Really Worried - The TV Licence - Unnecessary Trial

Not_Another_Username

So the previous licence *might* cover us at the new address?

Swipe

Let this be a warning to anyone on here not to speak to TV Licensing or any visiting TV licence salesman. They will say "don't worry just sign this form to say I've been and everything will be alright" and then obtain their commission for a successful prosecution because you didn't read what was on the confession form you just signed.

If you don't need a licence, do not phone them or fill the online form in with your details, you are not legally obliged to do so. They won't believe you anyway and will still send someone around. Just ignore/bin unopened the monthly threatening letters and if anyone calls identifying themselves as 'from TV licensing', say "no thanks" and close the door. Do not get into a conversation with them. As you can see from numerous threads on here, they cannot be trusted because they have sales targets and are incentivised, not only for every sale but for every successful prosecution.

Not_Another_Username

Unbelievable. How did we ever get into this state?

Not_Another_Username

So are you saying that the fact that we all MUST have a TV licence, whether we watch or record live TV, is being EXPLOITED by Capita? This makes it a scam on a monumental scale - or at least the dirty tactics they use to extort the money from people who don't even require a licence. This is absolutely disgraceful!

So does my wife still need to go to court?

I have heard that by getting the TV licence in advance of any court case will change everything and, as a result, the trial will be unable to go ahead. Is this true?

macman

No, buying a licence after admitting the offence does not stop the legal process. Whether you have a licence by the time you come to court is irrelevant, what matters is whether you had a licence at the time of the alleged offence.

prowla

macman wrote: »

No, buying a licence after admitting the offence does not stop the legal process. Whether you have a licence by the time you come to court is irrelevant, what matters is whether you had a licence at the time of the alleged offence.

Unless the entity taking out the prosecution has told you by a verifiable means (ie. in writing) that they won't proceed if you do buy a licence.

Marktheshark

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

So the previous licence *might* cover us at the new address?

If it was valid.
You do know what valid means.
A house can not buy a licence or be licensed as it is made of bricks usually and can not buy a service.
A person has to do it.

Not_Another_Username

OK. I think I understand. Thanks for your help and advice.

My wife (and I) are worried sick about the outcome. We have done nothing wrong yet we are in fear of a potential bad outcome because of the lies by this Capita organisation. I see this as a "we cannot win" situation.

I have it on good authority that a purchase of the licence effectively stops the trial taking place, or at the very least it changes everything and a prosecution shouldn't go ahead. I am not able to say more but this advice has come from somebody with a legal background in this particular field. I wouldn't expect it guarantees this for one minute.

I could ask TV licencing to put the facts they gave us in writing, but we will not be able to afford to pay for the TV licence in full before the trial date. At least we would have a licence.

Please excuse me. My head is spinning with all this. My wife doesn't know what to do or expect. She suffers from two forms of epilepsy and I think the stress will increase her attacks. Pity I couldn't use something like this against these evil people. Or could I? I doubt she fully knew what she was letting herself in for when she signed the form. I don't even know where it is anymore.

Hopefully it won't be long they scrap this evil extortion racket altogether.

Cornucopia

I would calm down about the whole thing. Yes, it's a remote possibility that the fine will be slightly larger because of your wife's previous convictions. But if they were a long while ago (>5 years) probably not. It is not possible to be imprisoned for Licence evasion, if that is what you meant in your original post.

TVL have rogue employees amongst their workforce who manipulate and fabricate evidence because they want the commission payable. I have a formal complaint outstanding with them about this which lists 19 common issues with their process which leads to unfair/unlawful prosecutions. Each scenario probably represents 100s or 1000s of cases, so you are not alone.

If the TVL person was unduly aggressive or misleading on your doorstep you should have complained at the time. (To the Police and/or TVL/BBC).

It sounds as if the TVL178 form contains both factually false information and information that is inconsistent with other entries on the form. Is this the case? Can you prove any factual inaccuracies? What does the form say about "Make of TV"? Was your wife cautioned before the interview ("You do not have to say anything...")?

You can still challenge this in Court, under PACE s.76, especially if your wife felt under duress to go through with the "interview". Obviously false/fabricated/manipulated information is also cause for repudiating the confession in Court.

You probably need to speak to a Solicitor. I appreciate that you may not be able to afford one. It's just possible that Legal Aid may be available if your wife's condition would make it hard for her to obtain justice whilst representing herself. You would need to speak to a solicitor about this. They will sometimes give you a free/low-cost initial 30 minute consultation.

Palmers Defence Solicitors of Deal have had some success with TVL cases including one in which the defendant was awarded Legal Aid because of a medical condition. I have no connection with them, other than an interest in TV Licensing misdeeds.

In any event, if you are on a low income any fine for a Guilty verdict will be small. Make sure you fill in the Means form, and do not be afraid to ask for time to pay in instalments.

If TVL are trying to coerce a Guilty plea (which is what it sounds like) then that is completely unacceptable. Also their suggestion that it will "be okay" if you go with a Guilty plea is nonsense.

What you want is for them to withdraw the case because of the issues with the "evidence", because you are innocent and if you agree to buy a licence (which they should allow you to do by instalments). If you can somehow set up the situation whereby you have recorded TVL confirming that they require a Guilty plea (either Audio or in writing), and then you plead Not Guilty, you could present this as evidence in Court of their bad faith in the proceedings. I don't know if it would be automatically fatal to their case, but I can imagine it being highly detrimental to it.

If you do not want to approach a Solicitor, PLEASE do see if you can obtain legal advice from CAB or a local Law Centre. You really don't want to face this alone if you can avoid it.

edit: Your advice about buying a licence automatically meaning the withdrawal of the case is wrong. It is still down to their discretion, however they do withdraw in many, many cases.

In my experience (wrong though it is) Magistrates look favourably on defendants who have bought a licence (even just on the direct debit scheme). They do encourage TVL to suspend prosecutions for a review of whether payments are up to date at a future point in time.

You say you can't find the 178 form. Wasn't there a copy in the Summons pack?

Other things you can try:

- Contact your MP
- Contact the BBC (they are ultimately responsible for all of this). The person you need to contact is the Head of Revenue Management.

Cornucopia

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

Unbelievable. How did we ever get into this state?

It's ultimately because the BBC are outside of democratic control. Which is a scandal in itself.

I know this, because I complained to my MP about the situation. He forwarded my letter on to the Minister at the DCMS who (like several of his predecessors) said that it was a matter for the BBC because of editorial independence. I'm still undecided whether that response was down to fear or stupidity.

Thankfully, there are no other organisations quite as out of control as TV Licensing.