TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

A couple of years ago TVL began buying commercial marketing data that comprised names and addresses of opted-in individuals from a company specialising in such database operations.

The upshot of that is that if you are on TVL's list of unlicensed addresses and they can match your address with the commercial data sources, they have your name/the name you used when registering with the original commercial entity. I think a combination of DPA rules and internal policy limits them to using the name for 6 months before reverting communications to "the legal occupier".

Browntoa

Just wasted 10 minutes of the online chat on a 3rd party website via an incognito session on Chrome .

Are you the real TV licence people ?

Why do you not make it clear you are 3rd party

Oh , it's at the bottom of the page , it's a very long page , why is it not at the top ?

So you are basically hiding you are a 3rd party

I've taken a screenshot , let's see what the ASA think then

I consider it's a scam that's why

.....etc

Cornucopia

FreeBear wrote: »

And if you really want to upset them, do what I did to one little oik.... Ask "You have photo ID ?.... Give". Shut the door on them, and if they are still there five/ten minutes later tell them "I have been unable to confirm your identity and have been instructed to destroy your ID card."

Technically this is theft/criminal damage, and I would not recommend it. By all means "ID Check" them, but do not retain or damage their ID card.

Messing them up is pretty easy without doing anything that could land YOU in trouble.

Two suggestions:-

1. When they ask "Are you Mr/Mrs X?" from the data on their database, you can go back and forth a few times refusing to give them any info unless they confirm their identity (they like to hide it). You can then ask "what is it regarding?" and if they are following correct DPA protocol they should refuse to tell you unless you confirm that you are the person they want to speak to - which you never do.

2. As soon as you realise that they are TVL, simply tell them that if they wish to interview you under caution, you will exercise your right to decline under PACE, and that there is therefore no reason for them to be there.

Cornucopia

RandomQ wrote: »

I do not know if this is new but is first time I have seen it

It uses one of those privacy abusing window envelopes

In the window it has a Yellow Triangle with exclamation mark and word CAUTION underneath it, a bit like a toxic warning.

Yes, this is new in the last couple of months.

The image is a yellow warning triangle on the background of a map.

On the envelope it says in RED: "Advance warning of possible interruption". WTH does that mean?

Inside it says: "No TV Licence? No watching live TV. Expect the interruption of an enforcement visit".

Enforcement of WHAT, who do these scum think they are a High Court Enforcement Officer?

They have no right to FORCE me to do anything!

The envelope also seems a gross invasion of privacy.

They've been using these window envelopes for a long while, and I have a feeling that the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) has already been asked to investigate and found it to be acceptable because they do not divulge actual personal info, and because there is a law enforcement exemption.

Like all the letters, I think the language could/should be clearer. I think that the notion of an "interruption" to illegal activities is fine. The problem is that the letter is being sent to innocent people as well.

You are correct that they cannot force you to cooperate with them, in fact they cannot even make you answer the door.

RandomQ

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes, this is new in the last couple of months.

The image is a yellow warning triangle on the background of a map.

They've been using these window envelopes for a long while, and I have a feeling that the ICO (Information Commissioner's Office) has already been asked to investigate and found it to be acceptable because they do not divulge actual personal info, and because there is a law enforcement exemption.

That is interesting, I was on the phone to the ICO seeking advice on another matter and they said that my address IS personal data because of the likelyhood that it can identify me, especially if there is other information or documents in possession or freely available.

I get these sent to The Legal Occupier now, but I imagine it is the same if they have your name, also a postman/woman has other letters for same address so pretty much knows who you are.

We would not accept it if a credit card company had a window on the envelope that said "you owe us money" so we must ask the ICO why they think it is OK for ones privacy to be breached in this way.

These letters pass through a plethora of people's hands, they may be left in a communal area and it is none of anyone's business other than the occupant of the property.

I think more people need to make a complaint to the ICO on this.

RandomQ

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes, this is new in the last couple of months.

Like all the letters, I think the language could/should be clearer. I think that the notion of an "interruption" to illegal activities is fine. The problem is that the letter is being sent to innocent people as well.

That is funny I had not even realised that they were trying to suggest illegal activities, I am also not clear that they can interrupt anything other than my peace & quiet (by knocking at the door).

Cornucopia

RandomQ wrote: »

That is interesting, I was on the phone to the ICO seeking advice on another matter and they said that my address IS personal data because of the likelyhood that it can identify me, especially if there is other information or documents in possession or freely available.

I think it depends on the context in which your address is disclosed. In this case, they are using the address to send a letter, which is a legitimate purpose.

I get these sent to The Legal Occupier now, but I imagine it is the same if they have your name, also a postman/woman has other letters for same address so pretty much knows who you are.

Actually, they DO vary the tone of the letters according to whether they are addressed by name or to the occupier. That allows them more scope for harsher language when the recipient is anonymous. For example they have/had the "see you in Court" letter which came very close to stating that a Court case was imminent, and that was never sent to a named recipient because it could have constituted defamation.

We would not accept it if a credit card company had a window on the envelope that said "you owe us money" so we must ask the ICO why they think it is OK for ones privacy to be breached in this way.

If you look at the actual info being displayed by TVL in the windows, it is often very cryptic, and I'm sure this is intended. I'm not saying it is right, but I do think TVL have thought it through.

I think more people need to make a complaint to the ICO on this.

Yes - this is what it takes, and there are a number of DPA-related angles with regards to TVL operations. That could increase if people were prepared to exercise their rights under DPA - to make a SAR, and to request TVL to cease processing their data.


By way of disclosure/disclaimer, I do not receive TVL letters because the BBC banned TVL from engaging with me, so I don't have personal experience of the most recent letters.

cw18

As a postie I recognise these letters with the briefest glance, but have to admit that's only because I receive them. There are one or two others in my office that had a vague idea some of them were to do with TVL, but weren't sure quite what (until I enlightened them). So if you have a regular postie there is a chance that he/she is fully aware of the fact your address is unlicensed - not that I think any of them would actually care.....

FreeBear

cw18 wrote: »

So if you have a regular postie there is a chance that he/she is fully aware of the fact your address is unlicensed - not that I think any of them would actually care.....

You're right. They have bigger problems to worry about such as vicious dogs, dangerous cats, and management imposing greater work loads whilst trying to cut hours.

cw18

FreeBear wrote: »

You're right. They have bigger problems to worry about such as vicious dogs, dangerous cats, and management imposing greater work loads whilst trying to cut hours.

Sounds like someone else knows the job inside out

Totally agree about cats. Had a couple of fingers swiped through a letterbox over a year ago. Took 5 mins to stop it bleeding (luckily I carry tissues and plasters), and had to visit a drop-in centre to get it checked and dressed after work. I still have a scar from it !!!