Unlawful TV Licence Enforcement

Some FMs may be aware that there are a variety of legal approaches that can be adopted in order to prevent TV Licensing from causing undue stress, harassment, etc. to you and your household.

The issue with many options is that they are legally complex, and that they can have legal or practical side-effects.

Of those that don't have side-effects, my favourite option up to now has been to invoke the PACE Right to decline interview in writing, in advance. When I did this, the BBC's response was to instruct TV Licensing never to contact me. Whilst this response is not guaranteed, using these PACE rights can be expected to be very effective, since they are well-documented, and if the BBC does not observe them properly, it can create legal difficulties for them with the Courts.

The BBC's failure to respond to these Human Rights Law observations gives rise to a new legal option, which is to simply say to them that their approach does not meet the requirements of Article 8.2, it is therefore unlawful, and (a) they cannot compel or coerce you into complying with an unlawful process, and (b) if they try, you will not cooperate because their process is unlawful.

You're responding to something that's nearly 2 years old, but by mentioning me personally, you kind of oblige me to respond.

Firstly, I don't think I've "compliained" that TVL have been banned from contacting me by the BBC.   In any case, since the ban was made by them, I'm sure they would write to me if they wanted to, or in response to communication from me.   But it is nice to be outside the usual TVL harassment by post and in person.

The future of the Licence Fee will unfold in due course.   I don't think any of us has any significant input into that process, though I have given my views when consultations have been offered.   

The claim that it is illegal/unlawful is based on my own findings without going to heroic measures like paying real money for a human rights barrister.   Even in basic terms, there's clearly something wrong with a process whereby TVL threaten to visit you, then they visit you, then they question you (using a fallible paper form) and then they prosecute you.   They do all of that whilst giving away as little information about your rights as possible.   If that is lawful, then it shouldn't be.  The process *must* be transparent.

Digging deeper, you find that the paper form is not consistent with PACE, the caution (if one is even given) is not consistent with PACE, and their presence on the doorstep/in your home without enabling legislation is in contradiction to Article 8.2 of the HRA.   If they had enabling legislation, it would be required by law to have wording that was explicit, specific, accessible, understandable and proof against arbitrariness.  Clearly, if it met those requirements then it would be all the more obvious what it was, but it doesn't because it isn't there.

So, yes, it's true to say that it's my opinion that it is unlawful, but that opinion is based in a certain amount of research.   I suppose it might be possible to mount a judicial review, but I am not now a victim of the process, so that would present difficulties.   It would also be very expensive, and the costs at risk would no doubt be inflated by a very vigourous defence from the BBC using the best lawyers public funds can procure.