TV Licensing

computerwoman

this is what it say's on the back of my TV licence...

what do you need a tv licence for?

to use any television receiving equipment such as a tv set,
set-top boxes.
video or dvd recorder's,
computers or mobile phones to watch or record tv programmes as they are shown on tv...............

so guest I am so glad I have one.....:D

also...

our officers may ask to inspect your licence with proof of purchase and television equipment at any time....
BUT you do NOT have to let them into your home without a search warrant...:j

this is all on the back of my licence:D

also....
If you no longer require a television licence...let us know Call 0870 850 1672 or write to
PO box 336
tv licensing
bristol
BS99 5HP:mad:

it also give's you the ofcom address if you have any problem's which this is a problem if they don't believe you...
https://www.ofcom.org.uk:mad:

guess you could report them to ofcom for harrassment...

dangeroussports

I bet the people who moan and whinge and whine and moan and go on & on & on about consumers rights not have a licence, I bet they have a perfectly formed groove in their armchair whilst having cathode ray tubes beam 'though control' into their foam filled heads.

Too much judge judy methinks....

Just shut up and get a licence.

T'da

moonrakerz

dangeroussports wrote: »

Just shut up and get a licence.

T'da

I have a licence for the house in which I watch a television, the bully boy tactics of the TVLA concerning the house where I don't watch TV is what p****s me off. I actually think the licence fee is not bad value for money, too !

PS: I bet the DVLA don't send threatening letters to the Prime Minister, just because he doesn't have a driving licence !

dreamypuma

dangeroussports wrote: »

Just shut up and get a licence.

T'da

The point of this thread is the way that the TVLA treat individuals. I for one have a license but still get threatening letters which I find quite offensive.

The TVLA seem completely deaf to protest and don't seem to be able to act in on information they have in a efficient manner. Despite being an unpopular "Tax" they do nothing to encourage the average man on the street to support there cause.

There letters are aggressive and more or less suggest that the average householder is a liar.

dreamypuma

moonrakerz wrote: »

PS: I bet the DVLA don't send threatening letters to the Prime Minister, just because he doesn't have a driving licence !

Imagine if the DVLA sent every household a letter threatening to interview them under caution, because they had no record of a driving license at that address.

I guess if it happened we should just sit back and accept it....:rolleyes:

What makes the TVLA think they can get away with it?

computerwoman

the prime minister doesn't have a driving licence because he is blind in one eye...registered blind...that's why...but I think although annoying as they maybe...if they come to the door just show them your licence and I am sure they will leave you in peace after that...but it must be very annoying for you...I have never had a letter but I did get a visit once...years ago as I came out of work and sent the rental back to the co-op at the time...they called to see my tv but as I didn't have one they just said sorry and left...end of...once I was back in work and able to buy a tv I got my licence then and every year since so had no bother...I do mine quarterly Direct debit's...so they would know if I suddenly stopped them...but I can understand your anger...chin up ...:D

Bamber19

valiant wrote: »

The reason they do this is presumably because it works. And the reason it works is because the average IQ out there is 100.

If everyone ignored these letters and stopped paying this unenforceable (and therefore immoral) tax then the system would become unworkable and we'd either pay it through the Income Tax system......or preferably, get rid of the dumbed-down BBC altogether.

In the meantime, those of us who don't pay it are subsidised by those of you who do. It's basically a tax on stupidity, which suits me fine.

Valiant, are you 100% sure the things you're saying are correct? I've not bothered to look into it in great detail as it'd be quicker and easier just to get some clarification from you of what you actually mean, but is it not true that the requirement for a licence (if you actually are using the television etc to receive signals) is covered by the Wireless Telgraphy Act.

If what you actually mean is that it is a requirement by statute to have a television license if you have receiving equipment that is in use for receiving a signal but that it is difficult to be prosecuted if you refuse to cooperate with the license inspector character that comes to your door as the mere facts you have no license and a suspicion that you have a television based on the, not as accurate or high tech as they claim, detector vans are not sufficient evidence to lead to a prosecution or that proving use of the equipment may be impossible without an admission then please say that.

In addition, just one small gripe, Since when has unenforceable been a synonym for immoral?

Duck

valiant wrote: »

That's the thing about these threads. It's like painting the Forth Bridge. As fast as you quash the misinformation some other rust-monger pipes up somewhere else in the thread.

Now, if only our friend Duck would answer your question................

Yes they can .............

When a visiting officer calls at your home, he or she will:

• only enter a property when given permission. If we are refused access, we may use our detector vans or apply to court to obtain a search warrant

Valiant - I was only trying to be helpful. I thought this was a forum, a voice box for everyone. This is my opinion and I have every right to it.

valiant

Duck wrote: »

Yes they can .............

When a visiting officer calls at your home, he or she will:

• only enter a property when given permission. If we are refused access, we may use our detector vans or apply to court to obtain a search warrant

Valiant - I was only trying to be helpful. I thought this was a forum, a voice box for everyone. This is my opinion and I have every right to it.

Duck, I'm very sorry if I gave you reason to take offence but you specifically said in your last post:

"An enforcement officer CAN enter your premises........."

You made no mention of needing a search warrant or needing permission. Now you've changed your tune. OK....but you have to be responsible for what you say in your own posts on here! You can't have a go at me if I simply take what you say literally!

But now, in this post, you make more incredible claims that I suspect you won't be able to substantiate. If what you've said above is to be taken literally then you are the first person EVER to post (in all the thousands of threads on this subject all over the internet in the last ten or more years) who has worked for TVL and who is saying:

1) That they actually have seen 'detection' equipment inside the vans. Other posters in the past who have worked for the TVL say that 'their' van didn't have any 'detection' equipment. You even seem to suggest that the detection equipment might work!

2) That the TVL has EVER applied to the court and successfully got a search warrant (or even just applied unsuccessfully).

I'm sorry to say that I simply don't believe you. What I think is actually happening here (again) is that you are TRYING to say that you worked for a call centre and, as an employee, you have read the waffle published by the TVL (and believed it!)......but that you have no personal evidence/experience whatsoever that such detection equipment exists and that you have no personal evidence/experience whatsoever that search warrants have been applied for.

Remember, just like you, we can all read the TVL misinformation. You have, as you say, every right to your opinion but you are being disingenuous if you try to pretend that you have direct evidence/experience of something that you actually don't have. As I understand from a previous post, you just worked in a call centre.

I'll apologise if I'm wrong.

superscaper

valiant wrote: »

1) That they actually have seen 'detection' equipment inside the vans. Other posters in the past who have worked for the TVL say that 'their' van didn't have any 'detection' equipment. You even seem to suggest that the detection equipment might work!

It would be interesting to see how prevalent their detection systems actually are. I remember having lectures on how tv detection works in our electromagnetism lectures so the principle isn't a myth. Just depends on what TV Licensing do in practicality. It's certianly cheaper to just use a majority of decoy vans and rely on the database of unlicensed houses.