TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

It really does depend on exactly what happened, what was signed, etc.

The worst case scenario is that she signed a confession form, called a TVL178, which could then be used to prosecute her. How long ago was it? Is she in Scotland?

The TVL salesperson should have left her a copy of the form, if it was that, as well as cautioning her before interview, like they do on TV police shows.

Personally, I would be making a complaint about this individual now. Doing that can start to identify what TVL think happened, as well as getting the guy well on the way to being sacked. He is also liable for a civil claim for trespass, and potentially a criminal offence called aggravated trespass. Your daughter can investigate these with a Solicitor/CAB for the first one and the Police for the second.

reb

He only left a payment card with her. How do we go about complaining about it. Where do we start?

Cornucopia

I would write to:-

Operations Director TV Licensing
Darlington
DL98 1TL

The full complaints process is shown on this page:-

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/making-a-complaint-AB7

[Deleted User]

Did she give her name?

derrick

Cornucopia wrote: »

It really does depend on exactly what happened, what was signed, etc.

The worst case scenario is that she signed a confession form, called a TVL178, which could then be used to prosecute her. How long ago was it? Is she in Scotland?

The TVL salesperson should have left her a copy of the form, if it was that, as well as cautioning her before interview, like they do on TV police shows.

Personally, I would be making a complaint about this individual now. Doing that can start to identify what TVL think happened, as well as getting the guy well on the way to being sacked. He is also liable for a civil claim for trespass, and potentially a criminal offence called aggravated trespass. Your daughter can investigate these with a Solicitor/CAB for the first one and the Police for the second.

Where is the trespass? I cannot see where he got past the door.

Civil trespass will be hard and expensive to prove.

"Criminal aggravated trespass" do you really think the police will be bothered?

.

Cornucopia

derrick wrote: »

Where is the trespass? I cannot see where he got past the door.

Civil trespass will be hard and expensive to prove.

Trespass in that he remained on the property having been asked to leave. Proof depends on the exact circumstances of the incident, but putting together a claim under the Small Claims procedure is cheap and easy. If a modest amount (£250?) is claimed for distress, it may well go undefended.

"Criminal aggravated trespass" do you really think the police will be bothered?

It'll probably come down to the force concerned and other incidents (or not) at the time.

Either way, we must do something to confront these people. The alternative is more victims of TVL and more companies who think they can behave in similar ways.

derrick

Cornucopia wrote: »

Trespass in that he remained on the property having been asked to leave. Proof depends on the exact circumstances of the incident, but putting together a claim under the Small Claims procedure is cheap and easy. If a modest amount (£250?) is claimed for distress, it may well go undefended.


It'll probably come down to the force concerned and other incidents (or not) at the time.

Either way, we must do something to confront these people. The alternative is more victims of TVL and more companies who think they can behave in similar ways.

I totally agree with you about TVL and their "enforcers", but suing for trespass unless you have expressly forbidden them is unlikely to go anywhere, especially with the police irrespective of which force it is.

As you do not know what type of property it is you cannot know that "he remained on the property having been asked to leave", if it was a terraced house he would have been stood on the pavement, (a public place), I also cannot see in the OP where she told him to leave, only, "He insisted he would not leave until she gave him her bank details.", again if on a pavement he did not have to leave a public area, and until she asked him to leave why would he?

The OP said, "he could see the tv from the door", i.e. ergo not "on" the property, unless property had a drive or other access off the public footpath.



.

Cornucopia

derrick wrote: »

I totally agree with you about TVL and their "enforcers", but suing for trespass unless you have expressly forbidden them is unlikely to go anywhere, especially with the police irrespective of which force it is.

As you do not know what type of property it is you cannot know that "he remained on the property having been asked to leave", if it was a terraced house he would have been stood on the pavement, (a public place), I also cannot see in the OP where she told him to leave, only, "He insisted he would not leave until she gave him her bank details.", again if on a pavement he did not have to leave a public area, and until she asked him to leave why would he?

The OP said, "he could see the tv from the door", i.e. ergo not "on" the property, unless property had a drive or other access off the public footpath.

So, yes, as I said, it comes down to the exact circumstances.

FWIW, I think a Court would probably take a forthright view of the territorial issues around being harassed at one's own front door, and not necessarily be bound by the literal letter of the floorplan. (Especially in the context of the wording of Article 8 of the HRA).

I take "he said he would not leave..." as being sufficient demonstration (again, for these purposes) of his refusal to leave. I consider that there are two possibilities - one where he said it in response to an invitation to leave, and the other where it was an aggressive indication of his imposition of his will over any and all rights she may have possessed. Either way works for me in terms of the basic proof beyond the balance of probabilities required in a civil action. But IANAL.

derrick

Cornucopia wrote: »

So, yes, as I said, it comes down to the exact circumstances.

FWIW, I think a Court would probably take a forthright view of the territorial issues around being harassed at one's own front door, and not necessarily be bound by the literal letter of the floorplan. (Especially in the context of the wording of Article 8 of the HRA).

I take "he said he would not leave..." as being sufficient demonstration (again, for these purposes) of his refusal to leave. I consider that there are two possibilities - one where he said it in response to an invitation to leave, and the other where it was an aggressive indication of his imposition of his will over any and all rights she may have possessed. Either way works for me in terms of the basic proof beyond the balance of probabilities required in a civil action. But IANAL.

And we come down to the usual his word against her word, a very unlikely successful outcome for the OP


"But IANAL". Me neither

.

Cornucopia

Balance of probabilities is all that's required: any better than 50/50 in her favour and she wins. I quite like those odds.

There's also the question of both personal liability for the TVL operative and corporate liability for the company. Not sure how that works - whether you have to choose one, or whether you could go for both.