TV Licensing - Do I Need to Remove Antenna Cables from room?

Cornucopia

Kim53 wrote: »

Hiya i recently had tv licensing man come my door week the end of August i told him I got a tv but is isn't on. What I found really strange for anyone to ask what is my national insurance number isn't that data protection act someone trying identity theft?.

I think they take the NI number to be able to link to other systems, for example to establish your eligibility for a free Licence, or to link a fine to benefits. But they certainly do ask for it.

That conversation should have been a formal interview under caution. If it wasn't that then you have the basis of a complaint that could lead to the result being changed.

The TVL person should have:-

- Established that an offence had been committed.
- Read you the formal Caution "You do not have to say anything...", and ensured that you understood.
- Read the questions on the TVL178 form, and written down any answers you gave in you exact words.
- Asked you to read the completed form.
- Asked you to sign the form to state whether you agreed it was a true record or not.
- Been clear about what he was doing and why, and not used any misleading language like "I have to fill this in", "It's just my notes", "Sign here to say I called", etc.

If they were following PACE properly, I also think that they should have:-

- Confirmed that you were not under arrest.
- Confirmed that you had the right to legal advice.
- Confirmed that you could stop the interview at any time without that counting against you.
- Confirmed that you gave your permission voluntarily to be interviewed on your own premises.

Did you sign any paperwork?

I had been poorly told the bloke just came out hospital. But infact i ended back 8n with life treating illness. So am still not back on my feet just got a fine from the courts admitting i had used watching a tv with out a license.

Presumably you mean that the fine states that it is for TV Licence evasion, not that you personally admitted the offence? That fine letter should have come out of a proper Court process in which you had the option to plead Guilty or Not Guilty, and your circumstances should have been assessed in setting a "fair" fine. If you didn't ever receive a Summons, or it was too late because you were in Hospital, you can apply to the Court to have the fine set aside. TVL will then decide whether they want to re-open the case (sometimes they do, sometimes they don't).

Even if you were guilty of the offence, you still have the opportunity to challenge the TVL evidence, explain the circumstances of offence to the Court (called Mitigation), and to fill out a Means Form which captures your financial details for consideration in setting the fine.

Cornucopia

House_Martin wrote: »

You admitted in court that you watch "TV " without a licence, so you were fined because you were guilty.

I don't think that Kim53 is saying that at all. In fact, reading between the lines of his/her post, it sounds like the process has completely failed, and that it was based on a false/exaggerated report by the TVL person (which done knowingly is an extremely serious offence - much more serious than Licence evasion).

Most TVL Guilty plea defendants never see the inside of a Courtroom, and I don't think Kim53 did.

silverwhistle

House_Martin wrote: »

You admitted in court that you watch "TV " without a licence, so you were fined because you were guilty.

No they didn't. They might have in fact, but not from the evidence presented here. But you've made you assumption and I rather suspect you'd be an ideal Capita inspector.

As Cornucopia has pointed out, from the information given there may be a much more serious case of abuse of process. Was there a court case, was the defendant able to attend, etc, etc?

We honestly don't know..

House_Martin

From the info " I the man I had a tv only nithi else " I guessed he/she meant to say " I told the man I had a tv only and nothing else ".
I would accept that, if I was a Capita employee ( and I am going to apply for a job with them ) I would take that as an admission that he had a TV only with no set top boxes and therefore he watched only live scheduled or BBC. Unless the TV was`nt working (highly unlikely ) so really "its a fair cop " move on.
Why did nt he simply go to court and tell the Magistrate that he never watched TV ? He has accepted hes been caught and now he can use that information in future, like most do, to make sure Capita don t trick him into an admission next time . Next time he will be telling Capita that hes LLF.
He must also have signed a "confession " to get as far as a threat of a court hearing or an actual court hearing.
The balance of probability is that he was guilty, I d put my life savings and my house on it

Cornucopia

House_Martin wrote: »

From the info " I the man I had a tv only nithi else " I guessed he/she meant to say " I told the man I had a tv only and nothing else ".

I took it to mean that the only information they gave the TVL person was that they had a TV. That makes sense because it is one of the first questions they ask. It is not, in itself, evidence of evasion. If the remainder of the form was completed without accurate input from Kim53 then that would not be a valid interview under caution.

Why did nt he simply go to court and tell the Magistrate that he never watched TV ?

It sounds like he/she never received the Summons or was in hospital at the time.

to make sure Capita don t trick him into an admission next time .

There should be no "tricks" involved when a public authority interviews people about alleged crimes. Isn't it enough that people have to deal with a £5bn organisation at their door with little more than what they have gleaned from the Internet, without there being "tricks" involved. And you wonder why TVL people have the door shut in their faces?

He must also have signed a "confession " to get as far as a threat of a court hearing or an actual court hearing.

Not necessarily. Historically there have been many issues with signatures on the TVL paperwork. I have a feeling that TVL policy is that even paperwork without a householder's signature can potentially be taken forward to Court (as evidence introduced under a Witness Statement made by the TVL person).

The balance of probability is that he was guilty, I d put my life savings and my house on it

We are not here to judge other FMs - that is what the Courts are for.

Nick_C

House_Martin wrote: »

The balance of probability is that he was guilty, I d put my life savings and my house on it

Its a badly written post and its not at all clear what happened.

Once again, you are jumping to conclusions and presuming guilt rather than innocence.

And as I understand It, TVL evasion is a Criminal matter, not a Civil one. The test is therefore "beyond all reasonable doubt", not "balance of probability".

With your attitudes to justice, I'm sure Capita will welcome you with open arms.

[Deleted User]

Nick_C wrote: »

With your attitudes to justice, I'm sure Capita will welcome you with open arms.

Sadly he's already part of the goon squad (or at least claims so).

Nick_C

Colin_Maybe wrote: »

Sadly he's already part of the goon squad (or at least claims so).

He said in post 32 that he works for Morrison Data Services, who mainly deal with utility meters. He has said elsewhere that Capita sub contract some work to MDS (harassing people I think).

House_Martin

Nick_C wrote: »

He said in post 32 that he works for Morrison Data Services, who mainly deal with utility meters. He has said elsewhere that Capita sub contract some work to MDS (harassing people I think).

I made it quite clear, in post 32, and other posts too, that we at MDS have a contract to "hand deliver TV licence reminders "
That is why I am aware that certain addresses I visit to inspect gas and electricity meters do not possess a valid TV licence
.I do the two jobs, hand deliver TV licence reminders and read the utility meters.
I get past the front door and see the TVs on most of the time they have a current ITV live scheduled broadcast or are watching BBC.
We do not do the two jobs at the same time because this is a breach of the Data Protection Act

HWW

Nick_C wrote: »

Its a badly written post and its not at all clear what happened.

Once again, you are jumping to conclusions and presuming guilt rather than innocence.

And as I understand It, TVL evasion is a Criminal matter, not a Civil one. The test is therefore "beyond all reasonable doubt", not "balance of probability".

With your attitudes to justice, I'm sure Capita will welcome you with open arms.

They will indeed.