TV Licence article Discussion

George_Bray

i just found the following text on the TV Licensing web site. The declaration procedure and three year follow-up seem quite fair, together with one visit to make sure you're not one of the people who get it wrong. Perhaps the guys on the ground are simply a lot more aggressive. My inclination would be to let them in every time, until they get fed up and go away.

On detection, does anyone know what they'd be picking up with a hand held detection device? Emissions from the tuner module of the TV or set-top box? Radiation from the HT of a cathode ray tube? Is there as much 'output' with LCD screens? Or is it all a load of bluff?

"Telling us that you don't need a TV Licence

We've made it even easier for you to tell us that you don't need a TV Licence. Just enter your details in the online declaration form.
If you think that you've already told us you don't need a licence, but would like to check your status with us, please fill in the online check form.
After you send us your declaration

When we receive your declaration, we'll send you a letter confirming the next steps. These are:
We will send a TV Licensing officer to your address to confirm the situation. This is because when we visit people who have told us they don't need a licence, a quarter of those we contact do, in fact, need one.
Once our officer has confirmed that you don't need a licence, your address will not be contacted again for at least three years.
After the three-year period, we will contact you to confirm that you still live at the address, and that your situation hasn't changed.
If, during a visit, we find that you do in fact need a licence, you'll need to pay the full licence fee. Please note that you may also face prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000."

DETECTION

Hand-held detection devices - Enforcement officers may use a hand-held detection device to measure

both the direction and the strength of a TV signal. This makes it easy for us to locate TV receiving

equipment in even the hardest-to-reach places.

Detector vans - We also have a fleet of detector vans that can detect the use of TV receiving

equipment at specifically targeted addresses within 20 seconds.

George_Bray

This really is an interesting subject. Here's two more links well worth a read. There's every different opinion under the sun:

http://www.tvlicensing.biz/detection/index.php

http://www.guardian.co.uk/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-22440,00.html

Volcano

http://www.tvlicensing.biz/detection/index.php

To re-emphasise, it is irrelevant whether the detection technology the BBC/TVL claims to have actually works. Evidence cannot be heard in a court of law unless it is available to both the prosecution and the defense, and since TV Licensing and the BBC refuse to disclose the technology they use, gathered results cannot be admitted as evidence.

Nice!

George_Bray

moonrakerz wrote: »

TVL have the same right of access as your milkman. If you write to TVL and tell them that you are removing their "implied rights of access" to your property, if they then set foot on your property you can take legal action against them.

Does that mean access inside the home, beyond the front door, or simply walking up the garden path? Without a search warrant, I agree they can't force a way in unless the resident gives permission. So what difference does it make if you "remove their implied rights of access" in advance?

timmmers

George_Bray wrote: »

I'm sure you're right about not needing a licence but, if you don't let them in to see for themselves, and just slam the door, don't you risk comeback in the form of a fine and potential court summons? Legal action sounds like a nightmare, even if you're not guilty. It might be very difficult to persuade them to withdraw a fine and even more worrying to have to attend court.

Yes you do. I got both. Because I sent a cheque to pay the licence and when the envelope came back it had no licence, just my cheque for less than the fee as the thing had gone up the day I sent it. I stupidly thought it was the licence and just put it in my document drawer assuming it was fine.

You can't get fines and they can't do anything if they can't get in or see a TV...rubbish. If something similar happens to anyone here though, I have some strange advice. Don't go to court full of apologies explaining that you tried to pay and it was a cockup, they won't care. Tell them you are a drug addict and/or alkie...tell them you are stony broke due to this...you'll walk away with a warning and no fine. I saw that happen to everyone but me that day. :rotfl:

t

moonrakerz

George_Bray wrote: »

Does that mean access inside the home, beyond the front door, or simply walking up the garden path? Without a search warrant, I agree they can't force a way in unless the resident gives permission. So what difference does it make if you "remove their implied rights of access" in advance?

It means "your property", depending on where that starts: front door, garden gate, end of your quarter mile drive.

It means that you have a cast iron case to sue them. You may be able to ask the Police to remove them. Of course, any "evidence" that they might gather during such a visit is not acceptable in Court as they are acting unlawfully to obtain it.

I have done this; even better, I have confirmation of the fact that TVL have accepted this in a letter to me from my MP - can't get better than that !

Just to add to Volcano's post about the technology not being acceptable as evidence in Court - it is highly likely that TV detector vans are classed as "covert surveillance", which has be authorised at very high level AND on an individual basis. This has never been tested in Court (like the technology) because TVL know that they would lose and their whole operation would be publicly shown to be a sham.

George_Bray

moonrakerz wrote: »

It means "your property", depending on where that starts: front door, garden gate, end of your quarter mile drive.

Thanks - I understand it better now. I guess the objective is to prevent them coming close enough to cause any grief. But, on the other hand, it must flag up to the TVLA that anyone writing with such a legal notice is a 'trouble-maker' in their eyes. Might that attract more attention and hassle, than just letting them in to look around, if you have nothing to hide?

moonrakerz

George_Bray wrote: »

But, on the other hand, it must flag up to the TVLA that anyone writing with such a legal notice is a 'trouble-maker' in their eyes. Might that attract more attention and hassle, than just letting them in to look around, if you have nothing to hide?

No - that is why they were "forced" to make a statement in Parliament that they would not take such action as implying any guilt on the part of the householder.
From what I have read, no one who has done this has not had any trouble - it is a shame that you can't issue such a notice on them direct to stop all the c**p through the post as well ! But a letter to them from your MP works quite well.

George_Bray

I will be keeping two TVs in order to watch DVDs. I will also retain a DVD recorder and VHS deck capable of receiving analogue TV, and a Freeview box capable of picking up digital TV. It's just that I won't use them to watch or record live TV. I can remove the lead from the aerial socket on the wall but I don't want to remove the aerial from the roof. It would be expensive and I might want to start watching TV again in a year or two's time. Such a situation must be more risky than if you don't even have a TV in the house. Is it worth the risk?

Here'a a case which refers to the question of whether you own a TV - not whether you use it to watch live broadcasts:

http://www.marmalade.net/lime/david_guest.html

I'll have two TVs. They will be working and flickering from a DVD source. I know I'd be in the right but is this inviting trouble, given the thugs which the BBC send round.

Volcano

George_Bray wrote: »

Here'a a case which refers to the question of whether you own a TV - not whether you use it to watch live broadcasts:

http://www.marmalade.net/lime/david_guest.html

I'll have two TVs. They will be working and flickering from a DVD source. I know I'd be in the right but is this inviting trouble, given the thugs which the BBC send round.

That case was from the early 90s, now it's far more common to not need a TV licence given the other uses a TV can be used for such as PC monitor for DVDs, internet, photo viewing etc. As they lost that case it's extremely unlikely they'd try that tactic again and similarly lose face (especially as now it'd be around the internet in a flash!)

It boils down to whether you can stand up to being bullied in your own home. Personally I have a peephole in my door; if I don't recognise the caller then the door stays shut. I have a telephone and email for communication and a letterbox too, plenty of avenues available should anyone wish to contact me, but personal callers? Sorry but that's an option that's not available to people I don't know personally. They can hammer on the door and shout through the letterbox but I'll never answer it.

Of course it could be many years (if ever) that they decide to come around, the www.bbctvlicence.com site shows that with some people (probably rural middle class areas in my opinion) it's just not worth their while to bother at all.