TV license about to run out.

pphillips

wymondham said:

pphillips said:

wymondham said:

pphillips said:

TV receiver is an old fashioned term that means a TV connected to an aerial, cable or satellite dish. It is not talking about internet TV's smartphones etc, as these werent around in 2003. As technology has advanced, the legislation has been updated so that having broadband or mobile devices doesn't necessarily mean that you need a TV licence - it's how you use them that counts.

This is TV licensing all over. Old antiquated confusing terms that mean little in the modern digital age, designed to put people off making the sensible decision to stop their licence.

You clearly can't rely on TV Licensing to provide impartial advice to consumers as their reason for existing is to sell licences. Thats why websites like this are so useful in providing clear information to empower others to choose whether or not they actually need a TV licence.

Indeed. I know so many people who say they have a licence as they can't be bothered with the hassle. What a great business model - people pay you as they are not sure if they have to and worry if they don't!  No wonder the BBC are reluctant to modernise.

I don't really think it's much of a hassle completing a no licence needed declaration every 2 years, I know that I am not legally required to complete one but to me it seems to be a reasonable policy to have and it saves me from being harassed by letters and visits that I don't wish to receive.

Cornucopia

pphillips said:

I don't really think it's much of a hassle completing a no licence needed declaration every 2 years, I know that I am not legally required to complete one but to me it seems to be a reasonable policy to have and it saves me from being harassed by letters and visits that I don't wish to receive.

I agree that this is one of TVL's more reasonable requests, and if they framed it as the request that it legally is, I suspect many people would happily comply.

However, you are wrong to say that it "saves you being harassed by ... visits". It doesn't do that, and isn't intended to. TVL will still "visit" if your address crops up when they trawl the database looking for likely destinations. (How this happens is open to speculation, but it certainly does).

pphillips

Cornucopia said:

pphillips said:

I don't really think it's much of a hassle completing a no licence needed declaration every 2 years, I know that I am not legally required to complete one but to me it seems to be a reasonable policy to have and it saves me from being harassed by letters and visits that I don't wish to receive.

I agree that this is one of TVL's more reasonable requests, and if they framed it as the request that it legally is, I suspect many people would happily comply.

However, you are wrong to say that it "saves you being harassed by ... visits". It doesn't do that, and isn't intended to. TVL will still "visit" if your address crops up when they trawl the database looking for likely destinations. (How this happens is open to speculation, but it certainly does).     

But how likely am I to get visits or threats of visits when I give a detailed declaration, logic tells you that TV Licensing will focus their efforts on people who refuse to provide such information to them rather than pursue those who make a clear declaration showing they don't need one.

Cornucopia

pphillips said:

Cornucopia said:

pphillips said:

I don't really think it's much of a hassle completing a no licence needed declaration every 2 years, I know that I am not legally required to complete one but to me it seems to be a reasonable policy to have and it saves me from being harassed by letters and visits that I don't wish to receive.

I agree that this is one of TVL's more reasonable requests, and if they framed it as the request that it legally is, I suspect many people would happily comply.

However, you are wrong to say that it "saves you being harassed by ... visits". It doesn't do that, and isn't intended to. TVL will still "visit" if your address crops up when they trawl the database looking for likely destinations. (How this happens is open to speculation, but it certainly does).     

But how likely am I to get visits or threats of visits when I give a detailed declaration, logic tells you that TV Licensing will focus their efforts on people who refuse to provide such information to them rather than pursue those who make a clear declaration showing they don't need one.

The short answer is that I don't know how they prioritise their various cohorts of addresses.   I do know that they say they may still visit people who complete the No Licence Needed form (it's not, legally, a declaration or a claim).    To that extent, I feel obliged to say that for the benefit of all readers.

People approach the issue of dealing with TV Licensing in various ways, and the two extremes are probably this kind of "reasonable appeasement" in the expectation of being treated reasonably by them, and those who through fear or principle want to have as little to do with them as possible.  I can empathise with both of those views and the shades of grey between them.   However, I also know that the NLN form is just a TVL creation with no legal weight.   Complete it or not, it makes little difference to their stated "plan" to visit you.  It might make a difference to the likelihood of being "visited" and it might make a difference to the attitude of the person who visits.    It is also supposed to stop the letters for 2 years (although the whole thing of sending monthly letters is highly questionable, and treating their cessation as some kind of benefit is (for me) somewhat offensive).

OTOH, I find the "no compromise" attitude to be more principled than appeasement (historically, it's nearly always been that way).  If there's a practical slant on that, it is this:  what TV Licensing are doing is flawed and wrong.  If people have the opportunity to send them some kind of message about that, then they should consider doing so.   In this case, that message would be non-compliance with the NLN process.

As is often the case, there are other approaches, such as:-

- Complete the NLN form with a false but plausible name (this is not illegal).   This has the advantage that if they do visit, their opening gambit may be to ask for "fake name", and they may even refuse to speak with anyone else under their Data Protection policy.

- Use Cease and Desist or a formal harassment complaint to stop the letters.  They tend to treat them as a implied NLN "claim", even though your principles remain undented.

edit:   I should also point out that TV Licensing say that if they form a case against you, they will treat you more harshly if you had previously completed the NLN form than if you hadn't.  For me, personally, that contentious position is enough to tilt things in favour of not completing.   I guess everyone will take their own view of that (in the bizarre world where the BBC puts innocent people into the position of having to speculate on the odds and outcomes).

ianG

Well, its been 3 months without live TV and doing fine. Just wondering how they would 'form a case against you'? What evidence do they have other than an admission or looking through a window. I really don't see how, with the present range of connectivity options, there could be cast iron evidence.

Cornucopia

ianG said:

Just wondering how they would 'form a case against you'? What evidence do they have other than an admission or looking through a window. 

They mainly use confession evidence, captured on the TVL178 form.   It's a very questionable process, and I think they rely on a combination of shame, fear of authority and ignorance of PACE.  

They don't generally produce physical evidence in Court, and they aren't supposed to look through windows (it being a breach of privacy).

[Deleted User]

MrRobinson said:

Anyone watch here tv?

I don't even know what that is.

[Deleted User]

sevenhills said:
Just buy a license.

Why should they buy something they don't need?

[Deleted User]

onomatopoeia99 said:

There is another more basic technology that could detect the emissions from a CRT

It's called the Mk1 human eyeball.

[Deleted User]

pphillips said:

and it saves me from being harassed by letters and visits that I don't wish to receive.

It'll only save you from the visits, if you agree to let them search your home.