TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

mbmonty wrote: »

As far as I am concerned, as long as it is not mail for another property, what comes through my door is MINE! I do not anticipate being arrested any time soon and I shred most of them now.

Technically it is an offence to interfere with the Mail. Opening other people's mail and destroying it would both be covered by that, I think. I appreciate that overall you are saying that the law is out of step with the practicalities, but, well... you know.

cw18

mbmonty wrote: »

Not wishing to pick an argumnet, but my understanding is that it is only an offence to interfere with the Royal Mail (some ancient law hardly ever enforced) and once you put it through the door your job is done and there can be no further interference.

My understanding is that is IS an offence, however.....

Incredibly rare
A Royal Mail spokesman admits it's unlikely prosecutions could be brought, simply because of the difficulty of getting evidence. Furthermore, he's not aware of anyone having been prosecuted for throwing misdelivered mail away.
The reported cases of prosecutions for tampering with the mail are incredibly rare, and involve rogue postmen.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

Technically it is an offence to interfere with the Mail. Opening other people's mail and destroying it would both be covered by that, I think.

It's a bit more complicated than that.

Postal_Services_Act_2000_Section_84 wrote:

(3) A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a person’s detriment and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.

mbmonty

krixike wrote: »

appreciate your honest opinion & advice, indeed!
it is really shocking though, that even if paying for a service provider to use broadband, some other "crafty" "authorities" feel the right to rip you off for any nonsense reason they call it..
Anyway, hopefully will sort it out now by this and ignoring these mails, however am a bit uncertain in case my agent (advertising the property via the landlord) notices this that at the end of my tenancy with them and in case moving elsewhere, they try to withhold the deposit for the flat before I pay in the license fee...
Can they do that? Are they normally also notified by TVL on my broadband subspription or outstanding payment obligation towards TVL?
It might be a bit too unealistic, but you never know...or do you?

I am sorry this has worried you so much, there is a very simple rule when it comes to TVL

DO NOT ENGAGE

Do not answer door to them

Do not answer any questions or confirm or deny, SAY NOTHING

Do NOT say it is OK for them to film you (as she does in video below)

They are known to behave in a bad way, trying to incriminate disabled people with mental health conditions and selling them a licence even when they do not need one (TV was old analogue CRT type and not even capable of live TV).

They are also really rude, you open the door and instead of saying Good Morning they open with ARE YOU THE OCCUPIER and if you ask them who they are they just repeat the same.

They are easy to spot, they have a little black folder with all their silly forms and a silly device.

They have no right of entry, in fact nobody does without a warrant, so unless you owe the Council money for one of their parking fines or you do not pay your poll tax you can tell anybody to Foxtrot Oscar.

So you have NOTHING to worry about, you do not need to explain yourself or use ccleaner to clear your laptop because even if you let them in, they have no right to go trawling through your laptop.

To get a warrant they have to prove they have grounds, this usually means they see a TV through the window showing Eastenders at the time when Eastenders is transmitted live. They have been known to lie to a Court and been caught doing it.

That is why their name is mud, they are scum.

Have a look at a few videos of the TVL Goons on YouTube and you will see you have nothing to worry about. In this one she gets rid of him but she should not have authorised him to film her, her porch is not a public place and he has no right to film her, see how he then tried to get her to admit even her name.

If you just do not open the door or slam the door in their face they will go.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=698Kznqy7ys

More here:

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tv+license+goons

mbmonty

NewSaver2018 wrote: »

It is a good concept. However, I had a depressing run in with tv Licensing before when I moved into a new flat...
The old people had not paid and I had to first deal with the threatening letters I only opened when they were addressed to the occupier... So I had the threat of court action and bailiffs to put off as I wasn't me who owed them .. Then they started on me, I had not even got a TV before the letters started arriving, so I thought it would be a matter of waiting until I actually got one before paying for a license! However I received more letters saying they have to come round and check, which I wasn't happy about as I did not know exactly when I was going to get a TV, I was out all day from morning to night, and I would have thought they would take my word as I explained I would start to pay for a licence when I got my TV.but the letters kept coming.. In the end I got so fed up I just paid, it turned out two months for no reason and a sarky "thankyou for realising that, after all, you do need a licence" note from them.. .. It's all on direct debit and I can't face the hassle of going through that again!
Maybe I am just not suited for Money Savings after all!!

CANCEL YOUR DIRECT DEBIT IMMEDIATELY

If you want to waste money send it to me or donate it to a worthy charity.

Mind you I know a few people who work for Crapita at quite high level and there is a feeling that they are on borrowed time.

Apparently moral is really low, those that are staying are people are waiting for bonuses and plan to leave soon after.

They told me that there is a restructuring plan in place, but people critical to the delivery and payment of their IT projects are being let go.

We have seen this before, it usually results in clients not paying, so company ends up in an even worse position.

Nobody in their right mind would lend them money as it would be throwing good money after bad, there has been talk of Government bail out but not possible because of EU Law.

If they do go under it will be interesting to see if TVL is spun off or sold.

Cornucopia

mbmonty wrote: »

If they do go under it will be interesting to see if TVL is spun off or sold.

I think that the options for TVL are possibly more limited than that. The BBC owns the TV Licensing brand name, as well as the designs of the databases that hold the data, and the data itself. Therefore most of the intellectual property (such as it is) of TV Licensing is owned by the BBC, and is therefore not available to be used as an asset in any private dealings by Capita. (Or at least should not be).

If Capita go bust, I think that the BBC will engage another of the outsourcing drudgery companies. I imagine there will be a period of a few months during which the new company will bring its services online. They may also TUPE existing staff from Capita into the new TV Licensing regime.

The bigger picture, though, is that I would hope that both the public spectacle of the changeover, and the practical details will mean that the moral, legal and practical inadequacies of the TV Licensing approach come under new scrutiny, leading potentially to reform.

In particular, I'd like to see:-

- Communication that was honest and transparent, and sent at a more rational frequency than the existing monthly missives which are a pointless waste of resources.

- Legal compliance with the letter and the spirit of all relevant legislation and legal principles.

- Proper consideration of what steps need to be taken by the Courts to ensure justice in every TV Licensing case.

- Removal of cash incentives from TVL doorsteppers.

- Removal of pointless contracts with third parties to hand-deliver TVL calling cards.

Cornucopia

NewSaver2018 wrote: »

The old people had not paid and I had to first deal with the threatening letters I only opened when they were addressed to the occupier... So I had the threat of court action and bailiffs to put off as I wasn't me who owed them .. Then they started on me, I had not even got a TV before the letters started arriving, so I thought it would be a matter of waiting until I actually got one before paying for a license! However I received more letters saying they have to come round and check, which I wasn't happy about as I did not know exactly when I was going to get a TV... In the end I got so fed up I just paid, it turned out two months for no reason...

I can imagine that if you've just moved in to a new property that the TVL letters must feel very timely and personal to your situation. The only problem is - they aren't. The letters concerned are sent in their millions (around 90 million a year), and the personalised details are simply the tools of the mass marketing arsenal.

"Scam" tends to be an overused word on MSE (though you can understand why). However, TV Licensing is a scam (of a kind). Although in your case, you lost money through it, most people don't lose out financially. However, the TVL scam is about something arguably more valuable - citizens' rights. The right to honest communications from public authorities, for example.

JimmyTheWig

Cornucopia wrote: »

Have you any ideas about how to square the circle on international streaming of TV channels? If TVL are going to mess people around on this (and those people are often working with less experience of the English language or British bureaucrats) what are we/MSE supposed to do in providing advice on the issue - other than the patchy and cautious response I've already given?

If it was a situation I was in, then I'd call and describe my situation and ask them to confirm that I didn't need a licence. If they said I did then I would ask them to clarify on what basis.
If they were unable to clarify, or their response went against my reading of the law, then I would escalate through their complaints procedures.
But I understand that that is an awful lot of hassle, that many people wouldn't be prepared to do.

JimmyTheWig

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

The loophole is to watch as much as you are allowed to without needing a licence.

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

That's not a loophole.

It's simply operating within the law.

It's within the letter of the law but against the spirit of the law. Which is what I would define as a loophole.
Loopholes must be within the law / rules to be a loophole, otherwise they'd be illegal / fraudulent.

Cornucopia

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

It's within the letter of the law but against the spirit of the law. Which is what I would define as a loophole.
Loopholes must be within the law / rules to be a loophole, otherwise they'd be illegal / fraudulent.

If we're still talking about the option to watch, say DVDs on a TV without requiring a Licence to do so, then that is what is technically known as a Lacuna. (Which is what the law calls the things that most people know as a "loophole").

Literally, lacuna means "gap". So it is a gap in the law (where no law applies) that is presumed intentional.

A loophole, by contrast is technically an unintended issue with the law, and I don't believe for one moment (given the sheer amount of detail involved) that the "non-Broadcast" lacuna is/was anything other than intentional.

The way our law is constructed requires a distinction between what requires a Licence and what doesn't, and what we have is simply the latest iteration on that distinction. Other jurisdictions (most notably Ireland) don't require that kind of distinction because their laws are structured differently. In Ireland, all TV type displays require a Licence, but there is an exemption for small screens.

The other thing, whilst I'm writing a long post, is that if anyone here is straying from the spirit of the law, it is the BBC and TV Licensing.