TV Licence article Discussion

Mistral001

Bedsit_Bob wrote: »

We're not suggesting ignoring summonses, just the letters and doorstep callers.

Obviously you shouldn't ignore a summons, but Threat-O-Grams (aka the monthly letters) and doorstep callers can be safely ignored.

However you did say that you wrote "not known at this address" on the TV Licensing letters and sent them back. That is more than "ignoring". That is a porky. Do that with any government authority such as HMRC or Immigration and you could find yourself in trouble. And TV Licensing is actually such an authority.

PS. sorry it was not you that said you wrote "not known at this address" that was 1005922.

Cornucopia

Mistral001 wrote: »

However you did say that you wrote "not known at this address" on the TV Licensing letters and sent them back. That is more than "ignoring". That is a porky. Do that with any government authority such as HMRC or Immigration and you could find yourself in trouble. And TV Licensing is actually such an authority.

PS. sorry it was not you that said "not known at this address" that but someone else.

The thing is that TV Licensing is NOT such an authority.

Fair enough that you don't know that, but it is (sadly) a fact that there is a lot of baggage attached to the TV Licensing brand (because that's all it is). A big part of that is them (the BBC and its outsourcers) creating the misleading impression of authority where little or none exists.

TVL certainly require cautious handling, but fundamentally it wouldn't be an offence to ignore them or lie to them. (Though under certain circumstances they might choose to exploit non-cooperation in legal action for either of the two offences that they do prosecute).

Mistral001

Cornucopia wrote: »

The thing is that TV Licensing is NOT such an authority. Fair enough that you don't know that, but it is (sadly) a fact that there is a lot of baggage attached to the TV Licensing brand (because that's all it is). A big part of that is them (the BBC and its outsourcers) creating the misleading impression of authority where little or none exists.

An outsourcer or any company can send out letters. They can call at your house. They can even gather evidence, just like a private detective does, but they cannot issue summons's to appear in the criminal courts. If TV Licensing does not do this, who does?

Cornucopia

Mistral001 wrote: »

An outsourcer or any company can send out letters. They can even gather evidence, just like a private detective does, but they cannot issue summons's to appear in the criminal courts. If TV Licensing does not do this, who does?

TV Licensing is a brand name of the BBC. It says exactly that in the definition Nick_C posted above. The BBC has created an enforcement operation, branded it "TV Licensing" and resourced it with outsourcers. The legal status of "TV Licensing" is similar to "Doctor Who", as I understand it.

Yes, there are various things that the outsourcer companies can do (though I would suggest that what TVL does in terms of letters and "visits" goes way beyond what a company would normally do). The BBC is a public authority and that means that TV Licensing AND its outsourcers are also bound by the Human Rights Act, and that's another big can of worms.

The question of "who prosecutes" is an interesting one. AFAIK, the Courts accept the use of the trade mark "TV Licensing" in prosecutions. The staff involved in presenting cases are Capita employees. I would have thought that was all a bit messy, but IANAL.

None of that, though, detracts from what we've previously said: TV Licensing is not a statutory authority and there is no legal reason why people should not ignore them (except in the very rare situation where they have a warrant).

Watchkeeper

Cornucopia wrote: »

The question of "who prosecutes" is an interesting one. AFAIK, the Courts accept the use of the pseudonym "TV Licensing" in prosecutions. The staff involved in presenting cases are Capita employees. I would have thought that was a bit messy, but IANAL.

Indeed. In response to a Freedom of Information request submitted by Peter Jones of the TV Licensing Blog just over 3 years ago, the BBC released a redacted (natch!) copy of the "Capita TV Licensing Court Presenters' Manual" under their reference number RFI2017173.

Interestingly, it states in Section 13.6:

Request Permission to Prosecute.
The Court Presenter must seek the authority of the Court to prosecute. (Schedule 3 Section 1(2)(b) of the Legal Services Act 2007) It is an offence to prosecute without authority.

The Court Presenter should also have available their TVL Identity Card, and the letter of authority signed by Director of Field Ops authorising them to Prosecute TVL cases.

Capita's "Court Presenters" are lay people with no automatic right of audience. There are videos on a certain sharing site in which an enthusiastic citizen journalist confronts "Court Presenters" outside the court building.

PS At the post preview stage I was informed "as a new user you are not allowed to post with links" (I linked to the relevant "What Do They Know" Website page). Since I joined MSE in July 2012 I'm wondering when exactly I cease to be a "new user".

Cornucopia

Watchkeeper wrote: »

PS At the post preview stage I was informed "as a new user you are not allowed to post with links" (I linked to the relevant "What Do They Know" Website page). Since I joined MSE in July 2012 I'm wondering when exactly I cease to be a "new user".

The devil is, as always, in the detail: I believe that you need to have made 50 posts before you are considered by the Forum software not to be a "Newbie".

Here's the link for anyone who wants to have a look: https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/capita_tv_licensing_court_presen

I like the fact that there is an error in the very first paragraph (1.0). It states "five" sources for British law, and then proceeds to list 6 of them.

...Interestingly, it states in Section 13.6:...

Thanks for that. I'm getting to the stage with all of this where I've been through so much detailed info that I'm beginning to forget some of it.

Watchkeeper

Cornucopia wrote: »

I'm getting to the stage with all of this where I've been through so much detailed info that I'm beginning to forget some of it.

I know I have a bad memory, but I can't remember whether it was always this bad. :cool:

Ego_Shredder

Cornucopia wrote: »

A video camera.

Bedsit Bob is suggesting that people film (or try to film) TVL staff when they arrive on their premises. This is totally legal and does seem to have a deterrent effect on them for reasons that are not totally clear (to me, anyway).

Thanks. I have been sent the threatening letters since last July I think, and possibly had my first visit last week when I heard loud knocking at the front door. When I got out of bed and peeked through the curtains, I saw a man sat in a car further down the road, facing in my direction wearing a high visibility yellow vest. He drove off shortly afterwards.

Cornucopia

Ego_Shredder wrote: »

Thanks. I have been sent the threatening letters since last July I think, and possibly had my first visit last week when I heard loud knocking at the front door. When I got out of bed and peeked through the curtains, I saw a man sat in a car further down the road, facing in my direction wearing a high visibility yellow vest. He drove off shortly afterwards.

Based on other people's accounts, that sounds like it could have been TV Licensing.

[Deleted User]

Mistral001 wrote: »

And TV Licensing is actually such an authority.

No it's not. It is not illegal to lie to a Crapita employee.