TV Licence article Discussion

1271272274276277407

Comments

  • Just over 8 years.
  • Cornucopia
    Cornucopia Posts: 16,154 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    edited 12 April 2018 at 10:07PM
    krixike wrote: »
    regarding completing the declaration form I am still trying to wait for a while (as long as possible..) and see what happens as I can anytime say that I have never received any letter from TVL at all...no one can trace it if true or not.
    The letters are irrelevant in that sense - they call on people who have ignored the letters, and those who have responded. That's the main reason why it is pointless to worry too much about whether to complete their form or not. If anyone is thinking of "breaking cover" to make a response, I would recommend that it be a legal remedy, such as refusing in advance to be interviewed under caution.
    Regarding hiding my browser activity is just a crafty idea, as this is still not 100% clear in which category my situation belongs to as per the law (even if their website says it more or less clearly...), however still cannot believe how the heck they can find out whether I was watching the online live telly at 9.35 pm on 21st FEB 2018 or not?? There's no way they can find it out unless their system is connected to the Pentagon or FBI!
    Indeed, it is pointless to seek to hide your use of web services, since they have no way to obtain information about it. That's not to condone evasion, and my advice here is on the basis that a best endeavours reading of the law shows that live streaming from outside the UK does not require a Licence.

    They work by obtaining confessions (some of which are genuinely provided, and others extracted by bluster and bullying).
    Anyway, will see how long this is situation can be sustainable, as I have been reading through some other forums on this topis, loads of people just ignore these letters from TVL and haven't even got into any bigger serious trouble (yet).
    The letters don't mean anything in themselves. They are simply evidence that your premises are on the scrutiny list for TVL.
  • krixike
    krixike Posts: 12 Forumite
    OK, again, will think it over again and act accordingly.

    @Bedsit Bob: well done or just crafty enough?!
  • krixike wrote: »
    well done or just crafty enough?!

    There's nothing particularly "crafty", about ignoring them.
  • Cornucopia
    Cornucopia Posts: 16,154 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    edited 13 April 2018 at 9:39AM
    Bedsit_Bob wrote: »
    There's nothing particularly "crafty", about ignoring them.

    I suppose it's easy to believe that when an "official agency" tells you things, that those things are objectively true, and therefore they appear to be out to stop (or at least challenge and control) people who want to exercise their rights under the law to live without a TV Licence if they meet the necessary conditions.

    Those of us who know the TV Licensing debacle know differently, and know that much of what they say isn't objectively true, or at least lacks suitable detail and impartiality to be an objective statement of the complete truth.

    So much for the BBC's mission to inform.
  • JimmyTheWig
    JimmyTheWig Posts: 12,199 Forumite
    Name Dropper First Post Combo Breaker First Anniversary
    krixike wrote: »
    And also wonder what other people in the same - or similar situation - do to try to make use of this loophole via a sort of VPN-solution or any other tools that are capable of hiding their browser history..
    If you need to hide your browser history then you're not using a loophole.
    It would be like finding out where the security cameras are in a shop and using that "loophole" to nick stuff.
    The loophole is to watch as much as you are allowed to without needing a licence.

    You have three choices.
    1. Buy a licence.
    2. Become LLF - i.e. have no licence and don't do anything that requires a licence. No hiding required.
    3. Break the law by doing stuff that needs a licence but hiding the fact and not buying a licence.

    This site doesn't condone number 3.
  • Cornucopia
    Cornucopia Posts: 16,154 Forumite
    First Anniversary Name Dropper First Post Photogenic
    edited 13 April 2018 at 10:29AM
    If you need to hide your browser history then you're not using a loophole.
    It would be like finding out where the security cameras are in a shop and using that "loophole" to nick stuff.
    The loophole is to watch as much as you are allowed to without needing a licence.
    That was my initial reading of what krixike posted, but reading some of his(?) other comments, I'm not so sure. I get the impression that he may be concerned that TVL have some marginal or unlawful investigatory powers with regards to IP searches or wifi sniffing that it would therefore be legitimate to work around.

    Since we know that that isn't too far off the truth, I'd say that some leeway was justified.
    2. Become LLF - i.e. have no licence and don't do anything that requires a licence. No hiding required.
    Have you any ideas about how to square the circle on international streaming of TV channels? If TVL are going to mess people around on this (and those people are often working with less experience of the English language or British bureaucrats) what are we/MSE supposed to do in providing advice on the issue - other than the patchy and cautious response I've already given?
    3. Break the law by doing stuff that needs a licence but hiding the fact and not buying a licence.

    This site doesn't condone number 3.
    I agree, but in the unique situation where the relevant authority sees fit to obfuscate the legal position, it does leave something of a practical and moral dilemma.
  • The loophole is to watch as much as you are allowed to without needing a licence.

    That's not a loophole.

    It's simply operating within the law.
  • It is a good concept. However, I had a depressing run in with tv Licensing before when I moved into a new flat...
    The old people had not paid and I had to first deal with the threatening letters I only opened when they were addressed to the occupier... So I had the threat of court action and bailiffs to put off as I wasn't me who owed them .. Then they started on me, I had not even got a TV before the letters started arriving, so I thought it would be a matter of waiting until I actually got one before paying for a license! However I received more letters saying they have to come round and check, which I wasn't happy about as I did not know exactly when I was going to get a TV, I was out all day from morning to night, and I would have thought they would take my word as I explained I would start to pay for a licence when I got my TV.but the letters kept coming.. In the end I got so fed up I just paid, it turned out two months for no reason and a sarky "thankyou for realising that, after all, you do need a licence" note from them.. .. It's all on direct debit and I can't face the hassle of going through that again!
    Maybe I am just not suited for Money Savings after all!!
  • mbmonty
    mbmonty Posts: 149 Forumite
    First Anniversary
    cw18 wrote: »
    As someone who has to deliver these evil letters (I work for Royal Mail), I can assure you that if there's no name it's meant for the current occupier (you in this case) or property owner (if the place is unoccupied). Should you get any mail addressed to someone who doesn't live there you should put a line through the address and write 'gone away' or 'not known at the address' on the envelope before putting it back into a postbox. If it's simply been put through your letterbox by accident you should either push it through where it was meant for or put it back in a mailbox without writing on it. Withholding mail (which you are if you don't do this) is actually an offence you can be charged with, although that's unlikely to happen.

    Not wishing to pick an argumnet, but my understanding is that it is only an offence to interfere with the Royal Mail (some ancient law hardly ever enforced) and once you put it through the door your job is done and there can be no further interference.

    There is also no duty of care for the occupant to do anything to forward or return mail, it is up to previous occupants to avail themselves of the excellent RM Redirect. It would be an offence to try to cash someone elses cheque etc.

    I regularly open mail addressed to previous occupants and it is a good job I do, two of them (I suspect the same person) have opened catalogue accounts at my address and taken out a contract with vodafone. These later escalted into debts, I did contact the companies and gave them the date previous occupants left and they confirmed these accounts were opened well after.

    BTW for the first six months I did return to sender and called the plethora of debt collection companies, they all ignored me except NPower who had some process I had to follow. They had some scam going on with 3 power companies all the bills were within the same period but in different names, plus the actual one who was the one I was supposed to use. I found out later that there is a database every energy provider has and so you can call them to find who the current supplier is.

    As far as I am concerned, as long as it is not mail for another property, what comes through my door is MINE! I do not anticipate being arrested any time soon and I shred most of them now. It is interesting that there must be about 50 debts attributed to former tenants and yet I have never had a debt collector at my door for any of them.
Meet your Ambassadors

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
  • 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 449.7K Spending & Discounts
  • 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 173.1K Life & Family
  • 247.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
  • 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards