TV Licence Cancellation etc

Ergaroth

Hi All,

New to the site. I am at present with Virgin, having their T.V., broadband and phone package, which is £59.68. Considering that I am so skint, I want to cancel the tv bit, but keep the internet. Not sure about the phone, but I have a mobile anyway. Then, because I've cancelled the tv, I want to cancel my tv licence. I do not intend to watch tv live at all, because I have lots of books to read, and find that, because I have the tv, I am distracted by that (and the internet!) and simply do not read like I used to. So I want to get back to reading to entertain myself, and have a bit of a simpler life, not too media-driven. I am also due at university in October, so I probably won't have time to watch tv anyway!

So, assuming I have cancelled it, got rid of my tv completely (I want to give it to my son) how can I prove absolutely to the tv licensing authority that I am NOT watching the BBC live? Is it worth the hassle they may give me? I am a single woman, who has autism, so am already getting anxious about this, and haven't even done it yet! (OMG) Any tips?

Swipe

You don't have to prove anything, just ignore them once you've cancelled your licence. They'll probably give you the run around asking for evidence so just tell them you are moving abroad. They will send a letter each month and eventually someone will come around to check unless you live in a rural location, so just close the door on them. Do NOT give them any details as they will try to trick you into signing their confession form. If you suffer from anxiety, dealing with TV licensing hassle is probably not for you. if you do decide to cancel make sure you know your rights and download the TV licensing laid bare PDF from http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/p/free-book.html

elljay

I just cancelled using the details on the website, then they emailed me asking why. I explained that I'm not interested in tv and haven't watched for at least 3 months now. They emailed an acknowledgement and a couple of days later in the post came another acknowledgement and a form to fill in for a rebate of the licence I'd already paid.

End of. I think that so many people are now cancelling they don't have time or staff to chase and call round or give grief like they used to - a friend of mine had a nightmare trying to cancel a few years ago. I only use the tv for watching old videos now.

Like you, I've become re-addicted to reading now, so much more fun!

Cornucopia

Ergaroth wrote: »

... how can I prove absolutely to the tv licensing authority that I am NOT watching the BBC live? Is it worth the hassle they may give me? I am a single woman, who has autism, so am already getting anxious about this, and haven't even done it yet! (OMG) Any tips?

As above, you do not need to prove anything to TVL. Bear in mind that when you take away the public misconceptions about TVL, and their own misinformation, what's left is a very sad organisation with very few powers and no legal authority even to exist.

It's your right to live without a TV Licence if you don't need one, and it would be a shame to be bullied over that decision.

JJ_Egan

Still a large number of prosecutions as 10% of criminal prosecutions are for that offence .

But if you do not never ever watch any live tv from any source then you need no licence .

devoted

Welcome Ergaroth, I cancelled tv license based on information here two month back. I got several emails (why cancel, do I watch live tv?; my legal responsibilities and penalty if I watch live tv; their representative may check at any time). I supplied the information they required, accepted and confirmed. They confirmed my cancellation. Within two weeks, I received an email advising me they had refunded £36 to my account (I paid by DD). This was a refund for three months. It's all good. Cancel and DO NOT watch ANY live tv (non BBC stations also require a license to view live broadcasts). Your tv is your property, you can keep it or not. If they visit repeat "I do not watch live tv, I watch catch up" (if you watch catch up). Don't sign anything without reading carefully and relax. It will be fine.

Swipe

devoted wrote: »

If they visit repeat "I do not watch live tv, [STRIKE]I watch catch up" (if you watch catch up). [/STRIKE]Don't sign anything [STRIKE]without reading carefully[/STRIKE] and relax. It will be fine.

I've corrected that for you.

Cornucopia

devoted wrote: »

... their representative may check at any time...

This simple statement by them belies some extremely complex law and legal principles. Needless to say it is not true in the way in which it is stated.

It is true that TVL staff can approach your door at any time (unless there are notices or security measures to the contrary, or their implied right of access has previously been withdrawn (not Scotland)).

That's it.

Everything else is at the discretion of the householder...

- You can ignore them and not even answer the door.
- You can answer the door and refuse to speak with them.
- You can ask them to leave.
- If they do not leave when instructed, you can involve the Police, and potentially sue BBC/TVL and the individual member of staff for trespass.

If they begin any questioning about TV usage, the rights get stronger and more specific...

- You can discontinue questioning and ask them to leave at any time without a reason.

- You can exercise your Right to Silence and say nothing, or say "No comment". They cannot and must not write anything you do not say on their form (which will be the basis of their case in court).

- You can exercise your Right to Counsel, and they cannot and must not continue questioning unless and until you have obtained legal advice to your satisfaction. However, they are not obliged to pay for the advice or to find a Solicitor or CAB advisor for you.

- You can refuse to sign their paperwork. This will normally prevent them from using information provided by you against you. They can still bring a case, but only if they, personally, have witnessed Licence evasion.

Buzby

Lastly, not having a TV is no defence against pursuit IF you have broadband, as you could watch live streams and be in breach. This shifts the proof burden as if they have the suspicion that you do (with IP addresses etc you accessed) then you have to prove in court that you did not - and proving a negative is very difficult.

Invariably, those pursued and prosecuted are the 'easy meat' who make a slam dunk easy to process, but just as 'going equipped' is still able to gain a conviction from a potential burglar, non-TV households still may be a focus until the Communications Act 2000 changes.

Swipe

Buzby wrote: »

Lastly, not having a TV is no defence against pursuit IF you have broadband, as you could watch live streams and be in breach. This shifts the proof burden as if they have the suspicion that you do (with IP addresses etc you accessed) then you have to prove in court that you did not - and proving a negative is very difficult.

Which invalidates your argument as they could not possibly obtain that information without a court order which would not be granted on that basis alone.

Cornucopia

Buzby wrote: »

Lastly, not having a TV is no defence against pursuit IF you have broadband, as you could watch live streams and be in breach.

This shifts the proof burden...

No it doesn't.

The fundamental burden of proof is always on the Prosecution. Most TVL cases are based upon confession evidence, taken more or less willingly from the householder, anyway.

Have we not "had words" before about you making up stuff on this subject?

... as if they have the suspicion that you do (with IP addresses etc you accessed) ....

There is presently no means within the Law for them to access this information. (As per Swipe's reasoning on court orders).

Invariably, those pursued and prosecuted are the 'easy meat' who make a slam dunk easy to process, but just as 'going equipped' is still able to gain a conviction from a potential burglar, non-TV households still may be a focus until the Communications Act 2000 changes.

I would prefer it if BBC/TVL were more open about suspects' rights (as the Law probably requires). The whole confession-based process is hugely problematic and open to all kinds of abuses.

But "easy meat" and "going equipped" aren't really relevant or helpful phrases, though.