TV Licence article Discussion

cw18

I don't recall the direct debit changing mid-way through a payment schedule, but as it's 7.5 years since I had one things may have changed. But the increase on the next payment schedule will take into account the fact you effectively owe them money against the half a year you've paid in advance.

PrometheusUnbound

cw18 wrote: »

If you pay for one, I assume he's under 75? If not, then stop paying and claim the free one he's entitled to.

Sadly, just under 75 at the moment.

But thank you for the tip

RandomQ

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes, the BBC-TVL letters are something of a "dark art" - an unfortunate and inappropriate combination of threat, deceit and optional bureaucracy. Ultimately, though, as you say, largely meaningless and anyone who is doing nothing wrong can simply throw them away with a clear conscience.

For anyone who hasn't seen these letters, this site keeps a catalogue: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/

The problem is that if you are uneducated in these matters you might pay because of the implied threats and fear.

I know a Bulgarian girl who paid, when I asked her what she watches it was only netflix on her laptop in her room.

She was acosted by TVL goon on doorstep and foolishly gave him her name.

They ramped up the letters and she fell for it.

JimmyTheWig

PrometheusUnbound wrote: »

Though my generation, gen. X, do seem to be much less into TV in it's traditional form.

Do you mean Generation X, out of interest?

RandomQ

So the letters on that site say that they are obliged by law to carry out an investigation, is that right? Under what law?

Also I heard that one of the trade offs for allowing them to increase price last year was to decriminalise not having a TV licence, yet 2018 letter on that site says "The maximum penalty is a criminal conviction".

Cornucopia

RandomQ wrote: »

The problem is that if you are uneducated in these matters you might pay because of the implied threats and fear.

Yes, of course. I'm sure that is part of the intention.

Cornucopia

RandomQ wrote: »

So the letters on that site say that they are obliged by law to carry out an investigation, is that right? Under what law?

I've had a long-running dialog with BBC-TVL in which I've invited them to share with the Public that kind of information, and they have so far refused. In my latest complaint (which is, as yet unanswered) I finally found some reasonable official information that indicates that they MUST tell the Public the true basis of the legislative powers that they intend using (if the actions are in-scope of the Human Rights Act). The outcome of that is going to be fascinating. I am not holding my breath, though, because my previous letter took them 7 months to answer. I have asked my MP to ask them to respond, and await developments.

My view is that if there were a simple, uncontroversial answer to the question they would immediately publish it. Therefore there must be some issue of practicality, law and/or embarrassment that forces them to try to avoid publishing. Apart from the obvious issue that the UK does not "do" secret government and policing (well not for something as trivial as this), if the absence of legislation were finally confirmed, it would make any interference with the privacy of members of the public unlawful under the Human Rights Act.

I suspect that it already is unlawful, by virtue of the BBC's unwillingness or inability to publish, and that is the basis of my complaint.

Also I heard that one of the trade offs for allowing them to increase price last year was to decriminalise not having a TV licence, yet 2018 letter on that site says "The maximum penalty is a criminal conviction".

No. The decision not to decriminalise was taken a couple of years ago. TBH, it's not clear whether being a criminal matter or not has any significant bearing on the unpleasant (probably unlawful) ways in which BBC-TVL conduct themselves, and there is more than one way in which decriminalisation could occur (each of which would have different pros and cons). FWIW, I think we should move to abolish the Licence as soon as possible, and have the BBC funded by Subscription, enforced electronically. If they still wanted to call it a Licence, I would be okay with that, but the dubious enforcement tactics need to end.

If you are interested, it was the Perry Review that conducted this analysis for the Government, and the Report and supporting documents (including the community submission I helped with) are still available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/tv-licence-enforcement-review-a-consultation

It doesn't make for particularly great reading, mainly because the investigative stage (where the main TVL misdemeaours are) was deemed out of scope.

[Deleted User]

I don't understand how some people seem to have a lot of dealings with TVL. I've been licence free for 10 years and apart from the standard threatogram in the post every month addressed to the legal occupier, and the odd home visit, maybe once a year, I've had no further dealings with them.

I think if you rant and rave at them then they will keep coming at you but if you keep your head down they leave you alone.

Cornucopia

Deleted_User wrote: »

I don't understand how some people seem to have a lot of dealings with TVL. I've been licence free for 10 years and apart from the standard threatogram in the post every month addressed to the legal occupier, and the odd home visit, maybe once a year, I've had no further dealings with them.

I think if you rant and rave at them then they will keep coming at you but if you keep your head down they leave you alone.

There are a lot of variables, and where you live is one of the most important. Also, there is a question of how each individual household reacts to TVL's efforts - for example, many people would consider a letter a month for 10 years and a visit every year to be excessive, particularly in the context of someone who is entirely innocent of a fairly minor offence.

For my part, my circumstances have always been unusual, in that each time I have moved whilst being LLF, I have generally complained to TVL within a few months of receiving their enforcement letters. I do not consider their tone or content to be remotely acceptable for a variety of reasons. When you make a formal complaint, TVL tend to stop the letters. There are also various legal tactics that you can use to stop visits, too, which I have used in the past. (I wouldn't necessarily recommend those to anyone without a reasonable understanding of them, though).

More recently, I have become more and more legally accurate (I think) in my complaints, and around 2 years ago, the BBC's then Finance Director told me that she had banned TVL from contacting me. I assume that ban in indefinite at this address, and I have not heard from them since.

That, to me, suggests an organisation that is so ill at ease with its own approach that it runs from anyone who appears to have legal knowledge for fear of the consequences.

RandomQ

Deleted_User wrote: »

I don't understand how some people seem to have a lot of dealings with TVL. I've been licence free for 10 years and apart from the standard threatogram in the post every month addressed to the legal occupier, and the odd home visit, maybe once a year, I've had no further dealings with them.

I think if you rant and rave at them then they will keep coming at you but if you keep your head down they leave you alone.

I would agree to an extent but the problem I have is that I want my home to be a place where you can answer the door without being harrassed by a salesmen threatening a criminal record, lying about their right of access and other false claims.

The fact that there is one video with 5 hours of this abuse and the TVL own claims of over 10,000 visits per day seems to me to be extreme.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/cs/media-centre/news/view.app?id=1369783691321

However if you break down the other figures given by TVL, IF YOU BELIEVE THE DOUBLESPEAK it works out at 2.24 visits per year for each household who they think are not corectly licenced.

Number Households 27,200,000
Percent OK 94%
Number OK 25,568,000
Licence Income 3,707,360,000
Not OK 1,632,000
Daily visits 10000
Days P/H between visits 163.20

This is based on the term "correct licences" not sure if that includes pensioners or other exempt people, but if you look at the number of prosecutions they are a small percentage of the 1,632,000.

TVL assume you are guilty, my brother does not have one and declares it on the NoTV, he gets at least 3 visits a year.

I have two neighbours who do not have one, the local TVL goon only harassed the one who is mentally vulnerable, used to knock at his door several times a week. Eventually he got one, then he got a TV, then he got Sky but he really can't afford Sky. He felt he was paying for it so might as well have it.

Half the time Sky stop his service and bill him for the privilege.

He hardly ever watches TV as he is highly medicated and goes to sleep before 8pm and sleeps in till around 2pm.

I do not think he would miss TV and think he would be better off with just netflix for £7 a month and no TV Licence.

===

But new figures from TV Licensing show around 94% of homes have the correct licenses, and the number hasn't changed in the past five years.

https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/how-many-people-really-dodging-11998942