'We notice you've been using iPlayer?' email after watching iPlayer at parents house

Cornucopia

Bronvahl said:

@Cornucopia I have admired your balanced approach for years, I am far more brutal although these days I just leave them to look awkward on my ring doorbell until they booger off.

I don't agree with all the suggestions by the so called Black Belt Barrister, he suggests that they have far more rights than I would accept, for example he suggests they can go through your phone, and all sorts.  I would not allow access to my phone to anyone under any circumstances, I don't use fingerprint or facial recognition either (mostly in case I got mugged).

I don't have any means to watch BBC except on Netflix and I blocked the routers and servers that deliver BBC iPlayer.  So they will never get a warrant unless they lie (not the first time) and they would never get access. 

I do play fairly, I don't pay so I don't watch, I would never install BBC iPlayer on any device, sometimes it is better to install your kit and say you are in India so you don't get UK channels and do not have to delete them.

He fails to distinguish between CATCHUP and Apps like More4 etc, mostly his video helps TVL because of his interpretation.

Although you might lose the will to live watching one of his videos in full as he drones on and on in his almost monotone voice, I would be interested in your views on this video

Thanks.

I think BBB is on a bit of a journey of understanding of the TV Licensing regime.   The issue he has is that he has many years of training and practice in treating the law as the defining reference point, but for TV Licensing it isn't, or at least it is highly obfuscated.   

So, any interpretation or guidance he gives can potentially be weaker than necessary because it does not reflect wider knowledge about TVL outside the legislation.   

In this video, I disagree with two key pieces of info he gives....

1)  I do not agree that the status within the law of computing devices is the same as with AV equipment.   It's not as clear-cut as it used to be because the wording of the legislation changed, but realistically a lot of people have phones and never use them to receive TV broadcasts or access iPlayer.   They also typically lock them.   His advice later not to even get into this discussion with TVL staff is correct, though, and avoids all of this complexity.

2)  I do not agree that a TVL Warrant confers a general duty of assistance.   There are two requirements:  firstly not to obstruct the execution of the warrant (which itself raises questions), and secondly to provide reasonable assistance in the process of examining and testing any TV receiver.   Even then, TV receiver has a special meaning in the law which is more restrictive than plain English.

Overall, I like to watch his videos, even if it is to pick holes in them.   I'm hoping that at some point he will come to the realisation that TV Licensing are not the good guys, and that there are a lot of practical and legal questions about what they are doing.   

Cornucopia

powerful_Rogue said:

Bronvahl said:

@Cornucopia I have admired your balanced approach for years, I am far more brutal although these days I just leave them to look awkward on my ring doorbell until they booger off.

I don't agree with all the suggestions by the so called Black Belt Barrister, he suggests that they have far more rights than I would accept, for example he suggests they can go through your phone, and all sorts.  I would not allow access to my phone to anyone under any circumstances, I don't use fingerprint or facial recognition either (mostly in case I got mugged).

I don't have any means to watch BBC except on Netflix and I blocked the routers and servers that deliver BBC iPlayer.  So they will never get a warrant unless they lie (not the first time) and they would never get access. 

I do play fairly, I don't pay so I don't watch, I would never install BBC iPlayer on any device, sometimes it is better to install your kit and say you are in India so you don't get UK channels and do not have to delete them.

He fails to distinguish between CATCHUP and Apps like More4 etc, mostly his video helps TVL because of his interpretation.

Although you might lose the will to live watching one of his videos in full as he drones on and on in his almost monotone voice, I would be interested in your views on this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd7GQLjqKg0

If they obtain a search warrant, you have a duty to assist them with accessing devices. If you don't, then you've committed an offence. He makes it very clear that this power is only if they have a search warrant.

 

It isn't a general duty to assist, though.  It is confined to examination and test of TV receivers.   Specifically, there is no requirement to assist in searching for TV receivers.

In the case of computing devices (phones, tablets and computers) I understand that there is no duty to unlock password-protected devices, which is an additional complication not mentioned.

TVL Warrants are extremely rare, though, so for most people all of this is of only academic interest.

km1500

If they have a warrant, then you have a duty to help them operate any TVs, PVRs etc. So if they ask 'which button on the remote powers on the TV' you are obliged to tell them

They are specifically NOT allowed to examine any desktops, laptops, phones etc.

ShiroLon

I'd like to bump this thread, if I may.

Like a good boy, I've routinely sent my opt-out in every other year when it's due.

Today, I received a letter in the post addressed to me, personally, claiming that my opt-out is void because someone in my household used BBC's iPlayer.

I just want to let it be known that this marvellous extortion tactic is precisely that: an extortion tactic.

Nobody in my household watches iPlayer. Nobody in my house is even registered with any BBC service whatsoever. Nobody in my house watches TV, nor is our TV in any way, shape, or form connected to any live TV. We use it solely for gaming and shows/movies bought through Google/Amazon.

So know, without a shadow of a doubt, that they send these threats out to people as little more than phishing attempts to con people with guilty consciences or even just a slight twinge of fear of incrimination because they lack absolute certainty into paying.

We have absolute certainty. We have no guilty consciences.

This is the legal definition of extortion. It just lends further credence to the fact that they use mafia-esque gangster tactics to try and coerce money from people.

I was ambivalent about the whole TV licence thing, but I am now 100% opposed to this nonsense. Well done, them.

powerful_Rogue

ShiroLon said:

I'd like to bump this thread, if I may.

Like a good boy, I've routinely sent my opt-out in every other year when it's due.

Today, I received a letter in the post addressed to me, personally, claiming that my opt-out is void because someone in my household used BBC's iPlayer.

I just want to let it be known that this marvellous extortion tactic is precisely that: an extortion tactic.

Nobody in my household watches iPlayer. Nobody in my house is even registered with any BBC service whatsoever. Nobody in my house watches TV, nor is our TV in any way, shape, or form connected to any live TV. We use it solely for gaming and shows/movies bought through Google/Amazon.

So know, without a shadow of a doubt, that they send these threats out to people as little more than phishing attempts to con people with guilty consciences or even just a slight twinge of fear of incrimination because they lack absolute certainty into paying.

We have absolute certainty. We have no guilty consciences.

This is the legal definition of extortion. It just lends further credence to the fact that they use mafia-esque gangster tactics to try and coerce money from people.

I was ambivalent about the whole TV licence thing, but I am now 100% opposed to this nonsense. Well done, them.

Just ignore, not even worth bothering with the 'licence not required'

Licence free since 2015. No visits, lots of threatning letters.

Swipe

This the extra hassle you get for filling in no licence needed forms. Stop giving them unnecessary info and just bin their monthly letters unopened.

FlorayG

This is interesting, because i complete the 'no licence required' thing every two years and only this week had a letter addressed to 'The Legal Occupier' saying 'We understand there have been changes at this address. Please complete form etc..."
There haven't been ANY changes at this address for two years and they know my name. Scare tactics for sure. I won't bother responding in future

brewerdave

FlorayG said:

This is interesting, because i complete the 'no licence required' thing every two years and only this week had a letter addressed to 'The Legal Occupier' saying 'We understand there have been changes at this address. Please complete form etc..."
There haven't been ANY changes at this address for two years and they know my name. Scare tactics for sure. I won't bother responding in future

Had something similar when my mother died. Contacted TVL Bereavement dept. to declare no licence now needed and wouldn't be for at least a month as we were clearing out the apartment and TV had been removed. All fine.
HOWEVER, about 4 days after ,a letter dropped on the mat as mentioned above. Obviously keen to get the new occupier to purchase, even tho no-one had moved in !

Clicker9180

My mother-in-law received a similar email. They have a TV license at their house which I believe is connected with my father-in-law's email but I'm not sure!.

Anyway, I know that my mother-in-law has a (separate?) account that she uses for iPlayer on her phone. This account has her postcode in the account settings. However, as mentioned, this is not the email they used for the TV license. Same house though, so it shouldn't matter.

Now, she got an email which was addressed to ME and mentioning MY postcode saying that iPlayer was watched here and I need to buy a TV license for my house. (I previously filled out the form saying I don't need a TV license.)

Needless to say, we will just ignore this email. But I am confused how they even connected her iPlayer account to my house? Her account uses a different email address that doesn't contain my name, that I've not used when filling out the "no license needed" form, that I can't access...

Do they get IP addresses from the ISP? When she's babysitting she sometimes shows the children Night Garden or Clangers on her phone before bedtime so that would have been through our Internet but as others have said would be covered by her TV license anyway.

I just don't get how they "connected" my address with her iPlayer account/email?

Cornucopia

TV Licensing are using a commercial data broker called "Sagacity" as one source of email addresses paired to street addresses for the purposes of this email matching.   It's early days, but if there were inaccuracies in the Sagacity data, it wouldn't be that surprising.