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

Cornucopia

House_Martin wrote: »

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 "

What is the purpose of hand-delivering these reminders? The recipients will have already had their share of threatening letters, so what is special about these reminders?

We do not do the two jobs at the same time because this is a breach of the Data Protection Act

I think you have that wrong. I think that if you have unauthorised access to sensitive information about other people (even if that requires deduction on your part, or a failure of system or management logic), then THAT is the DPA breach.

Nick_C

House_Martin wrote: »

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

I've read a lot of your recent posts now with great interest.

I note that where you have to visit a property for two different purposes, you choose (or are instructed?) to visit first to read the meter and access the property, and then return some time later to deliver the threatening letter. You could of course hand deliver the threatening letter first, and return later to try to read the meter. This would be a much more transparent approach.

Alternatively, your company could (and I would say should) allocate the two tasks to different teams.

Where there is a conflict of interest within an organisation, the usual approach is to put up "Chinese walls".

House_Martin

Manager could do that but he s harassed and overworked ( he says ) and he allocates work as quickly as possible. MDS have many contracts and we have a lot of extra duties which other meter reading teams do not do.eg, going "undercover " into pubs and clubs to check if they are playing Sky and BT sports live premiership games from other countries such as Italy and Greece.
The TV licence deliveries are paid extra money from our normal work therefore he is obliged to share it out amongst those who want to do it. I would be the first to complain if I did nt get my fair share of TVs.
This is why I am so biased about bods who claim to be "legally licence free " because in the main, and I ve been doing this for years, I ve found that they are just cheating the system because its too easy to get away with it.
I would like the BBC to go subscription with a Sky type set top box.
Australia had to end the TV licence because of widespread evasion, and if the BBC, through legislation from the government, declared it a civil offence rather than criminal then licence evasion would quickly go through the roof..
I hoped that the Government would make it a civil offence when some MPs tried it a few years ago
I like the BBC programs, especially BBC2 and BBC4 and recommend tonights BAFTA award winning "Detectorists " at 10 pm tonight on BBC4

Cornucopia

House_Martin wrote: »

This is why I am so biased about bods who claim to be "legally licence free " because in the main, and I ve been doing this for years, I ve found that they are just cheating the system because its too easy to get away with it.

I've told you before: you are probably not seeing any/many LLF households, because according to TVL the action of making a LLF "claim" automatically removes your address from mailings. I would interpret your hand-delivered reminders as being part of that.

It's extremely likely that there is a whole other community of LLF households, many of whom will have completed the BBC's "declaration" who you will never see. Not that you should be seeing any members of the Public whose Licence status information you have possession of.

and if the BBC made it a civil offence...

The BBC has no option to change the status of the offence. Only the Government can do that.

House_Martin

And "probably" I certainly am seeing claimants who have declared they do not need a licence.The BBC do not use that term you are fond of , LLF , just that you can declare "you do not need a licence " and of course that can change at any time the very second you start to view live scheduled or any BBC content
I don`t think the hand delivered reminders can be classed as mail. This is why that BBC/Capita prefer us to hand deliver if possible.
In the Utility industry we hand deliver Warrants of Entry, just to make sure that the occupier cannot claim that it was nt delivered.
I ve always suspected that if there is no response to a hand delivery then the next step is Capitas "good guy " visit followed by the "bad guy " who puts more pressure on to people they are sure are transgressing.
I only know about the "good guy/bad guy " visits from a Capita employee I used to see fairly often on my rounds
I certainly received TVL letters at two addresses I was involved with every 3 months or so when I owned a property which was vacant for over a year, and dealt with a deceased estate for nearly a year even though I told TVL that they were vacant. Many of the places I visit with hand deliveries are long term vacants, in good areas
But whether this is true or not it does`nt matter whether they take the time to declare that "they do not need a TV licence", the majority of people who do not purchase a TV licence are illegally viewing scheduled live TV or BBC content,( IMO of course )
The figures turning up at the Magistrates every year are proof positive of that. 200,000 a year is a vast number of transgressors, and this has to be but a fraction of the true figure

HWW

So Mr House Martin - you think TVL evasion is rampant, you may be right. So what, in your opinion is the TRUE TVL evasion figure. Crapita/BBC now claim about 8% - higher in Scotland & NI?
For years, they claimed it to be about 2% - I wonder if the "Claim" was a lie, or if it has gone a lot higher - why?
I doubt if Tvlicenceresistance has had that much effect - perhaps I'm wrong?


I would put it at about 20% myself.
It looks like we do agree on one thing, Subscription will be a good thing !


Bring it on, I say - because so few will subscribe to the BBC's Bias & propaganda, that will be an end to the BBC waste, for once & for all.

As for the "Blue planet, frozen, wet, dry (you name it progs) - global warming, cooling etc, we can well do without that particular brand of "Fake news" thank you.

Cornucopia

House_Martin wrote: »

And "probably" I certainly am seeing claimants who have declared they do not need a licence.

I really don't think so. Look at it from the POV of the householder concerned - they are acting lawfully, and they have done what the BBC wishes them to do, and yet they still get you or your colleagues turning up at their door. I could imagine them being somewhat peeved by that.

The BBC do not use that term you are fond of , LLF...

I can't make them use the term. What is more worrying is their pathological denial of the concept. There are people out there will no need of a TV Licence. They need to accept that as a fact, and a growing trend. Simply offering the "opportunity" to "claim" that one does not need a Licence is authoritarian weasel-wordage of the worst kind.

I don`t think the hand delivered reminders can be classed as mail. This is why that BBC/Capita prefer us to hand deliver if possible.

I think they will be. It's not about how they are classified, it's about their role (such as it is, rightly or wrongly) as part of the enforcement toolkit of TV Licensing.

In the Utility industry we hand deliver Warrants of Entry, just to make sure that the occupier cannot claim that it was nt delivered.

That has nothing to do with TVL reminders.

I ve always suspected that if there is no response to a hand delivery then the next step is Capitas "good guy " visit followed by the "bad guy " who puts more pressure on to people they are sure are transgressing.

Why would there be "good guys" and "bad guys" - why would a public authority with a legitimate process need such a psychological approach?

I certainly received TVL letters at two addresses I was involved with every 3 months or so when I owned a property which was vacant for over a year, and dealt with a deceased estate for nearly a year even though I told TVL that they were vacant. Many of the places I visit with hand deliveries are long term vacants, in good areas

You are not the first person to assume that the process for empty properties is somehow indicative of what happens elsewhere. Strange coincidence.

But whether this is true or not it does`nt matter whether they take the time to declare that "they do not need a TV licence", the majority of people who do not purchase a TV licence are illegally viewing scheduled live TV or BBC content,( IMO of course )

The BBC say otherwise. I believe them.

The figures turning up at the Magistrates every year are proof positive of that. 200,000 a year is a vast number of transgressors, and this has to be but a fraction of the true figure

Not really. The BBC quotes a "1 in 6" figure.

If we assume that that figure equates to the 360,000 people they "catch", less the third whose cases are withdrawn before trial, then it puts the overall scale of all unlicensed properties at 1.4m of which 1.2m are LLF. I have to say that the BBC stats always have a whiff of weasel about them, and they rarely release enough data to do joined-up analysis, but they are all we have.

HWW

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_fbwkNOcQQ


Says it all...

Cornucopia

A good video that shows how TV Licensing operate, especially the extent to which they breach their own rules (for example by threatening to get a Warrant).

It's just a pity that the very first chap is actually from An Post (Irish Post Office) enforcing the TV Licence in Ireland, where the legal situation is very different.

House_Martin

HWW wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_fbwkNOcQQ


Says it all...

Yes it does say it all, pretty sad viewing of these occupiers, who are obviously fiddling their TV licence, can blatantly stand there and just front it out and get away scot free with the £147 a year TV licence
.HDW, I think you should remove that link.It is advertising the website to encourage people to break the law
Its also very sad to see how a money making website like TV licence resistance can aid and abet people to defraud the BBC and the double whammy of making an easy living themselves selling ad space at the same time.Shocking website and it should be closed down. Personally I consider TV Licence Resistance to be a criminal organsation
Cornucopia appears to have a zeal of a missionary with his absurd claims that people are "legally licence free " what ! forever ? and that they are never going to lapse for even one minute and start sneakily viewing tv as normal, both live scheduled and the BBC,. Pull the other one ! Lets hope the BBC gets some electronic wizardry in operation very soon to trap them all, who are currently laughing their heads off at how simple it is to defeat the hard working Capita employees, simply by taking advice from this website to close the door and do not give any information at all to Capita
I have the visual proof in my unique job that nearly everyone who "claims " to "not require a licence " is defrauding the BBC.
Cornucopia is very selective. He cherry picks bits and bobs of info from the BBC he chooses to believe and uses it to back up his LLF rubbish.
TV Licence Resistance website even has the bare faced cheek to display old photos of a half naked and long dead Jimmy Savile as a defence in aiding and abetting the fraudsters to operate with impunity and just slam the door on Capita men and women.