TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

For me, the issue with UK law is cost. You need deep pockets before considering "free-standing" legal action - i.e. action instigated by you against a third party, rather than action instigated by the State against you.

I suppose the trick here might be to try to score a simple victory in the Small Claims process, where costs are capped.

mymedi

Cornucopia wrote: »

For me, the issue with UK law is cost. You need deep pockets before considering "free-standing" legal action

Exactly. If there were punitive damages, then lawyers would be willing to work on a no-win-no-pay basis (free for the client!) - they would recoupe their fees through damages.

Paul_Varjak

Steve059 wrote: »

The last time I checked, they've all settled out of court. The last thing they want is a legal precedent and the publicity.

You may well be right, but the press often report out-of-court settlements as court victories with 'compensation' payments.

Paul_Varjak

Cornucopia wrote: »

For me, the issue with UK law is cost. You need deep pockets before considering "free-standing" legal action - i.e. action instigated by you against a third party, rather than action instigated by the State against you.

I suppose the trick here might be to try to score a simple victory in the Small Claims process, where costs are capped.

Given that the Protection from Harassment Act creates both civil and criminal remedies for the same offence, what chance is there of bringing a private prosecution against the BBC for harassment?

Unlike a civil prosecution, there are no fees in bringing a private prosecution in the Magistrates Court, although the burden of proof in criminal cases is somewhat higher than civil cases.

Also, I am not sure how costs can be awarded for private prosecutions and there is always the possibility that the CPS could take over the case (they have the power to do that) and promptly drop it because of lack of evidence or it is not in the public interest to pursue.

But it appears the CPS can also take over a case and continue with the prosecution. In that case, I assume no costs would be involved. So, a private prosecution may be one way to go if you cannot convince the Police to even consider action for harassment.

A private prosecution is also more likely to spark media attention that a civil case.

It would be interesting to read any views from legal experts.

Andy_L

Cornucopia wrote: »

How much of an anomaly it is depends whether you see us as European in culture - in which case, it's not an anomaly at all.

Or, whether you see us as part of the post-colonial English speaking world, in which case it is an anomaly (since USA, Canada, Australia and NZ are all without it).

Although Aus & NZ both have government funded state broadcasters so you can't avoid paying for them. So both the tv licence and no licence models are anomalous in that subgroup :-)

Cornucopia

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

Given that the Protection from Harassment Act creates both civil and criminal remedies for the same offence, what chance is there of bringing a private prosecution against the BBC for harassment?

I don't want to go into too much detail, but I can see this, or similar action being the next stage.

I also have a slight practical problem in that because I have made so much fuss, BBC/TVL do not bombard me with letters any more, nor have they sent anyone to my home, AFAIK. That means, IIUC, that I would need to find a willing volunteer who is being harassed to actually make the complaint.

Paul_Varjak

I think the only person who can bring a private prosecution would be the aggrieved party, yes.

As I understand it, prosecutions brought by TV Licensing are in the name of the informant - the TV Licence 'officer' who is a witness to any breach.

I also understand that TV Licence 'Officers' work for Capita, but are self-employed. That appears to be a bit of a weak link as you may be able to sue the TV Licence 'Officer' for harassment and I wonder if he/she would get the backing of Capita/TV Licensing/BBC?

We know that TV Licensing has a flag for 'don't visit that address' but, if you are no longer receiving letters, I wonder if TV Licensing have a second 'flag' on their computer system which says: 'Never write to that address'.

Cornucopia

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

I think the only person who can bring a private prosecution would be the aggrieved party, yes.

As I understand it, prosecutions brought by TV Licensing are in the name of the informant - the TV Licence 'officer' who is a witness to any breach.

I also understand that TV Licence 'Officers' work for Capita, but are self-employed. That appears to be a bit of a weak link as you may be able to sue the TV Licence 'Officer' for harassment and I wonder if he/she would get the backing of Capita/TV Licensing/BBC?

I suppose that would depend on the nature of the harassing behaviour - whether the staff member could point to a procedure manual that required him to behave in that way.

It may be that the most effective action would cite all of: Joe Bloggs, Capita plc (the employer), and the BBC (the designer of the processes and instigator of contracts).

Personally, I think the letters may be a better angle - being sent centrally, being sent monthly, being designed explicitly to "carry a strong message", etc. etc.

We know that TV Licensing has a flag for 'don't visit that address' but, if you are no longer receiving letters, I wonder if TV Licensing have a second 'flag' on their computer system which says: 'Never write to that address'.

Pretty sure that they have such a flag on their database. Way back, I received the standard threatening letters several months in a row, and when I complained, I received another one. When I complained about that, I was told that it takes 6-8 weeks for the stop on letters to become effective.

In fact, I seem to recall a set of procedures released under FOI that documented some of the mechanisms and flags they use.

More widely, people who "register" for "no TV" are told that they will receive no further letters for 2 years.

Paul_Varjak

I recently cancelled my TV licence and I did receive s standard letter indicating I would not be contacted again for nearly 2 years. At least it seems relatively easy to go onto the TVL website and say you don't need a TV licence and I would do that in two years time. That does not seem to geat a hardship.

Cornucopia

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

I recently cancelled my TV licence and I did receive s standard letter indicating I would not be contacted again for nearly 2 years. At least it seems relatively easy to go onto the TVL website and say you don't need a TV licence and I would do that in two years time. That does not seem to geat a hardship.

The missing detail is that they say they "may visit"....

I'd be quite happy for the BBC to create a single process, consistent with legal principles, publish it(*), stick to it and deal appropriately with any of their staff who go outside it. But they seem quite incapable of doing that.

(*) Meaning publish it in plain English, using tone and terms that are appropriately respectful and relevant to the general public.