Really Worried - The TV Licence - Unnecessary Trial

Not_Another_Username

Well I have that information and it's a no. We were not covered, the licence happened to expire a few days before we left the previous property.

In an attempt to scare us even more, TVL have sent us a nice little package, received through the post today, entitled

CRIMINAL PROCEDURE AND INVESTIGATIONS ACT 1996
SCHEDULE OF UNUSED MATERIAL

The rest of the pages include details of the of payments we have supposedly missed, plus lots of other material which is obviously designed to scare us.

As things stand, my wife has bought a TV Licence today, making an initial payment over the phone, which now "covers the property", to use the operator's words.

The fact still remains that we have a letter of confirmation from TV Licencing which states that we do not need a licence as we only watched On Demand services when we moved in here.

I really feel like making this as difficult as possible for TVL. The fact is we are getting deeper and deeper in debt all the time and it is getting closer to the stage where we might only be able to offer them a £1 a month at this rate. The pressures we are under from other organisations has gone well beyond a joke. I am at the stage now where I am almost laughing at this ridiculous situation. I don't see how anybody is going to get any more money out of us as we just don't have any! Our debt outgoings far exceed any amounts we can meet.

Whether my wife likes it or not, the CAB or some other organisation do need to be called in to assist us now as we are going to need some additional clout behind us. Too many departments are taking the urine and it's got to stop.

Not_Another_Username

I do believe they are trying to press for three years of payments judging by the content.

There is so much technical nonsense in these pages it looks like the computer had some kind of fit and churned out loads of random data. But WOW is it designed to put the fear of God into us? There's no mistaking that.

Cornucopia

Do not worry about this info received today. It is info they are NOT going to use in Court. I don't know what its purpose is.

They cannot ask for ANY back payments in Court because that is not one of the sentencing options.

Marktheshark

She signed a confession that she was watching TV without a licence.
There is little to fight.

Not_Another_Username

Thanks Mark. Please keep it up if it amuses you.

You know, the more I read through this document the more it falls over itself. It states that the TV has been IN USE in the property for three years . Then a few lines below that it states that we had only just moved into the property two days ago. Oh dear! It's full of it. I could go on, but there is no point. I can see this whole eight page document is a joke, now I have studied it further. You are absolutely right, Cornucopia, there is no way this could possibly be accepted in court. It's a joke, but an evil one.

Oh, Mark: My wife cannot remember signing any document. She also has two forms of epilepsy which can severely affect her memory. This is actually true and well documented by medical staff at her doctor's surgery and hospital.

mandragora_2

I can't comment on the details here, I'm afraid, but I do know that TVL are vile to deal with. I'd never had any dealings with them until we were doing up an uninhabited property, over a period of about a year. They hounded us relentlessly with threatening and thoroughly unpleasant letters sent to the address even though, had any of the information in them been true (implying that they'd visited the property, and detector vans were active in the area, and they 'knew' there was someone using tv in the property) they'd have known that there couldn't have been anyone living in the property owing to the building works in progress at the site. I phoned them and informed them of this, but as I refused to give them my name, they refused to stop sending the unpleasant letters. At that point I just used them as fire-lighting twists.

Not_Another_Username

That's amazing Mandragora.

There must be so much of these lies and nonsense being bandied around by TVL that surely the courts couldn't possibly take them seriously. They have obviously tripped over themselves as few times, as has been stated above.

Another thing I meant to comment on was the signature of the officer who visited - a simple squiggle! He wrote his name in capitals next to it but I would still argue that it wasn't a signature. A very good point nonetheless about not using your real signature on anything other than important official documents. Good advice worth reiterating I think.

bazzyb

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

The fact still remains that we have a letter of confirmation from TV Licencing which states that we do not need a licence as we only watched On Demand services when we moved in here.

But this was as a result of you contacting them after the enforcement officer visited, if I've understood you correctly. So on the date he visited, by your own admission you were watching live TV, and didn't remove the aerial and switch to on-demand only until after that date. At that point in time you did not have a valid TV licence. Is that correct?

littleboo

That's the way I'm reading it. You were watching live TV without a licence and have admitted to it. After that, you decided only to use Catch Up, so no licence required.

Cornucopia

I think that the wording of post #1 is ambiguous. The OP doesn't really have to explain himself in this respect.

Everyone deserves fair treatment by the authorities whether they have committed an offence or not. Everyone is also entitled to a defence in court.

In particular, people should not be being deceived or coerced into making confessions. The Law requires that a confession should be made freely and of one's own volition, without threats or promises. It's a hard defence to make, but PACE s.76 sets out the reasons why such a defence may be upheld. Inconsistencies and factual errors in the "confession" will help in that process.