TV licence people wanting to open a 'full investigation'.

JustAnotherSaver

I've made a thread previously on this but today a different kind of letter has come through the door so i'm asking again.

When we bought the house we got letters through from the TV licensing people & i got back in touch twice to say we didn't need a licence (we had no TV).

I say again: I told them TWICE.

They still kept on sending letters saying we needed a licence & they were all addressed to "The Occupier". So i just binned them.

I know some of you go down the easy life route but i go down the how many times do i have to tell you before it sinks in route & the once is good enough route

This has been going on for over 12 months i think now. Talk of court action & then the cycle goes again.

But today a letter came through with a specific date on it. I don't know if it's a new way of them doing things but it said if i don't get a licence by this date then for now they're not sending anyone out & our situation is "on hold" but after this date they will carry out a "full investigation" of our house.

We've since moved in & we have a TV although we only use it for DVDs & the only TV watching we do is on BBC iPlayer & the like. Nothing live.

Still addressed to "The Occupier".

What is this "full investigation" & do they have any right to enter the house?



Just to save people any time - don't bother saying "just call them & explain" or "just go online & tell them again" etc. I shouldn't have to. They've been told twice already. I don't need to keep getting in touch with them once a month to remind them. I'll update them if the situation ever changes.

ChumpusRex

A "full investigation" just means that they will send you more letters. Just ignore them. It doesn't matter what the letters say, they don't mean anything.

As you have found out, telling them you don't need a TV licence doesn't help. They don't believe you. The only thing to do in this situation is to ignore them.

Remember, that they have no rights to enter your house, unless they have gone to court and convinced a judge that they need to search you house.

TV licencing will not go to court, unless they have evidence. 99 times out of 100, that evidence comes from you:

For example: they turn up on the door, and they ask about a TV. You say "I only watch DVDs".
They ask "What DVDs do you watch?Have you ever watched Downton Abbey? What did you think of the finale?"
You say "The finale was very dramatic"
They then make a written statement to the court, saying that you have admitted watching Downton Abbey. This was very interesting, because the series finale was broadcast on TV only 1 day earlier before I visited the property and therefore could not have been available on DVD or netflix)

Cornucopia

JustAnotherSaver wrote: »

I've made a thread previously on this but today a different kind of letter has come through the door so i'm asking again.

All TVL letters are made up nonsense. Even if the odd one wasn't you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.

When we bought the house we got letters through from the TV licensing people & i got back in touch twice to say we didn't need a licence (we had no TV).

If they aren't getting the message, the chances are their database entry for your address is messed up. You either need to pursue it or ignore it.

But today a letter came through with a specific date on it. I don't know if it's a new way of them doing things but it said if i don't get a licence by this date then for now they're not sending anyone out & our situation is "on hold" but after this date they will carry out a "full investigation" of our house.

Yes, this is a new standard letter. Does it have a 10 day deadline? You'll get a follow up, too. They are both meaningless.

What is this "full investigation" & do they have any right to enter the house?

It's made up nonsense. There is no "investigation" by any definition that we, ordinary folk, might understand it. They have no right of entry at this stage. See the comments from the poster above about search warrants. Search warrants are incredibly rare.

Just to save people any time - don't bother saying "just call them & explain" or "just go online & tell them again" etc. I shouldn't have to. They've been told twice already. I don't need to keep getting in touch with them once a month to remind them. I'll update them if the situation ever changes.

Three options for you:-

1. Complain to the Head of Revenue Management at the BBC (address under complaints on the TVL website). She is responsible for the whole charade, but can get these things fixed.

2. Submit a scale of charges to TVL telling them you will charge them £25 for each new letter that you respond to. Then bill them, then sue them.

3. Ignore it.

poppasmurf_bewdley

When I worked in a job which entailed visiting people's houses unannounced, it was very often possible to see through the windows what someone was watching before you even knocked on the door.

Just saying ...

Cornucopia

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

When I worked in a job which entailed visiting people's houses unannounced, it was very often possible to see through the windows what someone was watching before you even knocked on the door.

Just saying ...

Do you think that would be a reliable method of determining whether someone was watching their classic Bargain Hunt DVDs, Bargain Hunt on iPlayer catch-up, or Bargain Hunt on BBC1?

Do you think that a reputable organisation would go around peering through people's windows if they were not authorised to do so?

Marktheshark

Like all extortion rackets, they get you to give in and pay them to go away for a while.
Just make sure you are well adversed in how to deal with them at the door, Not answering it to strangers is the best and beware they record the conversation.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Cornucopia wrote: »

Do you think that would be a reliable method of determining whether someone was watching their classic Bargain Hunt DVDs, Bargain Hunt on iPlayer catch-up, or Bargain Hunt on BBC1?

Do you think that a reputable organisation would go around peering through people's windows if they were not authorised to do so?

You don't need to be authorised to go into someone's property and see through their windows in many homes. All you have to do is go through the gate and approach the front door.

A quick photograph or video from a camcord device or an iPhone taken at a noted time of a certain part of a certain soap would be conclusive proof that live TV was being watched.

I'm not getting into the pro's or con's of doing this. All I'm saying is that it is possible to see what many people are watching without going into a home. With body worn camcorders, etc, which many officials now wear, it will be perfectly possible to see if someone IS watching live TV - and have the evidence.

Marktheshark

I think most men would give any other man they caught sneaking up their path and taking photographs through their window a good hiding, a very good one.

Cornucopia

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

You don't need to be authorised to go into someone's property and see through their windows in many homes. All you have to do is go through the gate and approach the front door.

You do if you're working for a Public Authority. The BBC has admitted as much - the only question is why they do not manage their workforce correctly, as this sort of thing is undoubtedly going on.

Over 15000 households have now withdrawn the implied right of access to TVL. TVL would be trespassing if it entered onto those households' property or approached their front doors.

A quick photograph or video from a camcord device or an iPhone taken at a noted time of a certain part of a certain soap would be conclusive proof that live TV was being watched.

They don't do this. Not least because it would be irrefutable evidence that they had been snooping in breach of HRA rights and the BBC's RIPA authorisation.

I'm not getting into the pro's or con's of doing this. All I'm saying is that it is possible to see what many people are watching without going into a home. With body worn camcorders, etc, which many officials now wear, it will be perfectly possible to see if someone IS watching live TV - and have the evidence.

Most TVL cases are brought using paper-based confession "evidence", obtained directly from the alleged offender without proper observation of their legal rights and other legal requirements.

poppasmurf_bewdley

Marktheshark wrote: »

I think most men would give any other man they caught sneaking up their path and taking photographs through their window a good hiding, a very good one.

In most instances, they wouldn't even know it was being done.

Imagine scenario - TV Licence man with body cam which records everything he sees - approaches front door. Through large picture window sees TV with Eastenders on. Bodycam catches this and notes exact time. Man knocks on door, says I'm from TV licencing and asks if they're watching live TV. Is told no, says thank you, and goes away. Back at office, checks video footage, notes live TV was being watched, and issues summons.

I'm not saying it is being done, I'm saying it could be done.

Marktheshark

Subscription technology is built in to free view codec as standard, all channels are encrypted, just that a shared key is used for the "open ones" or ones you can watch free.
One press of a key and BBC can encrypt all BBC channels Broadcast and anyone without a subscription wont be able to watch.

Those that want to watch BBC and bloat on about what value it is can then all collectively pay the cost divided amongst themselves instead of having it subsidised by those that don't.

They can sort this issue in 30 days at tops, but they dont want that as they would have to cut their cloth to fit the coat.