL cannot possibly cover off that many "investigations by other means".

Kayak10

Cornucopia wrote: »

And yet they don't.

I've never come across a case where there was any serious suspicion as to how a defendant's name came to be on a summons. (Obviously with ghost cases, the summons shouldn't exist, but the name itself originated uncontroversially with existing TVL records or information provided by one of the occupiers of a property).

Well I certainly did NOT give it to them AND I moved several times from 2007 due to a very bad period in my life Thankfully I'm now settled after 6 moves in 5 years So I don't know how other than checking credit files as I'm sure they do and can From what I can tell you've dealt with quite a few cases But I'm sure a drop in the ocean to the amount actually taken to court

Kayak10

Cornucopia

Quote from above " We're beginning to go round in circles, now. It would really help if you, Kayak, clearly and concisely told us how you came to be prosecuted. (Not your supposition, but the actual facts). "

I already have several times

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

May be you should send some of your " evidence " to Ms Doubtfire " ???? as she seems to be in a position to deal with TVL

Already done. My complaint was pursued as far as the BBC Trust. Whilst 2 technical issues with PACE were upheld, the general issues were not. In fact, Ms Doubtfire rejected even those two points, but the BBC Trust disagreed with her.

Whilst we're discussing Ms Doubtfire, I think you misunderstand her and her role. She is the policy owner for Licence Fee enforcement within the BBC, and she owns the contracts with the outsourcers. She knows *exactly* what the issues are, based on the topics covered in the various complaints and FOI requests that I know will have crossed her desk over the past few years..

She's done nothing but toe the BBC line on this, going back over several years. I'd hope that at some point she will face charges of malfeasance in public office.

If there is change afoot (as you've suggested) then it will be because she/the BBC want it. Perhaps in the run-up to Charter renewal they are starting to see the letters as something of a liability all of a sudden?

Kayak10

Cornucopia wrote: »

Minnows? The BBC themselves have published figures showing that nearly 10,000 households have used a common law device called WOIRA to ban TVL staff from their premises.

And that's coming from a position where WOIRA was not widely known, and was not popular amongst those who knew about it.

Expect that figure to grow exponentially as it becomes obvious to people how powerful it is, and that TVL cannot possibly cover off that many "investigations by other means".

Yes minnows 10,000 is small fry when you consider in the last
Financial year No. of licences (m)
2012/13 25,338,330

TV Licensing today (20th July) published figures showing more than 204,000* people in the UK were caught watching TV without a licence during the first six months of 2012.

So as you can see Especially as the above is two years old I'm sure someone will give the up to date figures lol