TV Licence article Discussion

Nick_C

Mutton_Geoff said:

Section62 said:

A potential consequence of using GDPR to force TVL to forget the name of the person living at Mutton_Geoff Towers is that TVL decide Mutton_Geoff Towers is an address of particular interest to 'investigate' to see if the NLN declaration was truthful.

There is anecdotal evidence that people who stand up to TVL become more interesting to TVL than those who quietly go about their own business.  So this is a case where aiming to win the war is probably better than trying to win a battle.

I've seen that on various forums too, and especially if someone invokes a WOIRA (Withdrawal of the Implied

Right of Access) that this draws unwanted attention from Capita. They even have a memo on how to handle this request but this doesn't say what will happen but I could assume it gets sent to a "warrants further investigation". ChiliJonCarne suggests not to request this now, but just ignore all contact and don't provide them with any details (which is what I was doing until I decided the harassment was worth putting to my MP for advice).

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/92292/response/232374/attach/6/RFI20111356 Disclosure Document 3.pdf

Sight of that procedure note is interesting.  It suggests they do conform with the withdrawal of the implied right of access.

I don't see any reason not to withdraw the right of access on that basis.  Although personally, I just call them up every two years, withholding my number and not giving them my name, and telling them as a matter of courtesy that no activity is taking place at the premises which requires a licence to be purchased.  I've not had any attempts to visit.

I wouldn't use the online declaration though because it asks for an email address, and the declarations it asks you to make are ambiguous.

Cornucopia

Personally, I think the days of using heroic measures against TV Licensing are probably over.   There simply don't seem to be the rogue staff out there that there undoubtedly were in the past.   (In case MSE are concerned about potential libel here, some TVL staff have been prosecuted in the past, and for some quite serious offences, too - this is a matter of public record).

I think there are a basic set of TVL precautions that can be used with little or no risk of consequences or complications.   These include returning any letters addressed to "The Occupier", not disclosing your name, not completing "No Licence Needed", ignoring TVL callers at the door, and/or using your interview rights and anti-trespass rights if they get agitated.  

WOIRA is a tricky one.   I've used it in the past without any problems.  I've also used more complex legal devices, none of which has ever resulted in them visiting (in fact, I've never met a TVL doorstepper).  I think these days, unless you are particularly nervous of them visiting (or have a vulnerable family member to protect), it probably doesn't offer that much.   The figures don't support it attracting unwarranted attention, though.

FreeBear

My biggest beef with the whole TVL/Capita harassment is the continual bombardment of letters claiming "an investigation has been launched". If they were a proper law enforcement agency (i.e. the Police), they would conduct an investigation, and on finding no evidence, close the file for good. But no, TVL/Capita just carry on despite a total lack of evidence even after conducting a doorstep visit.

Don't even bother opening their letters. Anything with a Darlington postcode in the return address just gets shoved in the pile to be handed to the next doorstep visitor.

pphillips

FreeBear said:

My biggest beef with the whole TVL/Capita harassment is the continual bombardment of letters claiming "an investigation has been launched". If they were a proper law enforcement agency (i.e. the Police), they would conduct an investigation, and on finding no evidence, close the file for good. But no, TVL/Capita just carry on despite a total lack of evidence even after conducting a doorstep visit.

Don't even bother opening their letters. Anything with a Darlington postcode in the return address just gets shoved in the pile to be handed to the next doorstep visitor.

Of course in most cases there is no investigation, or you would get a visit and the investigation would in fact be over as soon as you refuse or fail to co-operate. The whole logic behind having a perpetual investigation is likely to be an psychological tactic that wears down the occupier over time until information is eventually handed over. The reason it's used is because it's effective in producing results.

TVL's standard response is that they are carrying out a statutory duty to ensure that every address which requires a licence has a licence and it carries out that duty via letters and visits, TVL accept there is no legal obligation for the occupier to respond to any letters or to let officers inside their property without a warrant and that TVL does its best not to trouble genuine non-viewers through NLN declarations.

Cornucopia

The TVL "investigation" is one of those elements that is right at the heart of the problem.    On the one hand, for all their overuse of the word, we know that there isn't anything tangible there aside from the letters themselves and the possibility of a "visit" that can be dismissed.  

In a normal world, TVL either wouldn't misuse the word in that way, or they would be obliged to tell each individual that they have told is "under investigation" what the scope of the investigation is, and what rights the "suspect" has.   Those seem like basic human rights to me, but IANAL.

I am mindful of the nature of the offence (being behind 4 walls, being possibly continuing and possibly intermittent) but that confers no rights to the BBC to mess around with the basics of being a public authority in a civil society. 

I suppose a person of a mischievous mindset might respond to the news of being under investigation by formally asking TVL if it is still okay for them to go to Majorca/France/Isle of Man/Torquay whilst the investigation is on-going.  

Section62

Cornucopia said:

I suppose a person of a mischievous mindset might respond to the news of being under investigation by formally asking TVL if it is still okay for them to go to Majorca/France/Isle of Man/Torquay whilst the investigation is on-going.  

You mean they could offer to voluntarily surrender their passport for the duration of the investigation?

Cornucopia

Section62 said:

Cornucopia said:

I suppose a person of a mischievous mindset might respond to the news of being under investigation by formally asking TVL if it is still okay for them to go to Majorca/France/Isle of Man/Torquay whilst the investigation is on-going.  

You mean they could offer to voluntarily surrender their passport for the duration of the investigation?

Sounds a bit drastic.   

No, I mean asking a public authority plausible but irritating questions about the investigation that they say they have placed you under.

pphillips

Cornucopia said:

The TVL "investigation" is one of those elements that is right at the heart of the problem.    On the one hand, for all their overuse of the word, we know that there isn't anything tangible there aside from the letters themselves and the possibility of a "visit" that can be dismissed.  

In a normal world, TVL either wouldn't misuse the word in that way, or they would be obliged to tell each individual that they have told is "under investigation" what the scope of the investigation is, and what rights the "suspect" has.   Those seem like basic human rights to me, but IANAL.

I am mindful of the nature of the offence (being behind 4 walls, being possibly continuing and possibly intermittent) but that confers no rights to the BBC to mess around with the basics of being a public authority in a civil society. 

I suppose a person of a mischievous mindset might respond to the news of being under investigation by formally asking TVL if it is still okay for them to go to Majorca/France/Isle of Man/Torquay whilst the investigation is on-going.  

Going on holiday isn't going to be relevant to any TVL investigation, if indeed there is one.

I think what the supposed investigation is lacking is a clear and fair process.

If done properly, the investigation procedure could go something like this:

The occupier is written to 3 times informing them of the investigation before a visit is triggered and when the occupier is visited the following process is followed:

1. The visiting officer must first identity themselves
2. The visiting officer confirms they are speaking to the occupier and the address of the property.
3. The occupier is informed of their rights as to silence, legal representation and refusal of an interview.
4. The questioning may only resume after the occupier is informed of their rights.

If procedural errors made by the visiting officer meant that the occupier would not receive a fair trial, the prosecution must not be allowed to continue.

Magistrates or district judges would be informed of the investigation process and TVL would be expected to prove that the procedure was followed correctly.

Cornucopia

pphillips said:

Cornucopia said:

The TVL "investigation" is one of those elements that is right at the heart of the problem.    On the one hand, for all their overuse of the word, we know that there isn't anything tangible there aside from the letters themselves and the possibility of a "visit" that can be dismissed.  

In a normal world, TVL either wouldn't misuse the word in that way, or they would be obliged to tell each individual that they have told is "under investigation" what the scope of the investigation is, and what rights the "suspect" has.   Those seem like basic human rights to me, but IANAL.

I am mindful of the nature of the offence (being behind 4 walls, being possibly continuing and possibly intermittent) but that confers no rights to the BBC to mess around with the basics of being a public authority in a civil society. 

I suppose a person of a mischievous mindset might respond to the news of being under investigation by formally asking TVL if it is still okay for them to go to Majorca/France/Isle of Man/Torquay whilst the investigation is on-going.  

Going on holiday isn't going to be relevant to any TVL investigation, if indeed there is one.

I think what the supposed investigation is lacking is a clear and fair process.

If done properly, the investigation procedure could go something like this:

The occupier is written to 3 times informing them of the investigation before a visit is triggered and when the occupier is visited the following process is followed:

1. The visiting officer must first identity themselves
2. The visiting officer confirms they are speaking to the occupier and the address of the property.
3. The occupier is informed of their rights as to silence, legal representation and refusal of an interview.
4. The questioning may only resume after the occupier is informed of their rights.

If procedural errors made by the visiting officer meant that the occupier would not receive a fair trial, the prosecution must not be allowed to continue.

Magistrates or district judges would be informed of the investigation process and TVL would be expected to prove that the procedure was followed correctly.

I think we are definitely into "should've used more words" territory on the whole "asking TVL about holidays" notion.   It's an idea for a prank.  It's not a serious suggestion.   It's about ridiculing TVL's constant misuse of the term "investigation", implying some things that it is not.  

Overall, your process is exactly what is required - morally, and probably legally, too.   I still disagree that "investigation" is a suitable word to apply to the TVL process as it stands.

BBC/TVL don't want a rigid process like that, though.   They want to pick and choose addresses to visit, based on likely cost-effectiveness e.g. visit resources converting to Licence sales & confessions to evasion, and they want to be able to choose when to visit based on an offence that can be continuous and/or intermittent.    That's understandable, but is also a problem, giving rise to an elaborate league table of who gets most attention from them based on where they live.   It's also problematic when they then write continuously in threatening terms, irrespective of whether the promised visit is likely or not.

Presently (AFAIK/IANAL) the TVL interview process in England & Wales is not fully compliant with the latest version of the PACE codes.   When pressed, the BBC cite a legal precedent that is now quite old, and probably outdated (McNamara) which says that non-Police agencies do not have to include the Right to Legal Advice in their caution.   They could still include it, but they choose not to.  

I recently wrote to TVL and asked them about the practical detail of accessing a Solicitor during their interview on the doorstep.  Their initial response was that it was not possible to arrange (which is obviously not an accurate statement of law).   When I escalated, they walked back from that and said that the interview would be delayed until something could be arranged, but were still unclear about how that would work.

The bottom line is that there are both legal and practical questions about all of this, and it's very unclear that the law was ever intended to work in the way that BBC/TVL have implemented it.    

deano2099

For the best part of a decade I lived in an old converted townhouse that'd been turned into 5 flats. At some point, it had clearly been 6 flats, with the top one made into a two-bed at a later point. We knew that from the older door buzzers having six buttons on. That, and the regular quarterly letters from TV licensing pushed through the door addressed to "The Occupier, Flat 6"

I remember seeing them initially just a few weeks after moving in, there'd be one every few months, looking increasingly more threatening and with more red colours, then a break and then it'd start over again. I think at one point I even marked a couple "no such address" and popped them back in the mail. 

Clearly at no point was any "investigation" actually done. Any visit to the property would swiftly establish that said address didn't exist, but I'd also assume one could get those details from land registry. But no, there must have been 60 such letters sent to that address while I lived next door, and I presume they're still being sent now.