TV license sjp notice advice

Cornucopia

FreeBear said:

Cornucopia said: Any of these should see TVL undertake the "walk of shame", although the more technical ones might take some persuading.

"The law allows me to use reasonable force to eject you from my property if you do not leave peaceably."

Yes... I'd be a bit careful with that one.

Something like:  "If you do not leave immediately as I am asking you to do, you will become a trespasser(*) and that will enable me to call the Police to have you removed, to sue you for the stress and anxiety you are now causing me/us, and in the most extreme case to use reasonable force to remove you myself".

(*) They will be a trespasser if they need to remain on your land to stand where they are.  If they are on public property or, say, the common parts of flats, then it becomes a bit more complicated.

Personally, I'd probably use one of the legal measures above - declining to be interviewed is pretty effective.  In the event they aren't leaving fast enough, and they are still speaking their enforcement script, then "trespass" could be an option.

iniltous

Presumably it’s already the case that the OP ‘admitted’ that they watch Sky , if they watch Sky as it’s broadcast then a licence is required, ignorance of the law is no defence, to subsequently claim they made a mistake and they realise that they don’t actually watch any  Sky TV  ‘live’ and only use catchup services may stretch credibility.
All the advice to not answer the door , or make no statement whatsoever etc. are a little irrelevant now , if the OP has already admitted they need a licence because they watch Sky ( sports )
 All they can really hope for , is that because they now having a licence , there won’t be a penalty for the undetermined period when they needed a licence but didn’t have one ….

Cornucopia

iniltous said:

Presumably it’s already the case that the OP ‘admitted’ that they watch Sky , if they watch Sky as it’s broadcast then a licence is required, ignorance of the law is no defence, to subsequently claim they made a mistake and they realise that they don’t actually watch any  Sky TV  ‘live’ and only use catchup services may stretch credibility.
All the advice to not answer the door , or make no statement whatsoever etc. are a little irrelevant now , if the OP has already admitted they need a licence because they watch Sky ( sports )
 All they can really hope for , is that because they now having a licence , there won’t be a penalty for the undetermined period when they needed a licence but didn’t have one ….

We don't know exactly what the OP has admitted to because it's on the TVL form, which none of us have seen.   Based on previous experience, it may well be quite vague.   

The discussion on not getting involved in TVL questioning is more for other readers' benefit, but also to say to the OP:  don't be too hard on yourself - the system is set up to exploit people's lack of knowledge about the law.

TV Licensing prosecutions are mostly based on confession, but AIUI, it's not like a normal confession to a crime - that is a genuine admission made in good faith and with contrition.  It's more deceptive than that - closer to being extracted by a combination of bluster, deceit, failure to explain the full context and failure to explain the full extent of the interviewee's legal rights.   It's a pretty dreadful way for the BBC to conduct itself - so much so that it bears general discussion.

edit:   The advice not to speak with TVL at your home may seem a bit rude or uncooperative.   The problem is that several of the issues with their interview approach are quite technical.  Rather than get into the weeds of that, falling back on more basic rights not to be interviewed is a much more straightforward recommendation because they don't rely on legally complex description/understanding and they don't have any possible legal consequences.

Xenon

Simply say No thank you goodbye and close the door

End of story