Monthly TV licence

KingVictorS

I’d like to flag what looks like a regressive and misleading structure in the TV Licence payment options, especially for people who pay monthly because they can’t afford the upfront cost.

Key points:

The annual licence is £174.50 if paid in full.

The monthly direct debit plan is heavily front-loaded. In the first 12 months, payers are pushed into effectively paying for more than one year’s licence, so they end up in credit with TV Licensing. An extra cost of £87 over the 12 months.

The problems as I see them:

Regressive impact

People who can’t afford £174 upfront are likely to choose the monthly plan.

Those same people are then forced into the most expensive and cash-flow–damaging option, paying far more in the first year than someone who can afford to pay annually.

It looks like a system that penalises low-liquidity households rather than helping them “spread the cost”.

Lack of transparency on the monthly “catch-up year”

The website markets the monthly option as a way to spread the cost, but does not clearly state that the first year is inflated to get the payer a year in advance. (“Because of the law is written” but it is not clear that the first year will total more than any other payment method TV Licensing (Payment by Direct Debit) Regulations 1991 states : Regulation 10(2) – “the first licence paid for by monthly direct debit must be paid for in no more than six instalments”.

I’m concerned that:

The people least able to pay are pushed into the harshest structure.

The true cost and prepayment nature of the monthly plan are not explained plainly.

The quarterly surcharge is presented in a way that understates the real extra amount paid.

Could you and your team look into:

Whether the monthly “catch-up year” and its impact on low-income households meet fair treatment and transparency standards.

Whether TV Licensing should be required to show a clear explanation that the monthly scheme involves paying in advance so that the first 12 months costs are £87 more than any other method.

This feels like the kind of quietly regressive structure that hits exactly the people who can least afford it.

p00hsticks

This appears to be directed at Martin personally - I don't believe he actually reads this site, he's just a figurehead. You'd be better contacting him via the ITV show at martinlewis@itv.com 

Cornucopia

That is how the law is written, though.   I expect it will be the first thing that gets reformed in any changes in 2027.  

I think there is already a different scheme with no advance payment requirement for those on low incomes.  

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ305

fatbelly

...if you need to pay it at all

https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/broadband-and-tv/tv-licence/

Suzycoll

KingVictorS said:

I’d like to flag what looks like a regressive and misleading structure in the TV Licence payment options, especially for people who pay monthly because they can’t afford the upfront cost.

Key points:

The annual licence is £174.50 if paid in full.

The monthly direct debit plan is heavily front-loaded. In the first 12 months, payers are pushed into effectively paying for more than one year’s licence, so they end up in credit with TV Licensing. An extra cost of £87 over the 12 months.

The problems as I see them:

Regressive impact

People who can’t afford £174 upfront are likely to choose the monthly plan.

Those same people are then forced into the most expensive and cash-flow–damaging option, paying far more in the first year than someone who can afford to pay annually.

It looks like a system that penalises low-liquidity households rather than helping them “spread the cost”.

Lack of transparency on the monthly “catch-up year”

The website markets the monthly option as a way to spread the cost, but does not clearly state that the first year is inflated to get the payer a year in advance. (“Because of the law is written” but it is not clear that the first year will total more than any other payment method TV Licensing (Payment by Direct Debit) Regulations 1991 states : Regulation 10(2) – “the first licence paid for by monthly direct debit must be paid for in no more than six instalments”.

I’m concerned that:

The people least able to pay are pushed into the harshest structure.

The true cost and prepayment nature of the monthly plan are not explained plainly.

The quarterly surcharge is presented in a way that understates the real extra amount paid.

Could you and your team look into:

Whether the monthly “catch-up year” and its impact on low-income households meet fair treatment and transparency standards.

Whether TV Licensing should be required to show a clear explanation that the monthly scheme involves paying in advance so that the first 12 months costs are £87 more than any other method.

This feels like the kind of quietly regressive structure that hits exactly the people who can least afford it.

Hi
I pay monthly 
I'm sorry I don't quite understand your post - are you saying paying monthly is more expensive? 

eddddy

Suzycoll said:
Hi

I pay monthly 
I'm sorry I don't quite understand your post - are you saying paying monthly is more expensive? 

No - it's not more expensive to pay monthly. You don't pay any interest or fees.

Instead, you pay half the fee in advance, and half the fee in arrears.

For example, if your licence renews on 1st July 2026, you pay your 12 monthly installments of  £14.54 on:

• 1st Jan 2026, 1st Feb 2026, 1st March 2026, 1st April 2026, 1st May 2026, 1st June 2026, 1st July 2026, 1st August 2026, 1st Sept 2026, 1st Oct 2026, 1st Nov 2026, 1st Dec 2026

So in simple term, the OP's complaint is that you have to pay 6 installments of £14.54 ( = £87.54) in advance - before your licence is renewed.

But in my opinion, that's balanced out exactly, because you don't have to pay the other 6 installments of £14.54 ( = £87.54) until after your licence is renewed.

Personally, I think that's a reasonably fair solution.

Cornucopia

Once it passes the 6 month point, it seems pretty fair.

However, before that, you're paying twice as much each month, and this then forms 6 months credit going forward.   You only get that back as a refund upon cancellation.  

eddddy

Cornucopia said:

Once it passes the 6 month point, it seems pretty fair.

However, before that, you're paying twice  much each month, and this then forms 6 months credit going forward.   You only get that back as a refund upon cancellation.  

Actually - it's even fairer for the first 6 months. You get interest free credit for 6 months.

But that only happens in the first year.

To illustrate, let's say you buy a new TV licence on 1st July 2026.

• Instead of paying £174.50 on 1st July 2026

• You pay six installments of £29.10 ( = £174.60) on 1st July 2026, 1st August 2026, 1st Sept 2026, 1st Oct 2026,1st Nov 2026, and 1st Dec 2026

So you're getting some interest free credit from 1st July 2026 until 1st Dec 2026.


Then from 1st Jan 2027 - you start paying £14.54 per month for your next licence which will start on 1st July 2027. (As described in my previous post.)

Cornucopia

I suspect it's a perspective thing - fair if you are interested in it as a cashflow thing, but not so much if you are concerned with the difference between £14pm and £28pm (and if having TVL holding on to £85 of your money long-term is problematic).  

I expect that if nothing else changes in 2027, this will.  It's just too complicated and contradictory to the notion of helping people on low incomes.