TV license about to run out.

pphillips

Bedsit_Bob said:

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.

I have no intention of letting them in my home, they should read the no licence needed form I submitted and if they don't believe me then I guess I'll see them in court.

[Deleted User]

pphillips said:

I have no intention of letting them in my home

Maybe you missed this bit, when you made the NLN statement?

If you tell us you don’t need a licence, we may confirm this with a visit to your address. This is because when we visit and make contact, we find one in six people that tell us they don't need a TV Licence actually do need one.

Cornucopia

I think the underlying point is that most reasonable people who do not need a Licence are going to end up refusing to comply with TV Licensing's "instructions" at some point in the enforcement process, and that is their prerogative.   The only question is where in the process that point will come.

I can see both sides of it:   that if there was some benefit to completing the No Licence Needed form, it might be worth doing; and the alternative view that even that is a step too far in terms of the principles and/or the practical concessions.  

It's quite possible that there is no definitive answer, and it depends on personal circumstances.   The blame clearly lies with TV Licensing, anyway.

3secondmemory

What annoys me, is that I cancelled my license in December but I can still download lots of BBC services like radio and news on my iPhone. I’m required to register with these and enter my email address. Fair enough but why can’t they lock anyone without a License out of services they haven’t paid for like Amazon and Now? 

This is why I don’t believe the BBC take our contributions seriously; TVL is a just a cash cow. Even a child can figure out how to stop someone watching a service they’re not supposed to. 

unforeseen

Bedsit_Bob said:

pphillips said:

I have no intention of letting them in my home

Maybe you missed this bit, when you made the NLN statement?

If you tell us you don’t need a licence, we may confirm this with a visit to your address. This is because when we visit and make contact, we find one in six people that tell us they don't need a TV Licence actually do need one.

By all means visit. Speak to them on the doorstep. 
They have absolutely no right to enter your residence without a court order and with no/lack of evidence they stand no hope in hell of obtaining one. 
As for examining your TV and its connections, not a chance. 
In my house the TV cable runs in conduit with other cables, TV is in a cabinet and the aerial socket on the wall is behind a bookcase. 

pphillips

unforeseen said:

Bedsit_Bob said:

pphillips said:

I have no intention of letting them in my home

Maybe you missed this bit, when you made the NLN statement?

If you tell us you don’t need a licence, we may confirm this with a visit to your address. This is because when we visit and make contact, we find one in six people that tell us they don't need a TV Licence actually do need one.

By all means visit. Speak to them on the doorstep. 
They have absolutely no right to enter your residence without a court order and with no/lack of evidence they stand no hope in hell of obtaining one. 
As for examining your TV and its connections, not a chance. 
In my house the TV cable runs in conduit with other cables, TV is in a cabinet and the aerial socket on the wall is behind a bookcase. 

This is exactly the reason for completing the no licence needed form, it is a point of reference on the unlikely event that I get a visit from TV Licensing. I will stand by the contents of the form up to and including a court hearing if necessary.

Cornucopia

I think that strategy works (for you) in a practical sense because you aren't going to be swayed by the fact that TV Licensing makes the assertion around "visits" that was posted by Bedsit_Bob above.

However, I'm not sure that it works in a legal sense because the No Licence Needed form has no legal weight, and so I'm not sure that a Court would give it much credibility in the face of some kind of evasion allegation - in fact I'm aware of cases where there has been discussion pre-Court between defendants and TVL on exactly this basis.   Those discussions did not go well for the defendants. 

I've used a number of different legal strategies in the past.  In particular, I obtained an agreement from TV Licensing at one stage that they would only seek to contact me if they believed they had reasonable evidence of evasion at my address - in those circumstances an interview would be arranged in the presence of my Solicitor at his/her offices and TVL would cover the costs.    They agreed to all of that, presumably on the basis that you have suggested - they are happy to have obtained some kind of positive response and they are unable to dictate beyond that what kind of a positive response it is.

pphillips

Cornucopia said:

I think that strategy works (for you) in a practical sense because you aren't going to be swayed by the fact that TV Licensing makes the assertion around "visits" that was posted by Bedsit_Bob above.

However, I'm not sure that it works in a legal sense because the No Licence Needed form has no legal weight, and so I'm not sure that a Court would give it much credibility in the face of some kind of evasion allegation - in fact I'm aware of cases where there has been discussion pre-Court between defendants and TVL on exactly this basis.   Those discussions did not go well for the defendants. 

I've used a number of different legal strategies in the past.  In particular, I obtained an agreement from TV Licensing at one stage that they would only seek to contact me if they believed they had reasonable evidence of evasion at my address - in those circumstances an interview would be arranged in the presence of my Solicitor at his/her offices and TVL would cover the costs.    They agreed to all of that, presumably on the basis that you have suggested - they are happy to have obtained some kind of positive response and they are unable to dictate beyond that what kind of a positive response it is.

I think it's also about what both sides consider reasonable, in my case a no licence needed form every 2 years is reasonable but I believe a visit is unreasonable because I would find it patronising and therefore offensive. Obviously a warrant or prosecution would also be unreasonable from my point of view as it is unnecessary and malicious. If they don't take the no licence needed form seriously, then it makes no sense to have it in the first place.

I'm not sure you're correct that the no licence needed form carries no legal weight as I cant see any reason why it would be inadmissible in a court of law. It might also deny the defendant the right to a fair trial if it was to be excluded from the evidence and this could form the basis of a subsequent appeal.

Cornucopia

pphillips said:

Cornucopia said:

I think that strategy works (for you) in a practical sense because you aren't going to be swayed by the fact that TV Licensing makes the assertion around "visits" that was posted by Bedsit_Bob above.

However, I'm not sure that it works in a legal sense because the No Licence Needed form has no legal weight, and so I'm not sure that a Court would give it much credibility in the face of some kind of evasion allegation - in fact I'm aware of cases where there has been discussion pre-Court between defendants and TVL on exactly this basis.   Those discussions did not go well for the defendants. 

I've used a number of different legal strategies in the past.  In particular, I obtained an agreement from TV Licensing at one stage that they would only seek to contact me if they believed they had reasonable evidence of evasion at my address - in those circumstances an interview would be arranged in the presence of my Solicitor at his/her offices and TVL would cover the costs.    They agreed to all of that, presumably on the basis that you have suggested - they are happy to have obtained some kind of positive response and they are unable to dictate beyond that what kind of a positive response it is.

I think it's also about what both sides consider reasonable, in my case a no licence needed form every 2 years is reasonable but I believe a visit is unreasonable because I would find it patronising and therefore offensive. Obviously a warrant or prosecution would also be unreasonable from my point of view as it is unnecessary and malicious. 

Yes - I tend to agree with you on this, although in my experience TVL do not behave reasonably.   Or at least, I did tend to agree up to the point when TVL published their prosecution policy detail that revealed harsher treatment with a NLN form than without.  (Which for me is just one more contradictory and hostile policy).

pphillips said:

Cornucopia said:

I think that strategy works (for you) in a practical sense because you aren't going to be swayed by the fact that TV Licensing makes the assertion around "visits" that was posted by Bedsit_Bob above.

However, I'm not sure that it works in a legal sense because the No Licence Needed form has no legal weight, and so I'm not sure that a Court would give it much credibility in the face of some kind of evasion allegation - in fact I'm aware of cases where there has been discussion pre-Court between defendants and TVL on exactly this basis.   Those discussions did not go well for the defendants. 

I've used a number of different legal strategies in the past.  In particular, I obtained an agreement from TV Licensing at one stage that they would only seek to contact me if they believed they had reasonable evidence of evasion at my address - in those circumstances an interview would be arranged in the presence of my Solicitor at his/her offices and TVL would cover the costs.    They agreed to all of that, presumably on the basis that you have suggested - they are happy to have obtained some kind of positive response and they are unable to dictate beyond that what kind of a positive response it is.

If they don't take the no licence needed form seriously, then it makes no sense to have it in the first place.  I'm not sure you're correct that the no licence needed form carries no legal weight as I cant see any reason why it would be inadmissible in a court of law. It might also deny the defendant the right to a fair trial if it was to be excluded from the evidence and this could form the basis of a subsequent appeal.

It's one of the characteristics of the TVL can of worms that whilst they often imply a level of legal standing to various features of the system, the actual legal standing may be very different (typically non-existent).   The value of the NLN form is defined solely in TVL policies.   It's not a statutory device (like, say, the vehicle SORN declaration), nor is it contractual (because we are not customers of TVL), nor does it have any broad legal value (like an affidavit).    It is simply an administrative step that even TVL do not value (because they say they still may need to "check").

It might be possible to get an affidavit cheaply notarised by a Solicitor, and this could have some legal standing later on in a potential hearing, but the NLN form, not, in my opinion.   What would it say, anyway, just that at a point in time some months previously you submitted your details into TVL's administrative process.  Nothing more than that, in reality - no proof, no penalty for lying, no ID-check...  and if you refused TVL's follow-up step of checking your home, then even TVL's desired process has been broken.

I'd say that attempting to secure some benefit from using TVL's own processes has limited value.   I think the best outcomes come either from ignoring them (effectively using common law rights), or from using actual legal rights against them (where those rights are well-defined in Common Law, PACE, or HRA).   

I didn't say that the NLN form would be inadmissible, but I don't see what value it would offer.  Little, I would say in the two most likely forms of TVL prosecution.  In a case based on confession, it has no value, because your confession is a virtually water-tight piece of evidence in these minor offences.  In a case based on TVL's witness statement that they either heard you confess, or they witnessed evasion first-hand, then their contemporary evidence is much more compelling than a months-old administrative step (even if it was completed voluntarily by you at the time).  

pphillips

It's interesting to think about if someone had already paid for their TV licence in advance were then to submit a no licence needed form, whether or not would they be legally entitled to a refund. TV Licensing's policy to issue a refund is found in policy, not in law, so would the courts enforce it? Its open to debate but I think that the courts probably would find TV Licensing acted unreasonably in disregarding their own policy and it was therefore unlawful to refuse the refund.