TV Licence article Discussion

2010

I got a letter today from tvl asking to check if I need a licence and declare that I do not.
Either by phone or online.
Is it best to do this or just ignore the letter altogether.

FreeBear

Ignore.

There is no legal requirement to declare that you don't need a licence.

cw18

2010 said:

I got a letter today from tvl asking to check if I need a licence and declare that I do not.
Either by phone or online.
Is it best to do this or just ignore the letter altogether.

Personal choice.

I used to complete the 'no licence required' declaration - and the only contact I had from them was an email 'about every 2 years' (was always several months short of that!) asking me to confirm things hadn't changed and that I still didn't need one.

I got fed up of the request landing early, so one time I decided not to respond until the 2 years was up.  And then I forgot.   I now get regular letters warning me they're "investigating my address" and "will be in my area".  Originally they were addressed to me by name, but after some months that changed and they're now 'to the occupier'.  Someone came round once, but I wasn't home from work - I only know they called as they left a business card saying they'd come back.   That must have been the early part of 2019, and they haven't been back yet.

If you think you can handle the regular threat-o-grams and have the confidence to shut the door in the face of anyone who comes round, then do nothing.    If you'd rather not have that, then complete the form - but be aware they can still come round.

If they don't already have your name, then I'd be loathe to complete the form.

VoucherMan

cw18 said:

If you think you can handle the regular threat-o-grams and have the confidence to shut the door in the face of anyone who comes round,

Apologies if this has already been answered multiple times, but I've never worked out how to use the search effectively since the forum moved to Vanilla.

Other than having to sanitise your home after they've been, are there any likely problems letting one of them into the property?

Surely if you let one in, they see that your TV is connected to nothing more than a Blu-ray player & USB stick, with no aerial, wifi or Ethernet connection, they'll make a note to not bother wasting their time again, and go away.
Or am I being a bit naive?

I recently sent the biennial 'not needed' declaration, but would be happy enough to entertain myself at their expense, if it's a risk free endeavour.

cw18

I've read stories where they get you to sign forms telling you they're something along the lines of a confirmation of their visit, when actually it's an admission that you've been watching live shows/iPlayer without a licence.

And, if you haven't correctly and completely detuned everything, there's a chance they'll get your equipment to show something that requires a licence - and then claim you're watching something that needs one even if you don't sign anything.

oldernonethewiser

"Surely if you let one in, they see that your TV is connected to nothing more than a Blu-ray player & USB stick, with no aerial, wifi or Ethernet connection, they'll make a note to not bother wasting their time again, and go away.
Or am I being a bit naive?"

You don't need a TV to need a licence so naive, yes. 

Do not engage with them in any way. 

Cornucopia

You can complete the No Licence Needed form without being committed to speak with TVL if they call round.   (And it is never in anyone's interest to speak with them).

The problem is that their stated desire to check whether people are breaking the law is not statutory - it is (only) the whim of the BBC.   There is no need to agree to it, it doesn't achieve anything, and it is always against your interests.   

Oh, and it's not how the law works in the UK.

In terms of the practicality of letting them in to your home, the issue is that it's too easy for them to bluff and badger their way into controlling the situation and creating doubt about whether your set-up is compliant.   They are trained to command the situation, and they are on commission - it's just not worth the various risks, IMHO, and there is no up-side for householders.   

2010

Thanks everyone,

I guess it`s just a question of whether I risk regular letters if I don`t state I don`t need a licence.
Is it best just to dump the letters unopened or "return to sender" them, causing them more expense?

Cornucopia

2010 said:

Thanks everyone,

I guess it`s just a question of whether I risk regular letters if I don`t state I don`t need a licence.
Is it best just to dump the letters unopened or "return to sender" them, causing them more expense?

The letters are basically meaningless - they are intended to threaten and deceive.   I would suggest disposing of them unopened - they are pretty easy to identify either because of theatrical messages visible on the outside or by the return address. 

Personally, I am returning mine unopened using Return to Sender and I think that's a viable alternative in the case of letters that are not personally addressed.

A campaign has been suggested whereby multiple letters from multiple recipients are all returned on the same day and that could be a way of gaining publicity and sending a clearer message that their letters are unacceptable.

cw18

2010 said:

Is it best just to dump the letters unopened or "return to sender" them, causing them more expense?

Please don't return to sender.    The cost of sending them back is covered by Royal Mail, and is built into the cost of the postage we all pay for sending things out.   There's an expectation of 'x%' of mail being sent back every year, but if that figure starts rising then so will the cost of postage generally