TV Licence article Discussion

[Deleted User]

!!!!!! wrote: »

BBC (and Capita) are only doing what governments (both labour and conservative) have mandated.

No government has mandated, that they send threatening letters, on a monthly basis, to unlicensed addresses.

Likewise, no government has mandated, that they send people to unlicensed addresses, to threaten/intimidate/lie to the occupants.

JimmyTheWig

cjdavies wrote: »

Hope someone can help, I had a TV licence set for February for the 6 nations and planned to cancel the day after it ended, I paid for the whole year as this worked out the cheapest in terms of refund for the 2 months (monthly Direct Debit wanted double for the 2 months).

Filled in the online refund through their website and email it was declined and need to complete an application that is posted out to me.

Got the application this morning, I read section 2 on the back and it says:


The piece of evidence is not applicable to me for my reason above, would I still get one?

Thanks

This sounds similar to what happened to me.
I phoned to cancel.
For some reason the cancelation didn't work.
Some time later I realised I was due a refund and hadn't had one so got back in touch. They said they needed evidence that we hadn't been watching TV for the last 6 months. I asked what evidence they wanted and they accepted that there wasn't really any evidence that would be sufficient so I couldn't have a refund.
Eventually they accepted that the fact that I'd called up to cancel 6 months previously was evidence that we'd stopped watching live TV.

So in your situation, when did you stop watching TV? When did you fill in the online refund? When the online refund was declined was that a technical error that meant your form never got sent, or did they receive it and decline it? When did you post back the form? When are you claiming a refund from?

...

Hold on, just re-read your post and I've got it slightly wrong.
You haven't sent back the form yet.
If you're claiming a refund from the day you send back the form you don't need any evidence to support the form. You just need to declare that you are no longer watching or recording live TV.
If you are claiming a refund from the day you submitted the online form then have you got anything from that online form that you could print and enclose?
If you are claiming a refund from before the day you submitted the online form then I think you'll have problems.

Cornucopia

!!!!!! wrote: »

BBC (and Capita) are only doing what governments (both labour and conservative) have mandated.

Sorry, !!!!!!, but this is so far off the truth.

As Bob has highlighted, if you read the legislation, there is no requirement in there for either the threatening letters or the "house calls". Indeed, there's every reason to believe that the house calls in the form that TVL imply they operate would be unlawful under Article 8 of the HRA. As it is, they are certainly contrary to the spirit of that legislation.

But it's actually worse than that...

1) When I complained about TVL to my previous MP, he got in contact with the DCMS who told him that the law enforcement operation was not a matter for Government, being covered by "BBC editorial independence". Apart from being ridiculous nonsense, it should NEVER happen that a law enforcement operation is not democratically accountable, and we should never tolerate it, if it does happen. The consequences are obvious.

Personally, I see that as Ministerial repudiation, quite the opposite of what you are suggesting. On this basis, I would always recommend that everyone dealing with TVL exercises extreme caution. If it were suggested that TVL have no mandate as a consequence of this, and should be shunned as a pariah organisation, then I would have to agree with that.

2) I have recently put in a new complaint to the BBC Trust about TVL, and they have told me that although TVL has a legitimate legal remit, they will not tell me what it is. Again, totally ridiculous and contrary to proper democratic processes.

Against that background, it's pretty obvious that whilst successive Governments have been negligent over TVL, and over BBC governance generally, it is not true to say that TVL operates according to Government instructions (unless they too are hidden from public scrutiny). On the contrary, the regime raises many matters of legal compliance - the issue being that there does not seem to be a suitable route to challenge those issues other than by expensive Judicial Review.

scousefly

I never watch any of the terrestrial channels I only ever watch or record Sky channels do I still need a TV license?

derrick

scousefly wrote: »

I never watch any of the terrestrial channels I only ever watch or record Sky channels do I still need a TV license?

Yes you do, (legaly).


.

[Deleted User]

scousefly wrote: »

I never watch any of the terrestrial channels I only ever watch or record Sky channels do I still need a TV license?

Yes.

A licence is required to watch/record ANY live TV broadcasts, irrespective of the channel/supplier.

Cornucopia

Cornucopia wrote: »

2) I have recently put in a new complaint to the BBC Trust about TVL, and they have told me that although TVL has a legitimate legal remit, they will not tell me what it is.

The BBC Trust has now responded on this, and also to a set of similar questions that I sent to my MP.

The upshot of it is:-

1. They will not disclose the detailed legal remit of TVL. Even in response to the enquiry by my MP, they maintain the need to hide behind legal privilege. This is not acceptable.

2. They claim that all of their actions within the TVL operation are legitimate and either determined by law or are "reasonably incidental" to it. They have confined their reference to Part 4 of the Communications Act, which usefully contains zero references to Licence enforcement. On this basis, I reject their argument.

3. They claim that their activities include a "consensual search" of people's homes, and that as a consequence of being consensual it cannot be in breach of Article 8.2 of the HRA. I do not believe that there is a consent exemption. (Consent to an unfair trial? I don't think so). I also do not accept that the TVL approach constitutes the required standard of fully informed consent, as a consequence of misinformation, coercion and abuses of process.

Lovelyrita86

After moving to a new house 2 weeks ago I had a knock at my door yesterday. No introduction or ID shown. The guy just started asking questions. Did I live there? Had I just moved in? Do I have a tv? After refusing to answer to this stranger, he was very rude. Informed me he was here from sales team from tv licence and told me I was breaking the law having a tv with no licence and he would be completing the paperwork to take me to court. Feeling annoyed at his manner I told him to do what he had to do. Then he expected me to stand and give him my name and personal details. I ended up closing the door in his face.
I won't be paying for the licence. If I get anymore of the licence employees at my door I'll be doing the same with them.

Cornucopia

That's unfortunately all too common, but you handled the situation well.

The essential point is that you are not obliged to answer his questions, nor confirm your identity, and he is not allowed to badger, bluster, deceive or bully you into doing so.

You might want to make a pre-emptive complaint to BBC/TVL to head off any possible complications that could arise, and potentially get someone sacked who is clearly completely unsuited to the role.

The details are here:-

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

The scheme operates very much on a layered basis, and it unlikely that you will get a meaningful response at the customer services stage (they may even not understand the issues). I would go straight to Stage 1 escalation...

Operations Director
TV Licensing
Darlington
DL98 1TL

Lovelyrita86

Thanks cornucopia. I considered complaining but thought if I did this they would then have my details to chase me up about not having or paying for the licence? He left my door yesterday with no information other than I didn't have a licence. Is this enough for him to take action against me?