Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@. Skimlinks & other affiliated links are turned on

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • espritlibre87
    • By espritlibre87 12th Nov 17, 2:07 PM
    • 32Posts
    • 11Thanks
    espritlibre87
    TV Licence - will they get a warrant?
    • #1
    • 12th Nov 17, 2:07 PM
    TV Licence - will they get a warrant? 12th Nov 17 at 2:07 PM
    I don't have a TV licence - my partner and I only watch Netflix or DVDs. I have of course declared this to the licensing company.

    Today we made the mistake of answering our door (we live in a block of flats so assumed it was a neighbour) to a licensing inspector wanting to check out the property and asking whether we own a TV. I stopped him and said we have the right to refuse him entry. He agreed and said that they would then get a warrant and come back. I stupidly confirmed my surname when he asked "is it still ....?" and I'm kicking myself for it.

    I know the licensing company like to use threats to frighten people into buying a licence. Do I need to be concerned that they will genuinely execute this warrant? The reality is I don't need a licence, I don't watch TV illegally, and on that basis I should have "nothing to fear" but I have read enough stories of inspectors tricking people into 'confessing', or coming up with not-entirely-true statements to 'prove' the person needs a licence, that I am not happy with anyone coming to inspect my home trying to catch me out.

    On a side note, when we first moved into the property (a new build) there were 8 months worth of letters to "The Occupier" threatening investigation, stating that an investigation had now been opened, repeat until insane. It was absolutely ridiculous. Nobody was living in the property before us anyway, and they'd essentially duplicated the same letters over and over in increasingly threatening terms. So this partly makes me think they're full of hot air, but equally they have confirmed my name (I know, I'm an idiot for being caught out) and I'm worried that then gives them grounds to execute a warrant. At that point do I lose my rights? I've done nothing to give them reason to believe I'm watching TV illegally (refusing entry to my home should not be grounds for suspicion in my opinion, it's my home and I have the right to do so)
Page 4
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 24th Nov 17, 8:27 PM
    • 10,024 Posts
    • 9,903 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    So, a person without a TV licence is unable to perfectly legally listen to radio through there TV?
    Originally posted by Mr_Singleton
    You can listen to the Radio using your TV without a TV Licence. However, when asked for information under FOI about how to configure such a set-up to avoid prosecution, BBC-TVL refused to provide any.

    On that basis, I would always suggest not using a TV to listen to Freeview/Satellite Radio.

    Out of interest do you have any links for the install without evidence of reception? I!!!8217;d be interested to know how long ago it was as I seem to remember a very famous? case suggesting quite the opposite.
    The only relatively famous TVL-related case was Rudd. It wasn't actually a TVL case, but was actually about pirate radio. However, it introduced a defence in law that an AV installation that would otherwise be unlawful, could be rendered lawful by the presentation to the Court of a legitimate lawful purpose for its existence. The onus of proof is on the defendant.

    Also doesn!!!8217;t a TV have to be plugged in with arieal to get non-BBC catch-up services?
    No. Catch-up services are generally delivered via the Internet, and do not require an aerial connection. Sky/VM work somewhat differently, but they are not good candidates for being LLF anyway.
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 24-11-2017 at 8:31 PM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • espritlibre87
    • By espritlibre87 28th Nov 17, 11:51 AM
    • 32 Posts
    • 11 Thanks
    espritlibre87
    Wow, I wasn't expecting quite such a flurry of replies! Thank you to those who have provided sensible advice. As far as certain others who didn't quite manage to do so, I know we shouldn't feed the trolls but a brief response regardless:

    I am well aware of which activities require a licence, and which do not.
    Having conflicting views on what constitutes good entertainment is not a breach of the law, regardless of how much you may personally enjoy Strictly Come Dancing.
    There is no requirement for me to prove that I have not committed an offence, when there is no evidence to suggest I have committed any such offence in the first place. I shall continue to exercise my Right to Privacy. Furthermore, the Capita employee who appeared at my door was found to be trespassing on the property (nobody had granted him access to what is a private building). He also broke TVL's own code of conduct, twice, by threatening us with a warrant.
    Your suggestion that the majority of us are lying is frankly offensive. Particularly given the many, many cases of vulnerable individuals being duped into paying for a licence they do not need. In the brief period of time that I have been making enquiries, I have heard of (and in some cases seen via video) people being wrongly informed they require a licence:
    - for owning a TV
    - for owning a smart TV with apps that cannot be deleted (despite no proof that the apps had ever been accessed)
    - for owning an unplugged TV, that the Capita employees then plugged in, thereby turning the TV into a receiver
    - for owning an internet-enabled TV
    Whilst I would record any future encounter with Capita, I would also prefer not to have to endure this in the first place, hence the original post.

    Again, thank you to those who offered genuine advice.
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 28th Nov 17, 8:53 PM
    • 10,024 Posts
    • 9,903 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    Corrected.........


    The way I understood it, no one lived/stayed at my mums main home when she was in her holiday home. Hence no second licence was needed. She explained all this to the clown.
    Originally posted by scd3scd4
    That's true if the Holiday Home is a Static caravan, mobile home or moveable chalet. There's a form to register the Holiday Home.

    If the Holiday Home is a House, flat, bungalow or cottage then a second Licence is required, subject to the possibility of using another exemption.

    If the Holiday Home is a Boat, Touring Caravan or other vehicle then a second Licence is never required.

    http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/for-your-home/second-home-aud8
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • House Martin
    • By House Martin 29th Nov 17, 8:30 PM
    • 1,353 Posts
    • 1,142 Thanks
    House Martin
    Wow, I wasn't expecting quite such a flurry of replies! Thank you to those who have provided sensible advice. As far as certain others who didn't quite manage to do so, I know we shouldn't feed the trolls but a brief response regardless:

    I am well aware of which activities require a licence, and which do not.
    Having conflicting views on what constitutes good entertainment is not a breach of the law, regardless of how much you may personally enjoy Strictly Come Dancing.
    There is no requirement for me to prove that I have not committed an offence, when there is no evidence to suggest I have committed any such offence in the first place. I shall continue to exercise my Right to Privacy. Furthermore, the Capita employee who appeared at my door was found to be trespassing on the property (nobody had granted him access to what is a private building). He also broke TVL's own code of conduct, twice, by threatening us with a warrant.
    Your suggestion that the majority of us are lying is frankly offensive. Particularly given the many, many cases of vulnerable individuals being duped into paying for a licence they do not need. In the brief period of time that I have been making enquiries, I have heard of (and in some cases seen via video) people being wrongly informed they require a licence:
    - for owning a TV
    - for owning a smart TV with apps that cannot be deleted (despite no proof that the apps had ever been accessed)
    - for owning an unplugged TV, that the Capita employees then plugged in, thereby turning the TV into a receiver
    - for owning an internet-enabled TV
    Whilst I would record any future encounter with Capita, I would also prefer not to have to endure this in the first place, hence the original post.

    Again, thank you to those who offered genuine advice.
    Originally posted by espritlibre87
    I find your answer very offensive to me. You are trying to call me a liar when I have been at my job for many years viewing the MAJORITY of occupiers who do not possess a TV licence viewing terrestrial scheduled TV which requires a licence. I find your attitude highly offensive to me
    Yes the majority I see in the course of my job are clearly liars.
    .We decided to leave Europe because the MAJORITY decided to leave, 51% to 49%. Do you understand the meaning of the word "majority "
    I have never mentioned words like "all ", or "everyone " Most people I do see in my job do not have the TV set on but the MAJORITY of the ones that do are watching normal ITV or BBC at the times
    By the way, do a little research about the laws of trespass before trying to accuse anyone of knocking on your door ( that is if you actually own the property ) and trespassing. There are over 200 separate bodies who not only have rights to knock on your door but to actually enter your property without your consent, and everyone who has lawful business with the public have rights to knock on your door, and that includes the postman, the milkman, and yes the gasman too, delivering hand delivered TV licence reminders and inspecting your utility meters
    This is good advice, I m not a "troll " which is an offensive term to me. it may avoid you getting into a slanging match in the future with any other Capita employees who come to see you. Just behave politely and wish them good day and close the door, that is all you have to do. They will not be taking out a warrant of access
    No one is breaking the laws of trespass for walking down a path or up a flight of stairs to a flat and attempting to speak to the occupier. They do not apply.So please do not start falsly accusing Capita employees of trespass.
    If you say you NEVER watch any live scheduled TV or any BBC on demand or catch up services, why are you not incandescent with rage at all the ones who get taken to court every year, over 200,000 a year (, just a small proportion of those who are getting away with it )
    You should be in a fury of rage and applauding Capita in their job who make the honest ones who comply seem to have an air of suspicion about themselves especially when they start to deny access to check equipment, which would only take a minute or two.
    I get plenty of people who are happy to admit me to check their properties for TV sets, aerial leads, Sky boxes etc, even though I rarely take up the offer
    Last edited by House Martin; 29-11-2017 at 8:37 PM.
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 29th Nov 17, 10:07 PM
    • 10,024 Posts
    • 9,903 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    I find your answer very offensive to me. You are trying to call me a liar when I have been at my job for many years viewing the MAJORITY of occupiers who do not possess a TV licence viewing terrestrial scheduled TV which requires a licence. I find your attitude highly offensive to me
    Yes the majority I see in the course of my job are clearly liars.
    .We decided to leave Europe because the MAJORITY decided to leave, 51% to 49%. Do you understand the meaning of the word "majority "
    I have never mentioned words like "all ", or "everyone " Most people I do see in my job do not have the TV set on but the MAJORITY of the ones that do are watching normal ITV or BBC at the times
    Originally posted by House Martin
    You said this on the first page of this very thread (and you have said similar things many times before): "In my job I have hard evidence that 9 out 10 people who claim to be legally licence free lol are in fact lying".

    If you want to be able to later claim "offence", you need to be way more precise with your language than that.

    You also haven't answered my question about how you know that the people you visit have claimed to be legally Licence-free. It's a particularly pertinent question because AFAIK, BBC-TVL and Capita do not recognise the term.

    Also, what you have is not "hard evidence". It is circumstantial, at best.

    By the way, do a little research about the laws of trespass before trying to accuse anyone of knocking on your door ( that is if you actually own the property ) and trespassing.
    EspritLibre lives in a flat in a secure building. I'm not sure if s/he ever mentioned whether the TVL person's entry route to the building had been identified, but either way when the TVL person appeared at EL's door, he was there without following the normal protocol for that building (and most buildings with an entryphone system). I don't think it's unreasonable to use the term "trespassing" in that context, although whether the actual Civil Tort has been committed will depend on the detail. i.e. whether there is plausible deniability for him to claim that he didn't know that he was obliged to use the Entryphone, and wait to be invited up to the flat.

    There are over 200 separate bodies who not only have rights to knock on your door but to actually enter your property without your consent...
    Capita is not one of them, and neither is the BBC.

    No one is breaking the laws of trespass for walking down a path or up a flight of stairs to a flat and attempting to speak to the occupier. They do not apply.
    Pretty sure that's not true. Trespass can occur on any piece of private land in England and Wales under the right circumstances. Whether there is a plausible claim depends on the circumstances.

    So please do not start falsly accusing Capita employees of trespass.
    There are plenty of videos showing TVL/Capita staff trespassing - when TVL have been banned from the premises by prior instruction, and when TVL do not leave immediately when instructed.

    However, Trespass is just the thin end of the law-breaking wedge for BBC-TVL and Capita. Whilst IANAL, I have good reason to suspect breaches of HRA and PACE, and in the context of the G4S/MDS operation your own evidence suggests breach of DPA, and possibly RIPA.

    You should be in a fury of rage and applauding Capita in their job who make the honest ones who comply seem to have an air of suspicion about themselves especially when they start to deny access to check equipment, which would only take a minute or two.
    It's disappointing that you haven't realised yet that BBC-TVL and Capita are not the "good guys". That doesn't make Evaders the good guys either, before you assume that. BBC-TVL and Capita need to carry out their activities in ways that are 100% compatible with relevant law 100% of the time across 100% of their staff and also meet the requirements of running a public service in a civil society (like not trying to bluster, bully or deceive the Public). That is not happening at the moment, and until it does, people are right to criticise them and to treat them with extreme caution in their personal dealings with them.

    I think you'll find that that is the prevailing view of people who know what BBC-TVL and Capita do and how they do it.
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 01-12-2017 at 4:18 PM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • Agent_Rothbard
    • By Agent_Rothbard 14th Feb 18, 5:12 PM
    • 32 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Agent_Rothbard
    BBC-TVL and Capita need to carry out their activities in ways that are 100% compatible with relevant law 100% of the time across 100% of their staff and also meet the requirements of running a public service in a civil society (like not trying to bluster, bully or deceive the Public). That is not happening at the moment, and until it does, people are right to criticise them and to treat them with extreme caution in their personal dealings with them.
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    Absolutely agree.

    I am one of the "mythical" legally licence free that the Capita employee asserts don't really exist. I enjoyed a chuckle at his incredulity that anyone could possibly not watch Strictly! Don't judge us all by your own (low) standards Sir!

    I would not however, engage with a Capita employee who turns up on my doorstep because I find the presumption of guilt under which they operate to be repugnant. I would not tolerate Tesco employees turning up demanding to see what make of biscuit I have in my cupboard on the basis that I don't shop in Tesco and I will not tolerate that kind of behaviour from an entertainment company either. I will not prove my innocence absent reasonable grounds for suspicion of guilt and making a consumer choice not to buy licenceable content is NOT reasonable grounds to suspect the crime of licence evasion.

    The thuggish behaviour of Capita employees and their scant acquaintance with or respect for statute guarantees I will not have them on my property let alone answer their questionnaires. I await a search warrant with interest and, since "evidence" supporting a warrant application can only have been concocted by Capita employees, will enjoy seeking a judicial review of the application. I'm fully versed in the relevant legislation, including PACE, so they had better make sure they are too before they knock at my door!!
    • Agent_Rothbard
    • By Agent_Rothbard 14th Feb 18, 6:44 PM
    • 32 Posts
    • 4 Thanks
    Agent_Rothbard
    Not sure if this link has been posted, but it rather gives the lie to the Capita employee's protestations that his role is honourable...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4262202/BBC-s-TV-licence-bullies-exposed.html
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 14th Feb 18, 7:19 PM
    • 10,024 Posts
    • 9,903 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    Not sure if this link has been posted, but it rather gives the lie to the Capita employee's protestations that his role is honourable...

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4262202/BBC-s-TV-licence-bullies-exposed.html
    Originally posted by Agent_Rothbard
    That's been discussed here on one of the TV Licensing threads, definitely. (Ian Doyle - the chap in the video - is well known to those of us with long-term knowledge of TV Licensing).

    I should say that House Martin does not claim to work for Capita. He works for Morrisons Data Services (what used to be G4S). Their role is supposed to be just to deliver leaflets for TV Licensing, however he has made certain allegations that amount to data protection and unlawful surveillance issues.

    edit, and apologies for the length of this edit: I've hedged around the issue of the extent to which TV Licensing may be operating unlawfully on my previous posts on MSE. This is for two reasons: (1) such claims (especially if unsupported) would likely be seen as irrational and contentious, and (2) I didn't want to compromise MSE's situation by making unfounded allegations of a serious nature.

    Over recent months, however, I have begun to amass a set of official material (case law, official briefing documents, advice obtained from official sources) that systematically calls into serious question the lawfulness of the TV Licensing approach.

    The key issues are these:-

    1) That TV Licensing's day-to-day operations (the sending of millions of letters, and the knocking of millions of front doors) are not specified in any legislation. This creates an immediate problem in that citizens are unable to establish what is being done, why it is being done, and what the limits are. At the same time, TVL often misrepresent their processes, and citizens' cooperation as being officially necessary, when that is not true. When questioned, the BBC have refused to state the authority for TV Licensing to operate - this is a curious position, since if it were fully lawful and authorised, I would have thought that they would delight in saying so.

    2) That TV Licensing's wish to enter people's homes, check for illicit TV viewing and possibly interview under caution come within the scope of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (the Right to Privacy and Private Life). The BBC have previously agreed that this is so, though they have cited various arguments as to why the law is not being breached.

    3) There are a large set of issues about PACE compliance.

    4) There are the data protection and unlawful surveillance issues raised by MSE FM House Martin and other anecdotal sources.

    5) A technical dispute regarding the capability for Scottish householders to ban TV Licensing from their premises (as is the case in England and Wales).


    The justification for the above is as follows:

    1) (a) Shimovolos v. Russia, Application no. 30194/09, Council of Europe: European Court of Human Rights, 21 June 2011. This case revolves around a secret official process for monitoring citizens. It was held that a breach of Article 8 occurred by virtue of activities in scope of its protection were not authorised by published legislation to which the Public could refer.

    (b) EU Human Rights Handbooks https://rm.coe.int/168007ff47. This document confirms the requirements for activities with the scope of Article 8 to have the authority of legislation (or similar regulations) that is specific, explicit, accessible, understandable, and proof against arbitrariness.

    (c) "Human Rights, Human Lives" (https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/sites/default/files/human_rights_human_lives_a_guide_for_public_author ities.pdf This set of guidance from the Equality and Human Rights Commission to Public Authorities confirms the foregoing, and also builds upon it with a clear statement that: "[authority] must be set out in law, or in rules or guidance, and it must be communicated effectively to ensure that people to whom it applies can find out about it" and "That might mean making guidance or other rules publicly available, perhaps via the internet...".

    2) Within the document immediately above, the very first entry on the list of activities that are in-scope of Article 8 is "Home Searches".

    3) (a) The BBC have maintained that most of PACE does not apply to TV Licensing for various reasons. However, many of the PACE sections are specifically worded so as to include non-Police investigators and non-Police Station interview locations. I would say that sections: 3.21-3.22, 10.2, 11.1A-11.7 and 12.6 of PACE Code C are binding upon TV Licensing.

    (b) In addition, advice has been sought from the Police Powers Unit at the Home Office which confirms that the information given to householders prior to TVL interview is inadequate. In particular, they must be told that they have a right to decline to be interviewed, and a right to legal advice, but they are not. Best practice would also be to confirm to them that they are not under arrest.

    4) I won't go into these allegations as they are still forum hearsay. I have asked the BBC to comment.

    5) TV Licensing have persistently misrepresented any request to ban them from Scottish homes as "confusing" English Common Law with Scottish Law, and refused them. I don't doubt that some legally minded person at the BBC thought that that was quite clever, however, it's clear that there are rights under Scottish law to ban people from private land. Indeed, the BBC's own arguments about Article 8 (which revolve around consent) are undermined in Scotland if there is no capability to withhold consent. I have suggested to them that Scottish householder should charge TV Licensing a (large) entrance fee. I await their response on that.


    The bottom line for MSEers, is: do you really want to deal with an organisation that has this much (and more) legal weight of argument against it?
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 17-02-2018 at 10:15 PM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 17th Feb 18, 5:46 PM
    • 1,825 Posts
    • 2,395 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    I imagine I'm one of a very small number of people with a Senior Rail Card who has never owned a colour TV. In addition as the recipient of firelighters in the name of The Legal Occupier I've never worried about warrants.

    One for Cornucopia really - I'm sure Capita can't be ar*ed to pursue an address where there is no evidence of an aerial or flickering TV, but what is the legal position in them ascertaining the name of the occupier by other means, given that I have no interest in telling them myself?
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 17th Feb 18, 6:49 PM
    • 10,024 Posts
    • 9,903 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    One for Cornucopia really - I'm sure Capita can't be ar*ed to pursue an address where there is no evidence of an aerial or flickering TV, but what is the legal position in them ascertaining the name of the occupier by other means, given that I have no interest in telling them myself?
    Originally posted by silverwhistle
    That's actually a really complicated question.

    Firstly, they don't need a name to obtain a TVL Warrant - the Warrant is obtained against an address. So, if that's your concern, then having a name does not help them there. (TVL Warrants are also extremely rare).

    In terms of the interview under caution, they DO need a name to make out the offence, but they need the name of the actual person they are interviewing, confirmed by them during the interview. Whilst they might ask: are you Mr. Silverwhistle? unless you answer Yes, then it would be an abuse of process to write it on the interview form.

    TVL have been buying name & address data commercially, and I suppose your question boils down to: is that acceptable? Even this isn't straightforward. The DPA requires processing of personal data to be lawful, fair and to comply with a number of other criteria. Whilst we know that the essential purpose of TVL's data is for the harassment of citizens in connection with non-statutory demands, I think it would be expecting quite a lot of the ICO to take that view. In reality, I think TVL would claim that their intention is law enforcement, in which case they would probably be given significant latitude.

    There are some principles that might catch them out:-

    - be transparent about how you intend to use the data, and give individuals appropriate privacy notices when collecting their personal data

    - [data processing will be regarded as unlawful if] your organisation [is] exceeding its legal powers or exercising those powers improperly

    - [data processing will be regarded as unlawful if it results in] a breach of the Human Rights Act 1998

    - one of the conditions for processing is that the individual has consented to their personal data being collected and used in the manner and for the purposes in question

    I would say that the consent issue is the most interesting, and the most likely IMHO to be successful. The data being used by TVL is likely to have been purchased from commercial providers from opted-in sources (i.e. where citizens have willingly given data for marketing purposes). It would be interesting to challenge TVL's usage as being something other than marketing. In addition, it ought to be possible to withhold consent to process from TVL.

    The starting point would be for someone who has received named enforcement letters to submit a Subject Access Request to TVL.
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 17-02-2018 at 7:56 PM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • societys child
    • By societys child 17th Feb 18, 9:55 PM
    • 5,197 Posts
    • 5,734 Thanks
    societys child
    Ahh. Never read through this thread before. What was it was about the often obnoxious posts made by the resident meter reader?
    Strange insinuations regarding people who refused "smart" meters etc. and that Everyone's Guilty.

    Often thought what a jumped up little .... but couldn't quite put my finger on it . . .

    It all fits now, just the sort of "security expert" TVL needed.
    Keep up the good work meter-man, you're special

    • silverwhistle
    • By silverwhistle 17th Feb 18, 11:05 PM
    • 1,825 Posts
    • 2,395 Thanks
    silverwhistle
    That's actually a really complicated question. /SNIP/ .
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    Thanks for your lengthy and considered reply.

    I'm on some mailing lists I'd imagine, but I get very little spam and not too much targetted junk mail, a situation I'd like to continue. I've opted out of being on the published electoral register.

    My interest in the matter doesn't extend to being a test case (!) but this is all useful information now in a more public forum, and might come in useful for somebody. I'd be interested in Capita getting a bloody nose. Shame it isn't Carillon running the service. :-)
    • Glen Clark
    • By Glen Clark 28th Mar 18, 5:26 AM
    • 4,138 Posts
    • 3,157 Thanks
    Glen Clark
    easily the best channel in the world ,
    Originally posted by House Martin
    How many TV channels are there in the world, and how do you manage to watch them all constantly to see which channel is best?
    From my memory most of the corruption exposed in our establishment (MP's bribes and expense fiddles, Royal Family members on the take etc) has been exposed by non BBC media - and I don't see why I should have to pay the BBC to watch their competitor's channels.
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair
    • Glen Clark
    • By Glen Clark 28th Mar 18, 5:36 AM
    • 4,138 Posts
    • 3,157 Thanks
    Glen Clark
    Many of the issues with TVL/Capita stem from their lack of legal authority. That means that people can simply ignore them at the door, or politely turn them away. If the Powers That Be don't want that to happen then they know what to do.
    Originally posted by Cornucopia
    The law says 'a man's home is his castle' which means that under the law, the poor mans home has the same protection as the Lord's castle. If the poor man's home does not get the same protection as the Lord's castle that is because of police corruption, not the law.
    Their problem is controlling TVL in the same way - if they are given authority to enter the poor man's home whats to stop them entering a Member of Parliament or Royal Family member's home?
    So I guess the Establishmen't's answer is to require them to get authorisation warrant from an Establishment Lackey who decides who has privacy and who doesn't.
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair
    • Cornucopia
    • By Cornucopia 28th Mar 18, 9:12 AM
    • 10,024 Posts
    • 9,903 Thanks
    Cornucopia
    The law says 'a man's home is his castle' which means that under the law, the poor mans home has the same protection as the Lord's castle. If the poor man's home does not get the same protection as the Lord's castle that is because of police corruption, not the law.
    Originally posted by Glen Clark
    Yes - the basic right to privacy/protection from the State goes back centuries in UK law, and is now enshrined both in Common Law and the Human Rights Act.

    The problem with TV Licensing is that their approach to this issue is somewhat indirect and deceptive. They've taken it from a black and white statement within the law to something upon which they negotiate, bluff and bluster over on 800,000 doorsteps every year. My reading of the law is that this process of bluff and bluster does not absolve them from compliance with relevant law, but IANAL. Everything I've seen (from various official sources) suggests that what they are doing is unlawful, or at the very best, it has a marginal, parsimonious lawfulness by the letter of the law, but is long way from the spirit of it.

    We can only speculate upon the kind of "soft power" corruption or undue influence that leads to the situation where the basic questions about TV Licensing are not only not being answered, but rarely being asked in the first place.

    Their problem is controlling TVL in the same way - if they are given authority to enter the poor man's home whats to stop them entering a Member of Parliament or Royal Family member's home?
    So I guess the Establishmen't's answer is to require them to get authorisation warrant from an Establishment Lackey who decides who has privacy and who doesn't.
    The law as written requires that there are "reasonable grounds for believing that an offence has been or is being committed". Personally, I think that's a reasonable basis as far as it goes, the main questions being the extent to which TV Licensing meets that criterion, the extent to which Magistrates enforce the criterion and whether the overall ex parte process rules (which require full disclosure) are being properly applied. However, the biggest issue is numbers. The tiny number of TV Licensing warrants (around 100 each year for the entire UK) means that the benefit of reviewing/reforming the warrant process is probably marginal. On the other hand, it's difficult to conceive that TV Licensing has a process that can fairly and robustly identify the 100 most egregious cases that require/deserve a Warrant from the 800,000 interactions they have on the doorstep, and the 3.2 million unanswered visits they make. It seems unlikely that the selection process is in any way fair.
    Last edited by Cornucopia; 28-03-2018 at 9:28 AM.
    I'm a Board Guide on the Phones & TV, Techie Stuff, In My Home,
    The Money Savers Arms and Food Shopping boards. I'm a volunteer to help the boards run smoothly, and I can move and merge threads there. Any views (especially those on the UK TV Licence) are mine and not the official line of moneysavingexpert.com.

    Board guides are not moderators. If you spot an inappropriate or illegal post then please report it to forumteam@moneysavingexpert.com
    • House Martin
    • By House Martin 28th Mar 18, 2:46 PM
    • 1,353 Posts
    • 1,142 Thanks
    House Martin
    The law says 'a man's home is his castle' which means that under the law, the poor mans home has the same protection as the Lord's castle. If the poor man's home does not get the same protection as the Lord's castle that is because of police corruption, not the law.
    Their problem is controlling TVL in the same way - if they are given authority to enter the poor man's home whats to stop them entering a Member of Parliament or Royal Family member's home?
    So I guess the Establishmen't's answer is to require them to get authorisation warrant from an Establishment Lackey who decides who has privacy and who doesn't.
    Originally posted by Glen Clark
    Just to set the record straight Glen, your home is nt your "castle " and never has been.
    There are over 200 bodies in the UK, some very obscure ones, who have access to your property .
    TV Licensing have access to your property too under warrant and they do use it occasionally.
    Not very often .
    I hope they target people who run websites and who post disgusting Youtube rants who help, aid and abet fellow UK citizens to break the law, or to exist legally licence free properly.
    If someone is truly legally licence free then they should admit any Capita officer to verify their claim. What could be easier !
    • HWW
    • By HWW 28th Mar 18, 3:47 PM
    • 73 Posts
    • 35 Thanks
    HWW
    Just to set the record straight Glen, your home is nt your "castle " and never has been.
    There are over 200 bodies in the UK, some very obscure ones, who have access to your property .
    TV Licensing have access to your property too under warrant and they do use it occasionally.
    Not very often .
    I hope they target people who run websites and who post disgusting Youtube rants who help, aid and abet fellow UK citizens to break the law, or to exist legally licence free properly.
    If someone is truly legally licence free then they should admit any Capita officer to verify their claim. What could be easier !
    Originally posted by House Martin

    Yes, websites like this one: http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=9d39d4e29bf70e8b156bb3612289d4 25;wwwRedirect that will help you save money.
    Unlike the BBC/Capita public relations guy: HM, that will cost you money - to the tune of £150.


    BTW, Search warrants are really as rare as hens teeth. About 100 a year, for the WHOLE of the UK. You have a better chance of winning the lottery.


    Why pay for BBC/Government propaganda & brainwashing?


    He is correct in one respect, there are a few agencies that can have emergency/safety access to your "Castle" Gas leak reasons, etc
    BBC/Capita are not at their level though - occasionally, if the resident is high profile or is abusive, Capita will get a warrant (Claim they have heard TV sound, or other lies) - they will not kick your door in though like the Interceptors - but if your seen, they can try an obstruction charge - more serious.


    But keep it polite if no warrant, no abuse - just "Not today thanks" & shut the door. If they start screaming & banging your door again, (They are poorly trained) Call the police for a disturbance of the peace.


    If you DO watch Live TV, or use the BBC insipid player for vision use, go buy a Licence - other than that, carry on with your BBC free existence.
    Last edited by HWW; 28-03-2018 at 5:16 PM.
    • Robisere
    • By Robisere 28th Mar 18, 8:20 PM
    • 2,240 Posts
    • 3,054 Thanks
    Robisere
    When the TVL is finally abolished, what kind of work will people like House Martin have to find next?

    Are there any Guard vacancies at Guantanamo Bay, I wonder?

    The truth is that he and those like him, have no legal right to enter anyone's home, and this annoys him into ranting pointlessly on this forum. Can HM please enlighten us with a list of those 200 bodies that he insists do have a legal right to enter our homes? I do like reading imaginative fiction....

    I have a TVL and I watch BBC TV. I partially agree with HM that the BBC has some wonderful programmes, but I do not include any form of televisual garbage like Come Dancing. I choose good drama, documentaries and wildlife programmes, all of which the BBC excels at producing: but they are not the only channel which does excel at those programmes. I also like some NOWTV, Netflix and similar, because I don't think the BBC is the only game in town, and because I have something that HM would like to see us all deprived of: a free choice and free speech.
    I think this job really needs
    a much bigger hammer.
    • House Martin
    • By House Martin 28th Mar 18, 9:31 PM
    • 1,353 Posts
    • 1,142 Thanks
    House Martin
    When the TVL is finally abolished, what kind of work will people like House Martin have to find next?

    Are there any Guard vacancies at Guantanamo Bay, I wonder?

    The truth is that he and those like him, have no legal right to enter anyone's home, and this annoys him into ranting pointlessly on this forum. Can HM please enlighten us with a list of those 200 bodies that he insists do have a legal right to enter our homes? I do like reading imaginative fiction....

    I have a TVL and I watch BBC TV. I partially agree with HM that the BBC has some wonderful programmes, but I do not include any form of televisual garbage like Come Dancing. I choose good drama, documentaries and wildlife programmes, all of which the BBC excels at producing: but they are not the only channel which does excel at those programmes. I also like some NOWTV, Netflix and similar, because I don't think the BBC is the only game in town, and because I have something that HM would like to see us all deprived of: a free choice and free speech.
    Originally posted by Robisere
    https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/feb/26/law

    This is the reference I was referring to Robisere, definitely not in my imagination..So you are now "enlightened " and realise that your home is not your castle.
    Or have a listen to Harry having a chat to Big Brother Watch https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sq5v9DwFk4
    There are well over 200 bodies and agencies having a right of entry, many without warrants.This list would include the BBC TV licensing agents Capita, with a warrant of entry.
    The book is called Crossing the Threshold 266 Ways the State Can Enter Your Home.
    The report by Barrisister Harry Snook listed 266 official bodies and agencies with some weird and wonderful rights of entry such as checking for stolen Seals or under the Bees Act, officers can enter to search for foreign bees
    This actually happened to a farmer near the coast who woke up one morning to find officials who had blocked the main road off to raid him to check him at 6 am in the morning to see if he was harbouring Seals .
    A meter reading colleague has just told me about National Grid getting a dozen locksmiths out in one go to enter houses and flats in my area this week , without warrants, to check for escaping gas..
    Sorry Glen , nice try, but we live in the real world not your quaint old idea of your "castle ". Try it and they will be getting the locksmith out and coming in whether you like it or not.

    Tony Hall has indicated that by 2025 there will be different method in place for funding the BBC. One which does not basically rely on honesty and trust .
    Can t rely on trust and honesty in the UK nowadays given the number of greedy tight fisted cheats who inhabit this land.
    The old way is nt working as can be seen by the growth of websites advising how to deal with Capita. The people who run this little income stream are doing ok out of it and hopefully paying their taxes or declaring the income to the DWP.
    . I would nt be surprised if these people actually pay for their TV licences unlike most of their forum members.
    Hopefully this will shut down these awful websites BBC bashing constantly
    Jimmy Savile of course is their star of the show to keep up morale.
    I think they do this to assuage their guilt about freeloading. Pretty disgusting cheap tactic
    When we reach figures of up to 200,000 magistrate court applications for licence evasion per year then we can all see the law has got completely out of hand and the £150 licence fee is now not obligatory when it should be like Sky, Netflix , Amazon Prime and be mandatory..
    Whilst so many more get away with it and grotty little websites like TVLR flourish then something drastic has to be done .
    Last edited by House Martin; 29-03-2018 at 4:27 PM.
    • Glen Clark
    • By Glen Clark 28th Mar 18, 9:37 PM
    • 4,138 Posts
    • 3,157 Thanks
    Glen Clark
    If someone is truly legally licence free then they should admit any Capita officer to verify their claim. What could be easier !
    Originally posted by House Martin
    This is nothing personal against you. In fact I thank you for your contribution. But if TVL came to my door all I would know about them is they work for Capita. And I have good reason not to trust Capita employees after seeing things like this https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fitness-work-assessors-mock-disabled-7730136 - who would want him in their home?
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” --Upton Sinclair
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

132Posts Today

1,614Users online

Martin's Twitter
  • It's the start of mini MSE's half term. In order to be the best daddy possible, Im stopping work and going off line? https://t.co/kwjvtd75YU

  • RT @shellsince1982: @MartinSLewis thanx to your email I have just saved myself £222 by taking a SIM only deal for £7.50 a month and keeping?

  • Today's Friday twitter poll: An important question, building on yesterday's important discussions: Which is the best bit of the pizza...

  • Follow Martin