TV Licence article Discussion

[Deleted User]

cw18 wrote: »

I told them I no longer needed a licence in order to get a refund paid by monthly D/Debit, so was due 3 months on the one in force plus 3 months paid in advance for the next). That was fast approaching 5 years ago and I've had no hassle from them at all, so I really don't understand why people are so adamant that the best way is to have no contact.....

You were a lot luckier, than these poor devils.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/lies-of-licence-officer-1658210

And that, together with the obnoxious/demanding/threatening behaviour, of some of their doorsteppers, is why I won't say word one to them.

DavidP24

You must be the exception that proves the rule, just watch the way they behave on YouTube, some of them violently.

They do not have a freephone number, they do not behave in a reasonable manner, they do not take you word but want to invade your privacy, maybe you told them you were 75, that is the only area where I have seen then respond reasonably.

TVL, Capita or Crapita as it is referred to online is in the business of data sharing, they run all kinds of databases and they seem to think that they have the right to cross reference them and use that data when they are the ones contacting you. They also contact you under false pretences, for example they contacted people who were shareholders, in the name of the chairman, they hid that despite them using the logo of their client you would be calling them and lose 15% of your entitlement (something you would get FREE if you just called the company).

Why do you think people stated videoing them with their phones, even then they behaved in an underhand way (see the leaked emails online) and ironically they used Article 8 of the human rights act to try and get those videos taken down. That is why I download a copy and if I see them take down a video I syndicate it to 50 video sites.

People are adamant because Crapita do not behave honourably, they are not reasonable, they are on commission and are only interested in scaring people into paying whether they need to or not.

cw18 wrote: »

I told them I no longer needed a licence in order to get a refund paid by monthly D/Debit, so was due 3 months on the one in force plus 3 months paid in advance for the next). That was fast approaching 5 years ago and I've had no hassle from them at all, so I really don't understand why people are so adamant that the best way is to have no contact.....

[Deleted User]

DavidP24 wrote: »

Bob is right, NO CONTACT is the way to go, except to tell them to Foxtrot Oscar if they call.

I wouldn't even speak to them, to tell them to Fk Off.

if they know your name and have seen a TV, they can get a warrant to inspect.

They don't actually need either of those.

cw18

DavidP24 wrote: »

They do not have a freephone number, they do not behave in a reasonable manner, they do not take you word but want to invade your privacy, maybe you told them you were 75, that is the only area where I have seen then respond reasonably.

I used the on-line form to say I no longer needed as I don't watch live TV on any platform. I had a letter from them when I bought a new TV (whilst they were still informed of such purchases), and another after 2 years to check I still didn't need. Both times all I had to do was complete an on-line form to state I still didn't need.

DavidP24

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

They don't actually need either of those.

The anti TVL sites suggest they DO need evidence that there is a TV, this can be a TVL rep giving a statement that they have seen a TV displaying live TV and they usually say what the programme was. There is a classic case on YouTube where it was shown they faked this info.

In order to issue a Court Order it has to be aimed at a name individual or else when they turned up with the Police the person can say "please show me the Order so I can verify the validity, then reject it because they are not the person named on the order"

You are right though, not to engage them, they will just try to get you to incriminate yourself.

[Deleted User]

DavidP24 wrote: »

The anti TVL sites suggest they DO need evidence that there is a TV

Well, the law says they don't.

Communications_Act_2003 wrote:

366 Powers to enforce TV licensing

(1) If a justice of the peace, a sheriff in Scotland or a lay magistrate in Northern Ireland is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing—

(a) that an offence under section 363 has been or is being committed,

(b) that evidence of the commission of the offence is likely to be on premises specified in the information, or in a vehicle so specified, and

(c) that one or more of the conditions set out in subsection (3) is satisfied,he may grant a warrant under this section.

In order to issue a Court Order it has to be aimed at a name individual

Incorrect. A Search Warrant is for a property, not a person.

It merely requires the correct address.

You are right though, not to engage them, they will just try to get you to incriminate yourself.

That is correct. The police have a saying:-

"If you can get a man to speak, you can get him to talk."

DavidP24

As has been said, you seem to be the exception to the rule as evidenced by the plethora of videos on YouTube.

Also you gave up your privacy by giving your name, that data can and will be shared, right now it does not bother you, at some point when it works against you you might.

I know of people in hard to reach places who have not been followed up and I know people in very busy London areas that have not been bothered, UNTIL they get around to it and after that they pester pester pester.

We do not have to SUBMIT ourselves, it is for them to prove us guilty not us to prove innocence

Crapita are a despicable company, its operatives can be seen on YouTube behaving in an underhand manner, trying to trick people.

Some people are sent to jail, that costs society way too much in prison costs and social services costs never mind the impact to the family.

Yes one can make arguments that some of those people have an iphone but do we want to jail them and not have space for a real criminal? Even if they were guilty it is more likely due to them being ignorant or incompetent. As such people are likely to be the poorer members of our society I would flip it, deduct the £12.12 a month from benefit and have them able to claim it back by proving they do not watch live (or soon to be Catch-up) TV.


We do not need these crapita thugs and crapita needs to be raided and inspected by the EU commissioner for data protection, ideally they should be shut down, too many bad practices, it is sytemic in the organisation.

Would be interesting if some of the exTVL staff started making videos of what they were told to do, like the guy who fakes interviews because he was pressured to catch a huge number of people. He gets a criminal record but Crapita walk away scott free.

A good target for Rogue Traders to send people undercover and record TVL

cw18

DavidP24 wrote: »

As has been said, you seem to be the exception to the rule as evidenced by the plethora of videos on YouTube.

Also you gave up your privacy by giving your name, that data can and will be shared, right now it does not bother you, at some point when it works against you you might.

YouTube is only EVER going to record the bad experiences, so I don't think it's fair to say I'm the exception to the rule based on what's on there.

And as for giving them my name, they already had it as I'd had a licence for this property for over 8.5 years before I cancelled. So I've not given them any new info by completing the form.

DavidP24

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

Well, the law says they don't.


Incorrect. A Search Warrant is for a property, not a person.

It merely requires the correct address.



That is correct. The police have a saying:-

"If you can get a man to speak, you can get him to talk."

I would disagree for a number of reasons

"satisfied" is variable, so it depends on the judge

There are other common laws that apply

Most importantly, even if they searched they have to have evidence against an individual.

A bit like the reason so many fake parking penalty notices fail on private land, they have to prove you were the driver, if you respond and say you are the registered keeper but you were not the driver at the time.

Some have found ways to get you to incriminate yourself. but most Judges throw them out

So if you let a room to a lodger and they had to get a TV license and you made a submission to the Court it would be that person who was liable and had to be charged.

All of this does not matter because if you say nothing it does not become an issue.

I quite enjoy not watching live or catchup TV, it puts me in control of my life.

Long term I see a lot of people ditching conventional TV, removing Tuners, getting things like Netflix and Plex.

Then we will see the Government coming after us for another tax, one on breathing air.

[Deleted User]

DavidP24 wrote: »

As such people are likely to be the poorer members of our society I would flip it, deduct the £12.12 a month from benefit and have them able to claim it back by proving they do not watch live (or soon to be Catch-up) TV.

It cannot be overstated, how much I disagree with this idea.

It reverses the burden of proof, which you were referring to, just a couple of paragraphs earlier.