TV Licence - will they get a warrant?

espritlibre87

Wow, I wasn't expecting quite such a flurry of replies! Thank you to those who have provided sensible advice. As far as certain others who didn't quite manage to do so, I know we shouldn't feed the trolls but a brief response regardless:

I am well aware of which activities require a licence, and which do not.
Having conflicting views on what constitutes good entertainment is not a breach of the law, regardless of how much you may personally enjoy Strictly Come Dancing.
There is no requirement for me to prove that I have not committed an offence, when there is no evidence to suggest I have committed any such offence in the first place. I shall continue to exercise my Right to Privacy. Furthermore, the Capita employee who appeared at my door was found to be trespassing on the property (nobody had granted him access to what is a private building). He also broke TVL's own code of conduct, twice, by threatening us with a warrant.
Your suggestion that the majority of us are lying is frankly offensive. Particularly given the many, many cases of vulnerable individuals being duped into paying for a licence they do not need. In the brief period of time that I have been making enquiries, I have heard of (and in some cases seen via video) people being wrongly informed they require a licence:
- for owning a TV
- for owning a smart TV with apps that cannot be deleted (despite no proof that the apps had ever been accessed)
- for owning an unplugged TV, that the Capita employees then plugged in, thereby turning the TV into a receiver
- for owning an internet-enabled TV
Whilst I would record any future encounter with Capita, I would also prefer not to have to endure this in the first place, hence the original post.

Again, thank you to those who offered genuine advice.

Cornucopia

scd3scd4 wrote: »

Corrected.........


The way I understood it, no one lived/stayed at my mums main home when she was in her holiday home. Hence no second licence was needed. She explained all this to the clown.

That's true if the Holiday Home is a Static caravan, mobile home or moveable chalet. There's a form to register the Holiday Home.

If the Holiday Home is a House, flat, bungalow or cottage then a second Licence is required, subject to the possibility of using another exemption.

If the Holiday Home is a Boat, Touring Caravan or other vehicle then a second Licence is never required.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/for-your-home/second-home-aud8

House_Martin

espritlibre87 wrote: »

Wow, I wasn't expecting quite such a flurry of replies! Thank you to those who have provided sensible advice. As far as certain others who didn't quite manage to do so, I know we shouldn't feed the trolls but a brief response regardless:

I am well aware of which activities require a licence, and which do not.
Having conflicting views on what constitutes good entertainment is not a breach of the law, regardless of how much you may personally enjoy Strictly Come Dancing.
There is no requirement for me to prove that I have not committed an offence, when there is no evidence to suggest I have committed any such offence in the first place. I shall continue to exercise my Right to Privacy. Furthermore, the Capita employee who appeared at my door was found to be trespassing on the property (nobody had granted him access to what is a private building). He also broke TVL's own code of conduct, twice, by threatening us with a warrant.
Your suggestion that the majority of us are lying is frankly offensive. Particularly given the many, many cases of vulnerable individuals being duped into paying for a licence they do not need. In the brief period of time that I have been making enquiries, I have heard of (and in some cases seen via video) people being wrongly informed they require a licence:
- for owning a TV
- for owning a smart TV with apps that cannot be deleted (despite no proof that the apps had ever been accessed)
- for owning an unplugged TV, that the Capita employees then plugged in, thereby turning the TV into a receiver
- for owning an internet-enabled TV
Whilst I would record any future encounter with Capita, I would also prefer not to have to endure this in the first place, hence the original post.

Again, thank you to those who offered genuine advice.

I find your answer very offensive to me. You are trying to call me a liar when I have been at my job for many years viewing the MAJORITY of occupiers who do not possess a TV licence viewing terrestrial scheduled TV which requires a licence. I find your attitude highly offensive to me
Yes the majority I see in the course of my job are clearly liars.
.We decided to leave Europe because the MAJORITY decided to leave, 51% to 49%. Do you understand the meaning of the word "majority "
I have never mentioned words like "all ", or "everyone " Most people I do see in my job do not have the TV set on but the MAJORITY of the ones that do are watching normal ITV or BBC at the times
By the way, do a little research about the laws of trespass before trying to accuse anyone of knocking on your door ( that is if you actually own the property ) and trespassing. There are over 200 separate bodies who not only have rights to knock on your door but to actually enter your property without your consent, and everyone who has lawful business with the public have rights to knock on your door, and that includes the postman, the milkman, and yes the gasman too, delivering hand delivered TV licence reminders and inspecting your utility meters
This is good advice, I m not a "troll " which is an offensive term to me. it may avoid you getting into a slanging match in the future with any other Capita employees who come to see you. Just behave politely and wish them good day and close the door, that is all you have to do. They will not be taking out a warrant of access
No one is breaking the laws of trespass for walking down a path or up a flight of stairs to a flat and attempting to speak to the occupier. They do not apply.So please do not start falsly accusing Capita employees of trespass.
If you say you NEVER watch any live scheduled TV or any BBC on demand or catch up services, why are you not incandescent with rage at all the ones who get taken to court every year, over 200,000 a year (, just a small proportion of those who are getting away with it )
You should be in a fury of rage and applauding Capita in their job who make the honest ones who comply seem to have an air of suspicion about themselves especially when they start to deny access to check equipment, which would only take a minute or two.
I get plenty of people who are happy to admit me to check their properties for TV sets, aerial leads, Sky boxes etc, even though I rarely take up the offer

Cornucopia

House_Martin wrote: »

I find your answer very offensive to me. You are trying to call me a liar when I have been at my job for many years viewing the MAJORITY of occupiers who do not possess a TV licence viewing terrestrial scheduled TV which requires a licence. I find your attitude highly offensive to me
Yes the majority I see in the course of my job are clearly liars.
.We decided to leave Europe because the MAJORITY decided to leave, 51% to 49%. Do you understand the meaning of the word "majority "
I have never mentioned words like "all ", or "everyone " Most people I do see in my job do not have the TV set on but the MAJORITY of the ones that do are watching normal ITV or BBC at the times

You said this on the first page of this very thread (and you have said similar things many times before): "In my job I have hard evidence that 9 out 10 people who claim to be legally licence free lol are in fact lying".

If you want to be able to later claim "offence", you need to be way more precise with your language than that.

You also haven't answered my question about how you know that the people you visit have claimed to be legally Licence-free. It's a particularly pertinent question because AFAIK, BBC-TVL and Capita do not recognise the term.

Also, what you have is not "hard evidence". It is circumstantial, at best.

By the way, do a little research about the laws of trespass before trying to accuse anyone of knocking on your door ( that is if you actually own the property ) and trespassing.

EspritLibre lives in a flat in a secure building. I'm not sure if s/he ever mentioned whether the TVL person's entry route to the building had been identified, but either way when the TVL person appeared at EL's door, he was there without following the normal protocol for that building (and most buildings with an entryphone system). I don't think it's unreasonable to use the term "trespassing" in that context, although whether the actual Civil Tort has been committed will depend on the detail. i.e. whether there is plausible deniability for him to claim that he didn't know that he was obliged to use the Entryphone, and wait to be invited up to the flat.

There are over 200 separate bodies who not only have rights to knock on your door but to actually enter your property without your consent...

Capita is not one of them, and neither is the BBC.

No one is breaking the laws of trespass for walking down a path or up a flight of stairs to a flat and attempting to speak to the occupier. They do not apply.

Pretty sure that's not true. Trespass can occur on any piece of private land in England and Wales under the right circumstances. Whether there is a plausible claim depends on the circumstances.

So please do not start falsly accusing Capita employees of trespass.

There are plenty of videos showing TVL/Capita staff trespassing - when TVL have been banned from the premises by prior instruction, and when TVL do not leave immediately when instructed.

However, Trespass is just the thin end of the law-breaking wedge for BBC-TVL and Capita. Whilst IANAL, I have good reason to suspect breaches of HRA and PACE, and in the context of the G4S/MDS operation your own evidence suggests breach of DPA, and possibly RIPA.

You should be in a fury of rage and applauding Capita in their job who make the honest ones who comply seem to have an air of suspicion about themselves especially when they start to deny access to check equipment, which would only take a minute or two.

It's disappointing that you haven't realised yet that BBC-TVL and Capita are not the "good guys". That doesn't make Evaders the good guys either, before you assume that. BBC-TVL and Capita need to carry out their activities in ways that are 100% compatible with relevant law 100% of the time across 100% of their staff and also meet the requirements of running a public service in a civil society (like not trying to bluster, bully or deceive the Public). That is not happening at the moment, and until it does, people are right to criticise them and to treat them with extreme caution in their personal dealings with them.

I think you'll find that that is the prevailing view of people who know what BBC-TVL and Capita do and how they do it.

Agent_Rothbard

Cornucopia wrote: »

BBC-TVL and Capita need to carry out their activities in ways that are 100% compatible with relevant law 100% of the time across 100% of their staff and also meet the requirements of running a public service in a civil society (like not trying to bluster, bully or deceive the Public). That is not happening at the moment, and until it does, people are right to criticise them and to treat them with extreme caution in their personal dealings with them.

Absolutely agree.

I am one of the "mythical" legally licence free that the Capita employee asserts don't really exist. I enjoyed a chuckle at his incredulity that anyone could possibly not watch Strictly! Don't judge us all by your own (low) standards Sir!

I would not however, engage with a Capita employee who turns up on my doorstep because I find the presumption of guilt under which they operate to be repugnant. I would not tolerate Tesco employees turning up demanding to see what make of biscuit I have in my cupboard on the basis that I don't shop in Tesco and I will not tolerate that kind of behaviour from an entertainment company either. I will not prove my innocence absent reasonable grounds for suspicion of guilt and making a consumer choice not to buy licenceable content is NOT reasonable grounds to suspect the crime of licence evasion.

The thuggish behaviour of Capita employees and their scant acquaintance with or respect for statute guarantees I will not have them on my property let alone answer their questionnaires. I await a search warrant with interest and, since "evidence" supporting a warrant application can only have been concocted by Capita employees, will enjoy seeking a judicial review of the application. I'm fully versed in the relevant legislation, including PACE, so they had better make sure they are too before they knock at my door!!

Agent_Rothbard

Not sure if this link has been posted, but it rather gives the lie to the Capita employee's protestations that his role is honourable...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4262202/BBC-s-TV-licence-bullies-exposed.html

Cornucopia

Agent_Rothbard wrote: »

Not sure if this link has been posted, but it rather gives the lie to the Capita employee's protestations that his role is honourable...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4262202/BBC-s-TV-licence-bullies-exposed.html

That's been discussed here on one of the TV Licensing threads, definitely. (Ian Doyle - the chap in the video - is well known to those of us with long-term knowledge of TV Licensing).

I should say that House Martin does not claim to work for Capita. He works for Morrisons Data Services (what used to be G4S). Their role is supposed to be just to deliver leaflets for TV Licensing, however he has made certain allegations that amount to data protection and unlawful surveillance issues.

edit, and apologies for the length of this edit: I've hedged around the issue of the extent to which TV Licensing may be operating unlawfully on my previous posts on MSE. This is for two reasons: (1) such claims (especially if unsupported) would likely be seen as irrational and contentious, and (2) I didn't want to compromise MSE's situation by making unfounded allegations of a serious nature.

Over recent months, however, I have begun to amass a set of official material (case law, official briefing documents, advice obtained from official sources) that systematically calls into serious question the lawfulness of the TV Licensing approach.

The key issues are these:-

1) That TV Licensing's day-to-day operations (the sending of millions of letters, and the knocking of millions of front doors) are not specified in any legislation. This creates an immediate problem in that citizens are unable to establish what is being done, why it is being done, and what the limits are. At the same time, TVL often misrepresent their processes, and citizens' cooperation as being officially necessary, when that is not true. When questioned, the BBC have refused to state the authority for TV Licensing to operate - this is a curious position, since if it were fully lawful and authorised, I would have thought that they would delight in saying so.

2) That TV Licensing's wish to enter people's homes, check for illicit TV viewing and possibly interview under caution come within the scope of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (the Right to Privacy and Private Life). The BBC have previously agreed that this is so, though they have cited various arguments as to why the law is not being breached.

3) There are a large set of issues about PACE compliance.

4) There are the data protection and unlawful surveillance issues raised by MSE FM House Martin and other anecdotal sources.

5) A technical dispute regarding the capability for Scottish householders to ban TV Licensing from their premises (as is the case in England and Wales).


The justification for the above is as follows:

1) (a) Shimovolos v. Russia, Application no. 30194/09, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 21 June 2011. This case revolves around a secret official process for monitoring citizens. It was held that a breach of Article 8 occurred by virtue of activities in scope of its protection were not authorised by published legislation to which the Public could refer.

(b) EU Human Rights Handbooks https://rm.coe.int/168007ff47. This document confirms the requirements for activities with the scope of Article 8 to have the authority of legislation (or similar regulations) that is specific, explicit, accessible, understandable, and proof against arbitrariness.

(c) "Human Rights, Human Lives" (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/human_rights_human_lives_a_guide_for_public_authorities.pdf This set of guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission to Public Authorities confirms the foregoing, and also builds upon it with a clear statement that: "[authority] must be set out in law, or in rules or guidance, and it must be communicated effectively to ensure that people to whom it applies can find out about it" and "That might mean making guidance or other rules publicly available, perhaps via the internet...".

2) Within the document immediately above, the very first entry on the list of activities that are in-scope of Article 8 is "Home Searches".

3) (a) The BBC have maintained that most of PACE does not apply to TV Licensing for various reasons. However, many of the PACE sections are specifically worded so as to include non-Police investigators and non-Police Station interview locations. I would say that sections: 3.21-3.22, 10.2, 11.1A-11.7 and 12.6 of PACE Code C are binding upon TV Licensing.

(b) In addition, advice has been sought from the Police Powers Unit at the Home Office which confirms that the information given to householders prior to TVL interview is inadequate. In particular, they must be told that they have a right to decline to be interviewed, and a right to legal advice, but they are not. Best practice would also be to confirm to them that they are not under arrest.

4) I won't go into these allegations as they are still forum hearsay. I have asked the BBC to comment.

5) TV Licensing have persistently misrepresented any request to ban them from Scottish homes as "confusing" English Common Law with Scottish Law, and refused them. I don't doubt that some legally minded person at the BBC thought that that was quite clever, however, it's clear that there are rights under Scottish law to ban people from private land. Indeed, the BBC's own arguments about Article 8 (which revolve around consent) are undermined in Scotland if there is no capability to withhold consent. I have suggested to them that Scottish householder should charge TV Licensing a (large) entrance fee. I await their response on that.


The bottom line for MSEers, is: do you really want to deal with an organisation that has this much (and more) legal weight of argument against it?

silverwhistle

I imagine I'm one of a very small number of people with a Senior Rail Card who has never owned a colour TV. In addition as the recipient of firelighters in the name of The Legal Occupier I've never worried about warrants.

One for Cornucopia really - I'm sure Capita can't be ar*ed to pursue an address where there is no evidence of an aerial or flickering TV, but what is the legal position in them ascertaining the name of the occupier by other means, given that I have no interest in telling them myself?

Cornucopia

silverwhistle wrote: »

One for Cornucopia really - I'm sure Capita can't be ar*ed to pursue an address where there is no evidence of an aerial or flickering TV, but what is the legal position in them ascertaining the name of the occupier by other means, given that I have no interest in telling them myself?

That's actually a really complicated question.

Firstly, they don't need a name to obtain a TVL Warrant - the Warrant is obtained against an address. So, if that's your concern, then having a name does not help them there. (TVL Warrants are also extremely rare).

In terms of the interview under caution, they DO need a name to make out the offence, but they need the name of the actual person they are interviewing, confirmed by them during the interview. Whilst they might ask: are you Mr. Silverwhistle? unless you answer Yes, then it would be an abuse of process to write it on the interview form.

TVL have been buying name & address data commercially, and I suppose your question boils down to: is that acceptable? Even this isn't straightforward. The DPA requires processing of personal data to be lawful, fair and to comply with a number of other criteria. Whilst we know that the essential purpose of TVL's data is for the harassment of citizens in connection with non-statutory demands, I think it would be expecting quite a lot of the ICO to take that view. In reality, I think TVL would claim that their intention is law enforcement, in which case they would probably be given significant latitude.

There are some principles that might catch them out:-

- be transparent about how you intend to use the data, and give individuals appropriate privacy notices when collecting their personal data

- [data processing will be regarded as unlawful if] your organisation [is] exceeding its legal powers or exercising those powers improperly

- [data processing will be regarded as unlawful if it results in] a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998

- one of the conditions for processing is that the individual has consented to their personal data being collected and used in the manner and for the purposes in question

I would say that the consent issue is the most interesting, and the most likely IMHO to be successful. The data being used by TVL is likely to have been purchased from commercial providers from opted-in sources (i.e. where citizens have willingly given data for marketing purposes). It would be interesting to challenge TVL's usage as being something other than marketing. In addition, it ought to be possible to withhold consent to process from TVL.

The starting point would be for someone who has received named enforcement letters to submit a Subject Access Request to TVL.

societys_child

Ahh. Never read through this thread before. What was it was about the often obnoxious posts made by the resident meter reader?
Strange insinuations regarding people who refused "smart" meters etc. and that Everyone's Guilty.

Often thought what a jumped up little .... but couldn't quite put my finger on it . . .

It all fits now, just the sort of "security expert" TVL needed.
Keep up the good work meter-man, you're special