Unlawful TV Licence Enforcement

sourcrates

unforeseen wrote: »

Maybe its time to change to a licensing model used by a number of European countries where every household and business pays regardless of whether they have TV receiving equipment including PCs, smartphones etc.

Does away with the need for Capita. It would then be a simple case of if no licence registered to an address then an offence is being committed. None of this having to prove that you watch/don't watch TV. A nice, simple absolute liability offence.

I like the way the BBC describe the way they are funded as unique.


Its more of a forced tax to my mind, I too am no fan of adverts, but i believe they should compete for there spot in the marketplace like any other service provider, sell what they peddle to us, so we have the choice.


The fact you can be fined, and even sent to prison for refusing to pay that fine, just for watching a television, stinks of George Orwell`s 1984 to me, its just ludicrous in this day and age of technology.

Cornucopia

unforeseen wrote: »

Maybe its time to change to a licensing model used by a number of European countries where every household and business pays regardless of whether they have TV receiving equipment including PCs, smartphones etc.

If it meant an end to the dubious enforcement policies and practices of BBC-TV Licensing, then it could be an option. However, I think if there were no option not to pay then the BBC would have to be a lot more transparent and a lot more accountable than it is now.

Does away with the need for Capita. It would then be a simple case of if no licence registered to an address then an offence is being committed. None of this having to prove that you watch/don't watch TV. A nice, simple absolute liability offence.

I imagine that any system will still have complications, and maybe outright exemptions. For example, a home with a lodger currently requires two licences, but looks just like any other home from the outside. Similarly, I would imagine that any scheme would treat empty properties as exempt.

As long as there are those kinds of details, and the BBC has a misguided view as to how they should be enforced, they will still need a certain amount of legally problematic doorstepping.

unforeseen

Germany is based on the household regardless of the number of people in it. So even the German version of an HMO needs only one licence. The only exemptions are for households on certain benefits. Empty houses? Owner still pays as do 2nd home owners and businesses.

Simple system. Each unique postal address pays.

It's more a case of every building pays but there are some exemptions

Cornucopia

How do they charge Business premises?

ISTR there being an issue (a court challenge) to the German system in regards to also requiring a Licence for every car, too.

unforeseen

For businesses its based on a number of things such as employee numbers

See https://web.archive.org/web/20130317092949/http://www.rundfunkbeitrag.de/unternehmen-und-institutionen/rund-um-das-neue-modell.shtml if you use chrome it will translate it for you.

For places like hotels then the number of rooms comes into play as well.

Cornucopia

Thanks. It sounds as though their scheme is very comprehensive.

It will be interesting to see how the UK's approach changes (if at all) over the coming years. There seem to be a number of countries that have changed their system, have abolished their TV Licence, or are in the process of changing. Presumably, this is a reaction to changes in technology.

I have to say that my experience of the BBC and Capita is such that I would much prefer any solution that doesn't require either of them to participate.

silverwhistle

Particularly the latter.

I've now had four of their letters in the version where it asks in a separate window on the front of the envelope: "Will you be in on the nnth?"

I've been in on every occasion so far, so one would have to conclude the message isn't for mutual help but purely to intimidate and embarrass. Both unsuccessfully in my circumstances.

Herbie21

Cornucopia wrote: »

The truth is that electronic detection is not in routine use by TV Licensing.

The vast majority of Licence cases are based upon an unsatisfactory confession obtained during an unsatisfactory interview under caution all based upon an unsatisfactory understanding and implementation of PACE requirements.

I have read your thread with interest and you deserve a huge 'pat on the back' for your efforts in trying to influence change at the BBC. Unfortunately, TV Licensing is such a huge organisation with vast legal teams behind it that it will be almost impossible to achieve your desired aim. Any change would normally be via questions from your MP.

As my business assists individuals who are facing enforcement action by bailiffs, my concern for a very long time has not been with the BBC.....but with the contract that they awarded to Capita Business Services Ltd in 2012 (expires in 2022).

Having read the contract and accompanying schedules the role of Capita is truly worrying. This includes:

Initiating prosecutions
Serving Summonses
Presenting case to Court
Defending appeals and legal challenges
Process costs awarded by Magistrates Courts.

Etc
Etc

PS: Each week approx 3,500 TV Licence evasions cases come before the courts. Approx 10% of all court fines are for this offence.

Labsuper

Herbie21 wrote: »

...As my business assists individuals who are facing enforcement action by bailiffs, my concern for a very long time has not been with the BBC.....but with the contract that they awarded to Capita Business Services Ltd in 2012 (expires in 2012)...

Did it? I hope you have someone in your business who pays more attention to detail.

Cornucopia

The role of Capita is definitely problematic for BBC-TV Licensing, although I would say that from my perspective it would be wrong to think that all or most of the issues are the fault of Capita. The BBC sets the policies of TV Licensing, and Capita implements them. They share the blame, and neither organisation has the requisite integrity to tell the other to do the proverbial.

One small detail of the Capita relationship is particularly troubling because it inveigles the Courts in the issues...

- Capita presents TV Licensing cases in Magistrates Courts (including under the Single Justice Procedure).

- The people who present the cases are Capita employees who are not Barristers. They are not even Solicitors. Capita calls them "Court Presenters".

- In theory, they should ask permission from the Court at every session, and in theory the Court should weigh up whether the interests of Justice are best served by granting that permission. This does not appear to be routinely happening. An FOI request might be revealing on this, though. :cool:

- Because Capita Court Presenters are not Solicitors, they are not bound by the Solicitors code of conduct, and they are not subject to the relevant disciplinary procedures. Some of their activities inside and outside Courts are questionable, and it's likely that if they were Solicitors they would not conduct themselves in that way.