TV Licence intimidation

Petriix

I had great success in the past formally withdrawing their implied right of access (allowing someone to approach your door to knock or post something through your letterbox). They acknowledged my letter then never hassled me again. 

iniltous

I’m always a little confused by those that say, I don’t need a licence , I have informed  the appropriate authority’s, but they say they may check I’m not lying to them ….if they don’t consume the items that the licence ‘pays’ for, where is the problem , even in the highly unlikely event of a visit, they cannot simply burst in , and even if they did gain entry , that person would have nothing to fear as they don’t watch live TV or use Iplayer….the cynic in me suspects that many who say they don’t need a licence, probably do watch things that basically do need a licence, maybe not many , but some , and the reason why they are concerned is that they know that they are cheating the system to save a few ££.
If you genuinely don’t need a licence, why worry …if you feel you shouldn’t be checked up on, we’ll unfortunately there are many dishonest people that would take advantage, and it’s impossible to separate the genuine ‘don’t need a licence’ from the ‘I’m not paying’ , if you don’t think you should have to answer the door to them, don’t, same as you don’t need to answer the door to sales people , religious groups, political canvassers ,etc….
Should the BBC be funded by a licence fee is a different question 

Cornucopia

The problem with it is that the Public are not answerable to the BBC and their outsourcer.   So when they say that we are, they are not telling the truth.    That's quite annoying.   They are quite annoying.   There's the likelihood that they are not playing fair in other ways, too.  

It's not hard - if I am not answerable to the BBC, then let's not have them saying otherwise.   If I don't have to have them at my property, let's not have them saying otherwise.   If I don't have to speak with them or answer their questions, let's not have them saying otherwise.   Let's not have them using misleading terms like "investigation".   Let's not have them using marketing gimmicks as a kind of misleading garnish to the main misleading entree.

It's about whether we want our public authorities to deceive and mistreat us, or not.   I prefer: not.   I would have thought that would be objectively preferable.

iniltous

At the same time , presumably you would accept that there are those that will say they don’t need a licence but do, ( and know they do ) and if it simply became the equivalent of a BBC honesty box , then funding will collapse, I suspect that most of the non payers would be glad, yet abroad the BBC is probably the most trusted broadcaster anywhere ….
I would argue that being asked are you freeloading on a service that others pay for isn’t unreasonable, it is annoying I would concede for the honest non payer to be asked multiple times, but we have ticket inspection on trains, and there isn’t an uproar from those with a ticket at the injustice of having to prove that they are travelling legitimately, catching those riding for free and issuing a fine is confirming that being honest is worthwhile, I cannot see the difference with a TV licence , you have if you have no licence and no need for one, and the legitimate non payers should also applaud the attempt to catch the freeloaders as it reflects on them , as a legitimate non payer is likely regarded as a freeloader because of them. 

Cornucopia

Well, I am one of those people who does not have a TV Licence.   I do not watch/record any scheduled TV broadcasts, and I do not use BBC iPlayer to watch BBC TV programs.   I can't answer for the honesty of other people without Licences - but the BBC does.   They say that 83% of people who said that they didn't need a Licence were found to be telling the truth.

You may not be aware of the sheer complexity that the BBC has created by adopting the approach it has with the enforcement of the TV Licence.   

If the BBC had a legal authority for its enforcement activities, I would be happy to co-operate.   But they don't and therefore it's my prerogative to co-operate or not, as I see fit.   In that context, dishonest messaging by them is not the answer.   If they need more powers, then they need to persuade the Public and the Government of that.   Those powers would then need to be rationalised in terms of what is possible under the Law, what is consistent with other legislation, and what is proportionate.

The difference with ticket inspectors and other law/contract enforcers is that they are not generally claiming powers they do not have, and if they did the authorities would likely stop them.   

I do feel slightly sorry for Licence-payers.    But non-payers are not your enemy - that is TV Licensing.   It is they who operate ineffectively, who cannot access swathes of the unlicensed population, who barely use the one legal power they have, who have treated unlicensed people badly over a prolonged period of time, thus guaranteeing their reluctance to co-operate.

mrochester

The problem for the BBC is that there is no technical mechanism using the technology that we have (over the air) to stop someone watching the BBC if they haven’t paid.

The current license arrangement means that those who watch it pay and those who don’t, don’t, and that’s largely based on a combination of both honesty and enforcement.  Many European countries have public service broadcasting paid from general taxation which everyone pays regardless of whether you consume those services or not. 

For the OP, the best thing to do is declare that no license is required and then ignore any further correspondence and don’t act upon it. This is one of the side-effects of the BBC funding being on an honour and enforcement basis. 

wild666

LimeGreenPine said:

I have a family member who is getting hassle from the TV licence people. They cancelled thier TV licence because they dont watch any live TV on any device and have never used iplayer. They went the right route and even got a refund and has a copy of the email when they cancelled. Now they said they are sending enforcement officers to thier home. They were recently hospitalised because of stress. How can we make this stop?

Any letters I receive I look on the back for a return address and if they start DL98 then it goes straight in the bin without opening as I know it's from TV Licensing. 

wild666

400ixl said:

Have they followed the process to inform them officially they do not need a license? Just cancelling and getting a refund results in what they are seeing if they don't do the follow up part.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/easy-read/what-to-do-if-you-dont-need-a-TV-Licence

Declare you don't need a licence ONCE then you shouldn't have to renew it again. I know people move address every day but many live in one property all their working lives and longer so ONCE should be all that's needed. If TVL want to know who lives at an address they should buy copies of the open registers available from councils. This won't give the names of all but it will give an idea of some who don't opt out but are on the open register. 

If you don't have a TV licence then always opt out of being on the open register for voting purposes

Cornucopia

mrochester said:

The problem for the BBC is that there is no technical mechanism using the technology that we have (over the air) to stop someone watching the BBC if they haven’t paid.

The current license arrangement means that those who watch it pay and those who don’t, don’t, and that’s largely based on a combination of both honesty and enforcement.  Many European countries have public service broadcasting paid from general taxation which everyone pays regardless of whether you consume those services or not. 

For the OP, the best thing to do is declare that no license is required and then ignore any further correspondence and don’t act upon it. This is one of the side-effects of the BBC funding being on an honour and enforcement basis. 

As always with this topic there is more detail and more history.   

The Freeview standard was modified by the BBC when they took it over from the failed On Digital/ITV Digital services.   They removed the card slot from the standard which had the benefit of making it cheaper, but it was also done to make it harder for technical controls over BBC viewing to be added later.   Other platforms (Satellite, Cable TV) could implement such controls.

The problem is as much ideological as technical, as the BBC believe (and have persuaded many commentators) that the present Licensing system provides universal access to the BBC's services.   This is something of a sleight of hand in that whilst it is technically universal, it isn't legally or financially universal.    Illicit viewing can't really be held up as a benefit of the current system.

The technology now exists to easily control access to BBC TV and Internet services, and that is what needs to be implemented.

mrochester

Cornucopia said:

mrochester said:

The problem for the BBC is that there is no technical mechanism using the technology that we have (over the air) to stop someone watching the BBC if they haven’t paid.

The current license arrangement means that those who watch it pay and those who don’t, don’t, and that’s largely based on a combination of both honesty and enforcement.  Many European countries have public service broadcasting paid from general taxation which everyone pays regardless of whether you consume those services or not. 

For the OP, the best thing to do is declare that no license is required and then ignore any further correspondence and don’t act upon it. This is one of the side-effects of the BBC funding being on an honour and enforcement basis. 

As always with this topic there is more detail and more history.   

The Freeview standard was modified by the BBC when they took it over from the failed On Digital/ITV Digital services.   They removed the card slot from the standard which had the benefit of making it cheaper, but it was also done to make it harder for technical controls over BBC viewing to be added later.   Other platforms (Satellite, Cable TV) could implement such controls.

The problem is as much ideological as technical, as the BBC believe (and have persuaded many commentators) that the present Licensing system provides universal access to the BBC's services.   This is something of a sleight of hand in that whilst it is technically universal, it isn't legally or financially universal.    Illicit viewing can't really be held up as a benefit of the current system.

The technology now exists to easily control access to BBC TV and Internet services, and that is what needs to be implemented.

Yes the technology now exists to control access. But as a country we need to decide whether the BBC is a public service broadcaster or just another Netflix or Amazon Prime. We need to be careful how we proceed as culturally we have a lot of reach with the BBC; there’s not many Americans who will have heard of Channel 4 or ITV but they almost certainly will know what the BBC is.