TV Licence article Discussion

Mutton_Geoff

Thank you MSE forumites for your continued interest. My intention was to notify my MP of the level of harassment and the methods used by Capita, not use him as a point of contact with Capita since I could have easily done this myself if I was so inclined. Here is my correspondence with him. I have been trying to address the general issue of TVL tactics & harassment, not to ask him to contact them on my behalf.

Dear MP

I wonder if I can seek your view on the methods Capita go to intimidating households to purchase a TV licence they do not require?

I moved to xxxx last year and on a regular basis, I get letters from Capita harassing me to purchase a TV licence I do not need. I am very familiar with the criteria for requiring a licence but I do not watch my TV in a way that requires licensing. I also have no intention of contacting Capita to confirm this since I understand this is just a temporary reprieve against the bombardment of threatening letters which I attach just some of those I have received.

In the same way, I have no intention of contacting Netflix, Now TV, Virgin Media or Sky to let them know I don’t watch their programmes. I do not see why I should respond to this intimidation from Capita who seem to assume I am guilty of committing an offence. I don’t have to notify the police that I am driving my car within the speed limits on the basis that our legal system works on the assumption we are innocent until proved guilty. Except for the people running Capita who seem to view things differently.

Take a look at the letters, in case you are not already familiar with them. Note the faux rubber stamps, the “investigation authorisations”, the escalation to “enforcement officers”, first in Bath, then Guildford. The threatening tone of scheduled visits (despite none occurring).

Capita will not accept cease and desist letters but work on the assumption that every household must own and be watching a TV illegally. I’ve waited for their visits but alas, I just keep receiving these letters.

Do you have a view on this wholesale and organised harassment that Capita are permitted to carry out on innocent residents?

Yours sincerely

Mutton Geoff

Attached copies of 9 letters from TVL

His response:

Dear Mutton Geoff

Thank you for contacting me about the TV Licence, and the letters you have been receiving.

If you inform TV Licensing that you do not need a TV Licence, it should stop sending you letters (except in very specific circumstances, such as wider changes in licensable activity).

TV Licensing is, however, entitled to confirm that this is the case by visiting your property. This is because, over the years, TV Licensing states that it has found that after visiting a property and making contact with the owner, one in eight people who say they do not need a licence actually do need one. I would like to reassure you that visiting officers do not have legal powers to enter a home without a search warrant granted by a magistrate, so residents have no obligation to grant entry to a visiting officer if they do not wish to do so.

I understand that it is frustrating that you may continue to receive a letter from TV Licensing a day or so after informing TV Licensing of your situation while their records are being updated. You do not need to respond to these letters. However, as noted previously, TV Licensing may send you letters due to changes in wider circumstances.

I hope that this email provides a response to your concerns.

Thank you once again for taking the time to contact me.

Dear MP

Many thanks for taking the time to reply. If TVL are finding 1 in 8 are using a TV without a licence, then surely it is wrong that they should be permitted to intimidate the remaining 87.5% of the population with their aggressive correspondence?

I understand that contacting them only gains a temporary reprieve from the barrage of correspondence and as mentioned, I feel under no obligation to contact them since I do not watch TV illegally and have no desire to provide them with any personal information.

My whole point is the aggressive pseudo official investigative “guilty unless proved innocent” manner in which Capita go about this business. What would be wrong with a polite letter reminding residents of the law and asking that they get in touch if circumstances change?

I am not sure what you mean when you say “as noted previously, TV Licensing may send you letters due to changes in wider circumstances”. What “changes in wider circumstances” allows Capita to continue to harass me? Since writing to you, another letter has been sent to me (attached).

There is a gathering body of people dissatisfied with Capita’s approach and the whole TV Licence matter is long overdue a review as viewing habits have changed beyond all recognition since the licence was introduced in 1946 and the licence really isn’t fit for purpose in 2022. Do you support any changes to the BBC/Capita’s mandate to hassle 87.5% of innocent unlicensed citizens?

Best regards 

Mutton Geoff


Dear Mutton Geoff

I agree with you, it is not right for Capita to continue to send you letters if you have informed them that you do not require a tv licence.

As a result, I have written to Capita on your behalf to ask that they remove you from their contact list immediately.

I will contact you as soon as I have received a response.

Kind regards,

MP

Dear MP

Many thanks for getting back to me. I just wanted to clarify I have never contacted Capita/TVL as I have no obligation to do so and have no wish to share my details with them. I believe they are operating on the fringes of the law with the tone of their letters and indeed another one has arrived today.

What on earth is an “INO1O0A25 code”? This pompous faux legal demands would certainly intimidate many of your residents to perhaps even buying a TV licence when they didn’t need one. No other organisation keeps contacting me to “check that I am not breaking the law”.

I am fully aware of what activities require a TV licence and I happily watch TV in many forms (You Tube, non BBC catch up, Amazon etc) that does not need a licence.

I do not think it right that Capita continue to send letters on a monthly basis even though I do not need a licence. Their letters are remarkably lacking in explaining the many situations where I can legally watch TV without requiring a licence, but then again, this is a commercial organisation on a commission based revenue gathering exercise.

There is no obligation on me to “ACT NOW” to change the status of my “INO1O0A25” whatever that might be.

I do hope you have not revealed my name to Capita in your communication with them.

Best regards

Mutton Geoff

- No reply from MP

Dear MP

Further to my last email (to which I never received a response), I have now heard from TV Licensing and it is clear that you have provided them with my name which they have now added to your database.

I think you missed my whole point and if you read my earlier emails, you will see that I have never had contact with TV Licensing, I had no intention of contacting them to provide any personal information and I was happy that if they did send one of their sales representatives round, I would be quite civil in the way I would treat any door to door salesperson and tell them I didn’t need their product and close the door.

I attach their confirmation of your instruction to them but please note the continued tone of their communications “we may still need to visit”, “1 in 8 wrongly claim no licence needed, make sure you’re not the one” etc. Surely they could have thanked me for notifying them and ask that I contact them again should my circumstances change. Instead I have a time limited amnesty until August 2024.

Perhaps your other constituents are not as concerned by the heavy handed tactics employed by Capita but my guess the majority of people are not aware of the circumstances under which they do not need a licence and are just intimidated by the correspondence I have shown you and just go out and purchase a licence.

As an example, even the reputed debt charity Step Change does not even suggest that people can reduce their household expenditure by adjusting their viewing habits so they can avoid paying the licence fee (https://www.stepchange.org/debt-info/save-money-on-broadband-digital-tv-satellite.aspx). I find this astounding since we seem stuck in the 1960s where the sole source of TV & radio came from the BBC and this had to be paid for.

What a shame you misunderstood my original complaint to you and are not able to raise this issue at government level.

Regards

Mutton Geoff

- No reply from MP

silverwhistle

I may be tempting fate but I used to suffer these letters, but they ceased during the Covid lockdown and never resumed. As I've never owned a colour TV in the ~40 years I've owned this house you can imagine how tiresome the monthly letters became, but useful when I purchased a woodburner!

Now I'm retired I understand even less how people find the time to sit and watch!

Cornucopia

Thanks for publishing your well-written letters.    The only observation I'd make is that the first letter you received from your MP is virtually identical to those I've seen written by the BBC.

It makes me wonder if the BBC have provided a resource pack to MPs to "make it easy" for them to respond to TVL-based queries.   (This is not such a far-fetched idea because they have done something similar with debt charities and magistrates).

2010

It just shows how stupid Capita are if they can`t even put a name to an address.
Most people caught by these bully boys are women and pensioners who are probably more accommodating answering doors and listening to what is being said to them.
What people should understand is they have no right of entry and you do not even have to speak to these people.
You do not have to prove anything.

I did note that in Mutton Geoff`s first post he was in fact longing for a visit from them.

Every month, occasionally more often, Capita would send me threatening letters with plenty of pseudo legalise and fake rubber stamps "investigation authorised" etc.

Since I'm made of sterner stuff than TVL might think, I longed for their threatened visits that never materialised.

He`s being harassed by TVL, points this out to his MP and what tactics are used by TVL.
The MP tries to get the threats stopped, and then OP complains his name has been mentioned for an address which anyone could find out if they really wanted to.

Mutton Geoff, made of sterner stuff, move on is my advice.

Mutton_Geoff

2010 said:

He`s being harassed by TVL, points this out to his MP and what tactics are used by TVL.
The MP tries to get the threats stopped, and then OP complains his name has been mentioned for an address which anyone could find out if they really wanted to.

Mutton Geoff, made of sterner stuff, move on is my advice.

All my MP did was use the current Capita process for suspending the letters whilst this is still wrapped in the continued threat that "the boys might still come round". I wanted to encourage my MP to become part of the kick back, not just tell them my name via a standard process.

I value my privacy and there is a major difference now in that nobody could ever prosecute "The Occupier" at an address but if the goons were underhand (and they have been shown to be), then I am more at risk of receiving a notice of prosecution in my name if they show up and decide to complete their paperwork with my name at the top and untruths entered in the boxes. There are plenty of You Tube videos showing this happening.

I preferred it when I was just "The Occupier" since this highlighted how inefficient their "investigations" were. What I didn't need was my MP to side with Capita.

Cornucopia

Mutton_Geoff said:

I wanted to encourage my MP to become part of the kick back, not just tell them my name via a standard process.

In my experience, you need to hit a particular sweet-spot in terms of communicating these issues to MPs, journalists, etc.   If you go in too soft, they won't see the problem, and will naturally assume that the BBC is right and you/we are being difficult.   If you go in with too much hyperbole, then you get dismissed under "tin foil hat" protocol.    It's really hard to get right, and I think from where we are and what can be rigorously evidenced, the only opportunities are the letters (and in particular, pointing out the falsehoods), and the words and numbers of the BBC themselves (which they choose very carefully, IME).   

Having been through the discussion with my MP in the past, I think they very much have to be led through the evidence and treated as a hostile witness would be in a Court hearing.   They need to be presented with the falsehoods from the TVL letters, have it explained why they are falsehoods, and an explanation from them and the BBC demanded.    

Mutton_Geoff said:

2010 said:

He`s being harassed by TVL, points this out to his MP and what tactics are used by TVL.
The MP tries to get the threats stopped, and then OP complains his name has been mentioned for an address which anyone could find out if they really wanted to.

Mutton Geoff, made of sterner stuff, move on is my advice.

I value my privacy and there is a major difference now in that nobody could ever prosecute "The Occupier" at an address but if the goons were underhand (and they have been shown to be), then I am more at risk of receiving a notice of prosecution in my name if they show up and decide to complete their paperwork with my name at the top and untruths entered in the boxes. There are plenty of You Tube videos showing this happening.

I preferred it when I was just "The Occupier" since this highlighted how inefficient their "investigations" were. What I didn't need was my MP to side with Capita.

There's definitely a feeling of security that comes from withholding your name from TV Licensing.   In particular, if they visit, one of their opening gambits is to ask for the name on their database, before identifying themselves.   They are not supposed to do this, but their standard procedure and their DPA instructions seem to be in conflict on that.   If they do not have a name, or it is out of date or fake, then that's one underhand tactic that is denied to them, or at least made transparent.  

Having said that, they seem to have very much cleaned up their act over the past 5 years or so, and false prosecution abuses seem to have been very much reduced, maybe eliminated.   I've not seen any videos showing this (other than one Warrant video from 7 years ago, which is a whole other discussion), so I'd be interested to see any robust evidence on this even from the distant past.

Overall, whilst it's nice if they don't know your name, it's not the end of the world if they do.  After 6 months, it'll be beyond their use again. 

FreeBear

Cornucopia said: There's definitely a feeling of security that comes from withholding your name from TV Licensing.   In particular, if they visit, one of their opening gambits is to ask for the name on their database, before identifying themselves.   They are not supposed to do this, but their standard procedure and their DPA instructions seem to be in conflict on that.   If they do not have a name, or it is out of date or fake, then that's one underhand tactic that is denied to them, or at least made transparent.

Having had one of their jumped up little oiks hammering on my door (I though he was going to break it down), I can confirm that they do indeed ask for the occupier by name. Presumably they cull this information from the electoral roll... Refused to confirm my identity or answer any of his other questions. And when the little s*** asked to come in, he got a very, very blunt response.

If they are going to engage in bully-boy tactics on the doorstep, I see no point in being polite or civil.

Cornucopia

FreeBear said:

Cornucopia said: There's definitely a feeling of security that comes from withholding your name from TV Licensing.   In particular, if they visit, one of their opening gambits is to ask for the name on their database, before identifying themselves.   They are not supposed to do this, but their standard procedure and their DPA instructions seem to be in conflict on that.   If they do not have a name, or it is out of date or fake, then that's one underhand tactic that is denied to them, or at least made transparent.

Having had one of their jumped up little oiks hammering on my door (I though he was going to break it down), I can confirm that they do indeed ask for the occupier by name. Presumably they cull this information from the electoral roll... Refused to confirm my identity or answer any of his other questions. And when the little s*** asked to come in, he got a very, very blunt response.

If they are going to engage in bully-boy tactics on the doorstep, I see no point in being polite or civil.

I don't think they do use data from the Electoral Roll - do you have a particular reason for thinking they might?

There's no requirement to be polite to them on your property (legally or otherwise).   Personally, I am pathologically polite, so would find it hard to give them a particularly hard time (I'm more likely to quiz them on their knowledge of PACE).   

Nick_C

Electoral Registration - If you opt out of the Open Register, TVL should not be able to get your name that way.

Really, everyone should opt out of the Open Register.  And not just because of TVL.  

Mutton_Geoff

cw18 said:

pphillips said:

I can understand why you're angry and I think it's justified, your MP passed on your personal information to TVL without your knowledge or consent. Obviously your MP has not gotten back to you because they don't want to admit they breached data protection law. You could make a data protection complaint to the ICO due to the unauthorised disclosure of your personal information.  As well as reporting the data breach, you also have a right to claim compensation if it has caused you to suffer damage or distress.

Totally agree with this - surely it's a breach under GDPR.

And (unless the chap was someone I otherwise respected or was friendly with outside the MP / contituent relationship), then I'd definitely be reporting it.    If he passed your data on for this, just what other data about other constituents is he passing on that he shouldn't be ????

I've just had a very prompt reply to my complaint to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards who says:

Dear Mutton Geoff

Thank you for your email, I hope the following information is helpful to you.

As I’m sure you are aware, the Data Protection Act 2018 controls how your personal information is used.  The Houses of Parliament is not responsible for personal data processed by MPs e.g. constituents' data.  Individual MPs are data controllers in their own right.

The Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) is the UK’s independent authority set up to uphold information rights in the public interest.  For information and complaints related to breaches of GDPR you should contact the ICO directly.

Making a complaint – https://ico.org.uk/make-a-complaint/  Telephone - 0303 123 1113

Yours sincerely

Investigations and Complaints OfficerOffice of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards

So the ICO it is then.

And to answer the other poster's comment, I always opt to keep my name off the public register as it's main purpose seems to be used for unsolicited postal marketing.