TV Licence article Discussion

RandomQ

I had a funny TVL Crapita experience recently.

I had a knock at the door, took a peek and there was the usual TVL goon who happens to be very short with his black faux leather case complete with all the silly forms they carry about and the handheld gadget.

He was accompanied by what appeared to be a trainee, about 6ft 6 and almost as wide, they looked like a comedy duo because the tall one made the short one look even shorter and the short one made the tall one look even taller.

I amused myself watching them waiting with some irriation and not getting a reply, then the gorilla goon suddenly started thumping my door as if he were trying to break in, the short goon then said something to them and they left in a hurry.

I looked out window and saw them running down the street, they stopped at the corner and shorty appeared to be telling the Gorilla off. Then they continued away on foot.

About an hour later I heard a Police siren and took a look outside, they were back and looking at a car that had two flat tyres (may have been more but I could not see).

It seems that some of the people on this modern development do not like TVL goons, I do not condone such criminal damage but it is a shame that I do not know who it was, might have bought them a pint!

I did once explain to a TVL goon that if Sky, BT or Virgin came knocking at my door trying to sell me TV services I would tell then no thanks the first time, but if they kept coming back and started writing fake threat letters or tried to gain access to my home when they have no authority at all I would deal with them in the same obnoxious way I do with TVL. It does not help that when given access they treat people as if they are thieves or try to catch them out.

I can't wait for the day that the BBC is moved to a subscription only model and these goons are fired.

RandomQ

Cornucopia wrote: »

Thanks, but I don't think I could genuinely make the case that they were actually scams, merely that they have decided to use one of the techniques that scams routinely use.

Here's an example...



I asked the BBC under FOI whether the stamp image and the signature were "real" or not i.e. were "wet" impressions left by a rubber stamp and a human hand, respectively. After some typical pedantry and prevarication they confirmed that they weren't. I never seriously thought that they were, however the use of such devices on supposedly official communications is/was so completely unprecedented I thought it would be interesting to see how far they would go to protect the information.

Cornucopia

As the resident expert on TVL I was wondering what you think of the obvious Goon letters that TVL send with things like "Will you be in on October 25th" in a window.

Are they breaking some sort of privacy law because they are effectively informing a 3rd party (any Royal Mail employee or neighbours in communal post area), that you do not have a TV licence and this may affect your reputation?

Cornucopia

I have challenged them on that previously. Needless to say, they do not accept the point, and ISTR that they actually used the fact that being unlicensed is not in itself an offence as partial justification.

The bigger issue, I think, is that the law and regulatory framework for public authorities seems to be based on the notion that they have too great a sense of public duty to do anything wrong. For a variety of reasons that faith seems to be more and more misplaced, and I think it's probably time now for there to be appropriate regulation with the necessary teeth in order to call these organisations to account.

I'd also like to see the teeth structured in such a way to target the pay and benefits of senior management in those organisations rather than the nonsense we often see with successful legal/regulatory claims where the funds of the organisation itself are sequestered, leading (at least in theory) to higher costs/poorer services to the Public.

EachPenny

Cornucopia wrote: »

I can't believe that they couldn't find a better form of words to express this so as not to put people off, but their letters do seem to be written by someone with zero idea of how to win hearts and minds.

Why go to the effort of attempting to win hearts and minds when you believe you have the right to bully people into submission?

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'd also like to see the teeth structured in such a way to target the pay and benefits of senior management in those organisations rather than the nonsense we often see with successful legal/regulatory claims where the funds of the organisation itself are sequestered, leading (at least in theory) to higher costs/poorer services to the Public.

In relation to that, the discussion elsewhere on the forum at the moment about NDAs is also relevant. The scale of public service staff being 'paid off' is shocking.

cw18

RandomQ wrote: »

Are they breaking some sort of privacy law because they are effectively informing a 3rd party (any Royal Mail employee or neighbours in communal post area), that you do not have a TV licence and this may affect your reputation?

I reckon I'm pretty good at identifying any / all letters from them to unlicensed properties as I deliver them, but that may be because I've received them myself. Several people I've worked with didn't know the 'will you be in on' letters were from them until I made a comment about them supposedly being out in force on the date showing on the letters that came through our office.


In my case they're also informing my colleagues and the office manager - and while my mail isn't delivered from the office I'm officially based at, I do get asked to work out of there from time to time (and the lady who was their manager until very recently lunches with mine).

Cornucopia

EachPenny wrote: »

Why go to the effort of attempting to win hearts and minds when you believe you have the right to bully people into submission?

I suppose we have no way to know, but I think that the response overall might be better if there was a bit more balance to the way they conduct themselves. At the moment, it's an interesting exercise in how information permeates a connected society - the old world of the TVL threatening letters vs. much information on the Internet that contradicts what they say, or at least fills in some very important gaps.

The other problem is the current threatening approach is so deeply embedded - both within BBC-TVL and in the Public psyche. It's difficult to see how it could be deconstructed and transformed into something more civil. That's particularly true of the elements that I/we presume are unlawful. If that's accurate, then the first priority is to make the regime consistent with the letter and spirit of the law, in which case it may well be scuppered anyway.

In relation to that, the discussion elsewhere on the forum at the moment about NDAs is also relevant. The scale of public service staff being 'paid off' is shocking.

Yes. NDAs are now firmly a part of corporate culture - not just in the public sector. Personally, I think that they are grossly overused, and it would be much healthier for the predominant corporate culture to have a tendency towards transparency not secrecy.

silverwhistle

RandomQ wrote: »

As the resident expert on TVL I was wondering what you think of the obvious Goon letters that TVL send with things like "Will you be in on October 25th" in a window.

I think I'm up to about 6 or 7 in number of that letter in the cycle. Since somebody has been in on every day mentioned, that little window with date doesn't seem to be to either helping them or the householder as they have never visited. I seem to recall the actual wording inside says something like "or other date". These days I don't even bother to open them to see if there has been a subtle change in their offensive language, or their assumption I must be hard up: they go straight in the log basket or compost heap.


One therefore presumes it is there for another purpose such as intimidation or causing embarrassment, and I'm not amenable to either.

EachPenny

Cornucopia wrote: »

The other problem is the current threatening approach is so deeply embedded - both within BBC-TVL and in the Public psyche. It's difficult to see how it could be deconstructed and transformed into something more civil.

Personally, even though I have no legal obligation to do so, I would be quite happy to return a reply-paid postcard or letter on an annual basis where all that was required of me was to tick a box saying I was aware of the circumstances where a TV licence was required and did not require one.

What I'm currently objecting to is the process which I'm not legally obliged to participate in requires me to do so at my own expense, or provide personal information I simply don't need to. And from what I can tell the 'free' option of speaking to the 'thug' the next time he calls is not going to stop the harassment whatever I say.... if anything it appears to just facilitate the harassment process.

Cornucopia

For the sake of balance, I should say that examples of thuggish behaviour by TVL staff are extremely rare, especially given the very high number of attempted visits that are being conducted.

That said, there are several notorious videos that show incontrovertible evidence of unpleasant and unacceptable behaviour by TVL staff, and every one of those damages the reputation of TV Licensing, and by extension, the BBC.

Part of the issue with these behaviours is that TVL are expected to do something that is not easy and cannot be achieved without the cooperation of members of the public. But that cooperation is not legally required, and it cannot therefore be relied upon, nor can members of the public be cajoled, hectored, deceived, bullied or coerced in order to procure cooperation. I very much suspect that TVL staff are being placed in a position that is ultimately impossible.

I imagine that at BBC towers the view is that their enforcement activity is much the same, practically and legally, as debt collection - and I expect that many TVL staff have been involved in debt collection in the past. Unfortunately, the technical legal detail is very different.

RandomQ

cw18 wrote: »

I reckon I'm pretty good at identifying any / all letters from them to unlicensed properties as I deliver them, but that may be because I've received them myself. Several people I've worked with didn't know the 'will you be in on' letters were from them until I made a comment about them supposedly being out in force on the date showing on the letters that came through our office.


In my case they're also informing my colleagues and the office manager - and while my mail isn't delivered from the office I'm officially based at, I do get asked to work out of there from time to time (and the lady who was their manager until very recently lunches with mine).

What is bizarre is that they NEVER knock on the day in question, I have had at least 12 of these and it seems to be just another misleading and bullying threat to make people think that they have to comply, AKA softening up or shall we say grooming.