TV Licence article Discussion

Zapito

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

They're not obliged to respond.

Of course. But to do so is courteous; probably sensible as well.

Why should they explain anything?

To be helpful, which in my experience is generally a rewarding way to proceed.

How about "innocent until proven guilty"?

That only applies in situations involving habeas corpus, eg court proceedings. It does not preclude suspicion or even accusation.

Cornucopia

Zapito's position seems quite strange to me - old-fashioned, even.

He seems to view morality through the eyes of corporations - in this case BBC/TVL/Capita. Whereas most people, I think, view morality as about person-person issues and conduct.

When a Corporation approaches me, I tend to be asking the following questions:-

- What do they want & why do they want it?

- Is what they want credible? Is it an error on their part? Does it reflect good or bad customer service?

- What are my legal obligations (either by reference to statute, or to any contract that might govern the relationship)?

- If what they want isn't required by law or by contract, is there any downside, expense, hassle, etc. to me in doing what they want anyway?

- Is there a broader legal/social issue in play?

- Does what they want avoid harm to other individuals (including their own employees if we are talking about a genuine safety concern on their part)?

Unfortunately, on that basis, BBC/TVL have struck-out. What they want isn't legally or contractually required, there are downsides and there are broader issues in play. It's also part of a broader administration for which there are many, many reports of incompetence, including JimmytheWig's one, above.

BBC/TVL need to learn that if you want something from someone that they are not legally obliged to give them, being nice to them and doing things properly are the first steps in addressing their objections. (It may be in this case that they cannot progress far upon that approach, but it would be a start, I think. They also need to bear in mind that it may not win over hard-core cynics like me, but it may have an effect on the overall LLF community).

There are a couple of points from the above letters that are worth mentioning:-

- I would probably not challenge them to obtain a Search Warrant. Warrants are very, very rare, but there is no point in waving the red rag to the TVL bull. There's also an issue that they have previously (mis)used such statements as partial justification for Warrants, so not a good idea from that perspective, either.

- I don't think it's necessary to go through all of the licenceable activities you are not doing. A simple: "I believe my household is legally compliant" is enough - they should be presuming that, anyway. I have no need to tell the Ministry of Agriculture that I'm not tethering a goat to my tractor, and I don't see the need to do the equivalent with BBC/TVL.

- It is not the form that is being doctored (well not this form, anyway). It is the data - i.e. personal data about who lives at a particular address and their contact details. Therefore any correspondence has a small, but potential risk, including your letters. It is not only the refund form or the on-line "declaration".

- I can't imagine anyone seriously wanting to forego their refund.

- In the past, anti-harassment letters have had mixed results.

In the group I belong to, we generally recommend ignoring BBC/TVL as the simplest, most effective strategy for LLF people. I accept that you probably think of that as being unhelpful, but there is a long, long list of reasons why., that I won't bore you with. It is a consensus amongst the group that has developed over many years, and unless there is a good reason to change (new BBC/TVL policy, compelling alternative strategy, change in the Law), then it's not going to.

JimmyTheWig

Zapito wrote: »

If I ever decide to go LLF (which is not likely because personally I think the licence is a fabulous bargain)

I agree. For those who use it it is brilliant value for money. [We weren't really using it, so for us it was a waste of money.]

then I think I would try and be pro-active. I would probably start by writing to them ... Something like this:

But why should you need to spell it out like that?
Your tone is, actually, agressive towards them before they've even started with you.

If you hadn't read these stories online then you wouldn't know that you needed to write such a letter.

The gas man is allowed to periodically come round and read the meter. He doesn't come at all hours of the day and make a nuisance of himself, even though I may have used more gas than I've paid for. Goodwill is shown on the part of the gas company that I will let them read the meter when they need to. Likewise I didn't have to write to the gas company to say when it was appropriate to come around and to point out to them that if they came too often I would take steps to prevent them from doing so. Goodwill is shown on my part.
The fact that that goodwill seems to be missing with TVL demonstrates the problem.

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Zapito's position seems quite strange to me - old-fashioned, even.

Possibly, in some ways. Some may think that not a wholly bad thing.

He seems to view morality through the eyes of corporations - in this case BBC/TVL/Capita. Whereas most people, I think, view morality as about person-person issues and conduct.

Good manners cost nothing. A "corporation" is only a collection of people, nothing more.

When a Corporation approaches me, I tend to be asking the following questions:-

OK...

- What do they want & why do they want it?

It's obvious. They want reassurance that you are playing the game fairly. Of course they are unsure of themselves, which is probably why they are so full of bluster (only human, remember!).

Is what they want credible? Is it an error on their part? Does it reflect good or bad customer service?

Of course it's credible, they need to know whether they should be coming after you or not (see previous point). What has "customer service" got to do with it? Where's the customer? It's not you, after all, which you are making perfectly clear!

What are my legal obligations (either by reference to statute, or to any contract that might govern the relationship)?

Again, you are claiming there is no "contract".

If what they want isn't required by law or by contract, is there any downside, expense, hassle, etc. to me in doing what they want anyway?

Nothing but good manners and self-interest.

Is there a broader legal/social issue in play?

Such as?

Does what they want avoid harm to other individuals (including their own employees if we are talking about a genuine safety concern on their part)?

They are attempting to avoid loss to others. Possibly not very effectively, if much of what you say is accurate. But always remember, these are fallible human beings.

Unfortunately, on that basis, BBC/TVL have struck-out. What they want isn't legally or contractually required, there are downsides and there are broader issues in play. It's also part of a broader administration for which there are many, many reports of incompetence, including JimmytheWig's one, above.

I'm not getting all these "broader issues". Do I detect a touch of paranoia here?

BBC/TVL need to learn that if you want something from someone that they are not legally obliged to give them, being nice to them and doing things properly are the first steps in addressing their objections. (It may be in this case that they cannot progress far upon that approach, but it would be a start, I think. They also need to bear in mind that it may not win over hard-core cynics like me, but it may have an effect on the overall LLF community).

Yes, you probably have a point. Of course, the Beeb is basically an arty-farty organisation and like so many of such a temperament there is a tendency to stamp feet when a degree of calm common sense might well prove to be more fruitful.

I would probably not challenge them to obtain a Search Warrant. Warrants are very, very rare, but there is no point in waving the red rag to the TVL bull. There's also an issue that they have previously (mis)used such statements as partial justification for Warrants, so not a good idea from that perspective, either.

Fair enough. I'll take another look at that. Hey, this is a bit like a committee meeting, innit!

PS: I've just gone back and killed that paragraph.

I don't think it's necessary to go through all of the licenceable activities you are not doing. A simple: "I believe my household is legally compliant" is enough, and they should be presuming that, anyway.

You are probably right technically, but that was a direct crib from them, and I thought their more lengthy wording ensured they could not pretend I wasn't giving them the information they thought they wanted.

It is not the form that is being doctored (well not this form, anyway). It is the data - i.e. personal data about who lives at a particular address and their contact details. Therefore any correspondence has a small, but potential risk, including your letters. It is not only the refund form or the on-line "declaration".

Okidoke. Probably misunderstood there. I'd probably keep it in though 'cos it might unsettle them a bit. And you know, the thing about a physical letter is that you can keep a photocopy of it (which I certainly would) so that it cannot be doctored by them without discovery. Also provides concrete evidence to counter any data doctoring.

I can't imagine anyone seriously wanting to forego their refund.

Seventy quid? I spent more than the other day buying a new kitchen tap, and over a further fifty having it installed! But as I think I said elsewhere, for lots of folk things are a bit tighter than that. But I'd happily use it as a means of discomforting them a bit with the "Children in Need" issue.

In the past, anti-harassment letters have had mixed results.

I.E. some success. Worth a pop then!

In my group, we generally recommend ignoring BBC/TVL as the simplest, most effective strategy for LLF people. I accept that you probably think of that as being unhelpful, but there is a long, long list of reasons why., that I won't bore you with. It is a consensus amongst the group that has developed over many years, and unless there is a good reason to change (new BBC/TVL policy, compelling alternative strategy, change in the Law), then it's not going to.

Well, that's basically what my system is. One letter at first, then a standard note to refer to it thereafter a few times until the harassment letter, after which it becomes a whole new ball game. But the overall aim is to quickly get to a position of "Don't call us; we'll call you."

Zapito

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I agree. For those who use it it is brilliant value for money. [We weren't really using it, so for us it was a waste of money.]

Fair enough. Although not quite clear what "not really using it" means. It's a fixed charge, just 'cos you don't use it a lot doesn't get you off paying. Like in many cities there's a standard bus fair, whether you go one stop or fifty. You were either using it or not using it, in my view.

But why should you need to spell it out like that?
Your tone is, actually, agressive towards them before they've even started with you.

Well all your lot seem to think they are aggressive, and I have to admit the tone of their letters is not exactly friendly so, on the basis of "When in Rome..." it's an attempt to speak with them in their language. That's only good manners, after all.

If you hadn't read these stories online then you wouldn't know that you needed to write such a letter.

Ain't the internet wonderful! :beer:

Actually I did know a bit from a rather blunt speaking Yorkshire lass I know who is an LLF. But you're right, I'm learning a lot from this. In fact, it's all getting bloomin' tempting to give it a bash, just to see how I get on.

The gas man ... demonstrates the problem.

No grumbles with that. But what you do depends what you are after, for me it'd be a quiet life. Technically. Like, you know, the way I deal with cold callers is "for a quiet life". Spend hours winding the beggars up!

JimmyTheWig

Zapito wrote: »

Fair enough. Although not quite clear what "not really using it" means. It's a fixed charge, just 'cos you don't use it a lot doesn't get you off paying. Like in many cities there's a standard bus fair, whether you go one stop or fifty. You were either using it or not using it, in my view.

I guess I didn't make myself clear about the different past tenses at play.

Up until February 2014 we were using it a little bit. We had a licence.
We realised that the little we were using it was, for us, not worth the licence fee. So we stopped using it completely and cancelled the licence.

Interestingly, we're now thinking of getting it back. Haven't decided yet. I personally can't see the point, but will probably get outvoted.


Oh, and as to the

Well all your lot seem to think ...

I'm not part of a "lot" when it comes to this.

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

Possibly, in some ways. Some may think that not a wholly bad thing.

I'm ambivalent about it, until you bring it in to discussions with me, or try to judge other people's behaviour by your atypical standards.

Good manners cost nothing.

Indeed - and if BBC/TVL were ever polite, transparent and fair with me, I would treat them accordingly. Until that day, though, we are where we are.

A "corporation" is only a collection of people, nothing more.

I totally disagree with this - it's incredibly naive. Do you really think that the person who causes the threatening letters to be sent to me really, personally, wants to send them? I doubt it. There is a "hive mind" at work, here, a series of decision-makers who decide what the policy of the Corporation should be, and in this case decide to inflict it on people like me.

It's obvious. They want reassurance that you are playing the game fairly.

Do they though? They don't believe you when you tell them. It's simply a process to them - to tee you up for the home inspection.

Of course it's credible, they need to know whether they should be coming after you or not (see previous point).

How will they know? What could I possibly say or not say to them that would satisfy their lust for Licence fees?

What has "customer service" got to do with it? Where's the customer? It's not you, after all, which you are making perfectly clear!

My list is a general list. Although I note that the section of BBC/TVL that deals with LLF people is called "Customer Relations".

Again, you are claiming there is no "contract".

Indeed. No contract, and no legislation - I am not answerable to them,

Nothing but good manners and self-interest.

"Good manners" - you have to be joking. Their communications have rotten, stinking manners (amongst other things). I'm actually relatively polite to them in the face of that, but it's always there at the back of my mind. Unfortunately, good manners and giving them what they want are two different things as your own draft letters show.

Such as?

We owe it to vulnerable people in the population not to tolerate corporate behaviour that is abusive, misleading, has poor governance, is unfair, is unlawful.... you get the idea.

They are attempting to avoid loss to others. Possibly not very effectively, if much of what you say is accurate. But always remember, these are fallible human beings.

The ineffectiveness comes from the system they are trying to operate. They need to take that "off-line" and redesign it. That's something that Corporations can easily do. There's only loss to Licence fee payers, if the cost to them has increased to offset evasion. Has the cost increased to offset evasion? That would be useful to know. I know there was a BBC story a while back about this, but when I looked in to the figures it turned out to be smoke and mirrors.

I'm not getting all these "broader issues". Do I detect a touch of paranoia here?

No, not paranoia. More public-spiritedness. I'm not surprised you don't get the wider issues - it's not really your thing, is it?

Yes, you probably have a point. Of course, the Beeb is basically an arty-farty organisation and like so many of such a temperament there is a tendency to stamp feet when a degree of calm common sense might well prove to be more fruitful.

Isn't that the point of having TVL and Capita - to bring some very dull administrators to the arty-farty-party?

Well, that's basically what my system is. One letter at first, then a standard note to refer to it thereafter a few times until the harassment letter, after which it becomes a whole new ball game. But the overall aim is to quickly get to a position of "Don't call us; we'll call you."

Not really - for me "no contact" means literally that. If you are writing to them, then it's not "no contact".

I'm curious though... surely writing them a legally defensive letter is contrary to your previous notion that doing what they want is "good manners"? Or have I missed something?

Zapito

Cornucopia wrote: »

Indeed - and if BBC/TVL were ever polite, transparent and fair with me, I would treat them accordingly. Until that day, though, we are where we are.

A point of real difference between us. I tend to try and meet people halfway - although I do occasionally misjudge the distance

Do you really think that the person who causes the threatening letters to be sent to me really, personally, wants to send them? I doubt it. There is a "hive mind" at work, here, a series of decision-makers who decide what the policy of the Corporation should be, and in this case decide to inflict it on people like me.

I reckon there's a "Mr/Ms Mean" in there somewhere pulling the strings of all the "Mr&Ms Beans". They are terrified of him/her, and it all comes out badly. I smell bully beef!

They don't believe you when you tell them. It's simply a process to them - to tee you up for the home inspection.

The inspection which hardly ever actually arrives, it would seem. :hello:

What could I possibly say or not say to them that would satisfy their lust for Licence fees?

Well that would be the objective of my little letter sequence. Basically let 'em understand they aint gonna get any.

My list is a general list. Although I note that the section of BBC/TVL that deals with LLF people is called "Customer Relations".

Just 'cos they misunderstand the position don't mean you have to as well. And of course, from their view they want you to be one, whereas you definitely don't.

Indeed. No contract, and no legislation - I am not answerable to them,

Definitely not a customer then

"Good manners" - you have to be joking.

Yeah, think I probably was. Well, if was into it I'd see it all as a bit o' fun. Like bear-baiting Only without any (legally) dumb animals involved.

We owe it to vulnerable people in the population not to tolerate corporate behaviour that is abusive, misleading, has poor governance, is unfair, is unlawful.... you get the idea.

Yeah, but there's more than one way to skin a rabbit (actually not sure there really is - but you get my point).

Has the cost increased to offset evasion?

Stands to reason.

That would be useful to know.

Erhem - er (tiny voice): FoI?

I'm not surprised you don't get the wider issues - it's not really your thing, is it?

What was that you once said? About attacking the man rather than the argument?

Isn't that the point of having TVL and Capita - to bring some very dull administrators to the arty-farty-party?

Dull yes. But they don't need to be stupid, necessarily. But the Beeb probably thinks it's employed someone with a "firm hand", whereas looks to me more like a little Adolf (and we all know what a right muck he made of things!

Not really - for me "no contact" means literally that. If you are writing to them, then it's not "no contact".

Whatever works. Is your way working for you?

I'm curious though... surely writing them a legally defensive letter is contrary to your previous notion that doing what they want is "good manners"? Or have I missed something?

Defensive?

Whatever, I'm only speaking to them in their language (which is the essence of good manners BTW). I reckon it'd probably work fine (despite my accent!)

God, I am sooooo tempted to give it a whirl! Just for the hell of it.... :D

Can't see my other half goin' for it though!

Zapito

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

I guess I didn't make myself clear about the different past tenses at play.

Up until February 2014 we were using it a little bit. We had a licence.
We realised that the little we were using it was, for us, not worth the licence fee. So we stopped using it completely and cancelled the licence.

Interestingly, we're now thinking of getting it back. Haven't decided yet. I personally can't see the point, but will probably get outvoted.


Oh, and ...

I'm not part of a "lot" when it comes to this.

Maybe you could get a B&W TV and just use that for "live". Still could get catchup on your computer presumably - until my campaign gets it changed so you'd need a proper licence for that

Apologies for the "you lot", probably was a bit rude of me. Like I don't like being called ... er no, I don't think I'll tell you that!

Page 100. _party_Hooray!!!

Cornucopia

Zapito wrote: »

A point of real difference between us. I tend to try and meet people halfway - although I do occasionally misjudge the distance

I am quite happy to meet people halfway (or even further). Not corporations, though. With their hive mind, corporate responsibilities, fancy lawyers and PR-savvy they really should be more focused on the fair, proportionate, legal-compliance remit. If they aren't I'm also much more liable to presume malice than mishap.

I reckon there's a "Mr/Ms Mean" in there somewhere pulling the strings of all the "Mr&Ms Beans". They are terrified of him/her, and it all comes out badly. I smell bully beef!

The most likely candidate is this lady:



Her name is Pipa Doubtfire (sometimes the phrase: "you couldn't make it up", doesn't seem nearly strong enough), and she is the BBC's Head of Revenue Management. She is the senior manager who runs TV Licensing. I have to say that in her one PR photo and in her dealings with me, I don't get a strong sense of inner rage, but you never know.

It's an interesting question, though. I'd always assumed multiple corporate failures in order to get to where TVL are, but could it be the malign influence of one individual (with a complete failure of all the "checks and balances")?

The inspection which hardly ever actually arrives, it would seem.

They make nearly 4 million attempts every year, so it would be wrong to say they aren't trying. But, yes, not everyone gets one. Including, presumably, some people who actually are evading. This is the point: the TVL process is broken in both directions - too harsh on the innocent, too soft on the guilty.

http://www.tvlicensingannualreview2013.co.uk/

Yeah, but there's more than one way to skin a rabbit (actually not sure there really is - but you get my point).

In the sense that I/the group that I belong to can help vulnerable people when TVL come after them? Yes, we do do that. But it's very frustrating to see a supposedly responsible organisation putting the fear of God into someone, especially if explaining to them that it isn't real and it isn't true can be quite difficult. There's also a whole group whose vulnerabilities are more to do with paranoia than learning problems - for them, TVL ticks all the boxes, and many just end up buying Licences they don't need.

Stands to reason.

Given that it's been frozen for several years, and in that time, Licence revenue overall has gone up, I tend to think that it's not that obvious.

Erhem - er (tiny voice): FoI?

Try to imagine that the BBC are not going to give out any useful information - that will really help.

What was that you once said? About attacking the man rather than the argument?

Yes - my bad.

Whatever works. Is your way working for you?

Like you, I can't resist the temptation to write to them. In my case, in the form of formal complaints about what they do and why. That has the tendency to trigger various processes inside BBC/TVL such that they don't then hassle you. (It's self-preservation from their point-of-view, I think. I'm the last person they want to have an encounter with a poorly trained member of their staff).

Defensive?

You're laying down the law and generally warding them off. Isn't that rude, or are you moving away from the notion that responding to them is "just good manners"?

Can't see my other half goin' for it though!

It can be a hard sell for those who love their telly.