Never ending harassment from TV Licensing

[gorgonwilliam]

59-year old has never owned a television set - has always responded to "reminders" with a note explaining that no TV set is present in the property and therefore no television license is needed.
Now the person has received a rather disgraceful letter clearly implying that a court summons is about to be issued and "suggesting" that the way to avoid the summons is to purchase a £145.50 TV license.
Research reveals that the Minister of State most associated with TV licensing is Ed Vaizey.
Is a formal complaint to the Minister about the conduct of TV Licensing too strong a step to take or is there an intermediate course of action that can be taken.

 

[Emyr]

Sounds like harassment to me.

 

[gordonthemoron]

just ignore them

 

[Greenback]

I had a similar problem when I moved house. I kept the old one on while it was modernised and kept getting a string of letters from the licencing people despite me having informed them that I wanted to transfer my licence to my new address and them doing it.

All they are doing is fishing for money in case there is a new occupier or circumstances have changed. I ignored them after advising them once that nothing had changed. They will look pretty foolish if they go to court and there is no TV at the address.

There's probably grounds there to claim harassment, if you want to. I couldn't be bothered, myself.

 

[Tibbs]

Write back to them stating that:

You don't have a TV nor will you ever have one
Any further letters will be treated as harrassment and reported to the Police
Any further letters will be read and charged at £20 per letter
Sending any further letters will be taken as acceptance of these terms.
No response from them at all is necessary.

Send it recorded delivery.

I know someone who did this to a company who was hassling them over an erroneous parking charge and made £200 from them!

 

[TEW]

I stopped receiving letters when I filled out the form online declaring that I didn't need a TV licence. I expect they will restart after a year though.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

There are some religious sects, such as the Exclusive Bretheren, who have neither televisions nor computers in their homes, to name but two aids to modern methods of living.

 

[Minilad]

Just because you don't own a TV set doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't have a TV licence

 

[yorkie]

Is a formal complaint to the Minister about the conduct of TV Licensing too strong a step to take or is there an intermediate course of action that can be taken.

Go for it. But good luck getting anything done - they are well known for harassing people and our Government are happy for them to continue to do so. I can't see that changing any time soon. :roll:

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Go for it. But good luck getting anything done - they are well known for harassing people and our Government are happy for them to continue to do so. I can't see that changing any time soon. :roll:

If only a fine the size to strike fear in senior Civil Servants could be imposed on TV Licensing where the court case indeed proved undue harassment, then matters may be approached differently, but I do so concur with your final sentiment shown above....:roll:

 

[DarloRich]

Personally i would just shred the letters!

 

[ac6000cw]

As far as I know it's the BBC that collects licence fees, and they contract out the actual collection operation.

As others have suggested, stand your ground and write a formal letter of explanation/complaint.

But make sure you don't have any usable 'TV receiving apparatus' on your premises - the licence covers any form of that, including VCR's, computers with TV cards etc. (AFAIK using BBC iPlayer to watch non-live TV is OK, but not sure about 'live' iPlayer usage - I know that situation was being 'looked at' a while ago).

 

[MidnightFlyer]

Just so long as it isn't being broadcast you're fine, hence watching something half an hour after broadcast once it is released onto iPlayer is fine (also, if you watch it live on a laptop or mobile NOT plugged into the mains at a location you're still covered by your home addresses's one (for us uni students anyway). Christ knows how you'd tell the difference though!).

 

[GB]

Just because you don't own a TV set doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't have a TV licence

...and by the same token just because you own a TV (or a device that is cable of streaming/recording live signals) doesn't necessarily mean you should have, or obligated to have, a TV license.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Send it recorded delivery.

It's better to use Special Delivery for things like this; Recorded is not tracked - it only gets scanned at the point of collection and the point of delivery. For transit, Recordeds are mixed in with the normal first and second class post and are not given any special treatment at all.

 

[Minilad]

...and by the same token just because you own a TV (or a device that is cable of streaming/recording live signals) doesn't necessarily mean you should have, or obligated to have, a TV license.

It doesn't. But the OP suggested that the person has no TV set and therefore doesn't need a licence. Which isn't always the case

 

[bnm]

And if you want to stop Capita's enforcement goons from calling at your door you write to TV Licensing withdrawing their implied right of access to your property. No need to put your name on the letter. From 'The Occupier' will do.

If they then knock on your door, after the implied right of access has been withdrawn, they are trespassing.

 

[87 027]

If you fill in the online form saying you don't watch any live TV they should leave you alone for 2 years

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/how-to-tell-us-you-dont-watch-tv-top12

Licensing is administered by Capita on behalf of the BBC (as was said earlier)

 

[DaveNewcastle]

This is a recurring problem for many people, and regularly discussed on this forum. Here's some of the other threads which may contain some useful information :
TV Licence problems

TV Licence

Why TV licensing should be abolished

Harrassment? Not really, and you won't be the first to have suggested it, not by a long way.
Contact Ed Vaizey? An intelligent man worth engaging with. But there are better things to be speaking to him about. Many of them.
Advise them that you don't have a TV? If you want, but as other have said, they'll start up again in a year or two.

My advice? The same as from gordonthemoron and DarloRich. Put their letters in the bin and forget about them.
Don't even give them a moment's thought.
If there's no liability to pay then there's nothing to pay, nothing to be collected and nothing to go to Court over. You know that. The collectors will know that. The Court will know that.
The only person that doesn't know that is the computer that sends these automated letters, and you don't get to speak to it. It is just a computer.

Your 59-year old should just disregard the whole nonsense with the same ease with which he appears to have managed to disregard TV and TV culture.

 

[12CSVT]

If you fill in the online form saying you don't watch any live TV they should leave you alone for 2 years

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/how-to-tell-us-you-dont-watch-tv-top12

Licensing is administered by Capita on behalf of the BBC (as was said earlier)

Supposing the person who doesn't have a TV also doesn't have internet access ?

 

[andypops]

Supposing the person who doesn't have a TV also doesn't have internet access ?

Library? Oh, wait a second...

 

[87 027]

Clearly if the BBC and Capita are in breach of their own No Licence Needed Policy then there would be legitimate grounds for complaint. The task they face is distinguishing genuine cases from those 'trying it on' - I will refrain from making railway ticketing comparisons!

If the OP remains aggrieved he/she could also complain to the BBC Trust. They undertook a review back in 2009 into whether collection and enforcement were too heavy-handed, and concluded that there was room for improvement

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/press_releases/2009/licence_fee_collection.html

 

[Blindtraveler]

We found writing has no effect but there callcentre, staffed by friendly if slightly bord sounding Irish foalk are very good at smoothing things over. We gave up our lisence a year ago and informed them of our new address after our recent move just in case. On top of that the previous ocupant was in debt to them and they were again excillent!

 

[talltim]

Are live iPlayer streams broadcasts or multicasts or lots of unicasts??

 

[swj99]

...........write to TV Licensing withdrawing their implied right of access to your property. No need to put your name on the letter. From 'The Occupier' will do.

If they then knock on your door, after the implied right of access has been withdrawn, they are trespassing.

Exactly.
I don't remember if we've had a thread on this before, or whether I'm thinking of another forum. Anyway, I researched this for a friend of mine a few years ago, and one important thing that I found out is that a person can only be prosecuted if they are caught, or if they admit to watching a tv broadcast. This means it's the person who is watching the tv when the licencing gestapo comes round, who gets charged, not the householder. A high proportion of tv licence convictions are the result of guilty pleas, and no-one has ever seen the equipment, and the BBC has never disclosed much info about the so called detector vans or the equipment that is alleged to be installed within them.
Someone else I know lived at one address for 11 years and never once had a tv licence. And despite many letters about this, which he threw away, and a few visits, (he didn't answer the door) he was not prosecuted for anything.

 

[DarloRich]

This is a recurring problem for many people, and regularly discussed on this forum. Here's some of the other threads which may contain some useful information :
TV Licence problems

TV Licence

Why TV licensing should be abolished

Harrassment? Not really, and you won't be the first to have suggested it, not by a long way.
Contact Ed Vaizey? An intelligent man worth engaging with. But there are better things to be speaking to him about. Many of them.
Advise them that you don't have a TV? If you want, but as other have said, they'll start up again in a year or two.

My advice? The same as from gordonthemoron and DarloRich. Put their letters in the bin and forget about them.
Don't even give them a moment's thought.
If there's no liability to pay then there's nothing to pay, nothing to be collected and nothing to go to Court over. You know that. The collectors will know that. The Court will know that.
The only person that doesn't know that is the computer that sends these automated letters, and you don't get to speak to it. It is just a computer.

Your 59-year old should just disregard the whole nonsense with the same ease with which he appears to have managed to disregard TV and TV culture.

This is good advice!

All this stuff about withdrawing their implied consent or billing them for letters might make you feel better for a bit but is pointless and a waste of your time. It has almost no legal standing.

 

[jon0844]

As said above, bin the letters and don't let them get to you. If they come to your front door, close the door on them. They can't get a court order on a hunch, so unless you confess to having a TV and watch live broadcasts, they'll NEVER get one whatever the letters imply.

It's a waste of time writing in to stop the letters for a short time, when it's quicker to throw them in the (recycling) bin.

The reason the letters are worded as they are is purely because they have no real powers.

BTW, I'm a supporter of the fee and those that watch live TV should pay. Those than don't, shouldn't! End of.

 

[Hyphen]

Are live iPlayer streams broadcasts or multicasts or lots of unicasts??

Lots of unicasts.

The overwhelming majority of ISPs don't support multicast (bit like IPv6 really) so a multicast stream would most likely not get through to the majority of people wanting to watch iPlayer live.

In addition, iPlayer now supports custom timeshifting of the live feeds (up to two hours behind time) so a multicast feed wouldn't work for this at all.

Curiously, watching a timeshifted 'live' feed still requires a TV Licence, but if the flat video file is uploaded to iPlayer even 10 minutes after broadcast, it doesn't. Nuts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

also, if you watch it live on a laptop or mobile NOT plugged into the mains at a location you're still covered by your home addresses's one (for us uni students anyway). Christ knows how you'd tell the difference though!.

I'm fairly sure this clause was repealed when they updated the licensing requirements to account for iPlayer.

It was originally included for handheld TVs capable of receiving analogue broadcasts which became popular in the '80s. The battery thing was intended to distinguish them from normal TVs, and was never intended to cover laptops running unplugged from the mains

I don't know if this is actually a bit of an urban myth - forum members more knowledgeable than me in legal matters would no doubt say how well you'd be covered should the argument ever have ended up in a court of law!

 

[DJL]

Lots of unicasts.

The overwhelming majority of ISPs don't support multicast (bit like IPv6 really) so a multicast stream would most likely not get through to the majority of people wanting to watch iPlayer live.

In addition, iPlayer now supports custom timeshifting of the live feeds (up to two hours behind time) so a multicast feed wouldn't work for this at all.

Curiously, watching a timeshifted 'live' feed still requires a TV Licence, but if the flat video file is uploaded to iPlayer even 10 minutes after broadcast, it doesn't. Nuts.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'm fairly sure this clause was repealed when they updated the licensing requirements to account for iPlayer.

It was originally included for handheld TVs capable of receiving analogue broadcasts which became popular in the '80s. The battery thing was intended to distinguish them from normal TVs, and was never intended to cover laptops running unplugged from the mains

I don't know if this is actually a bit of an urban myth - forum members more knowledgeable than me in legal matters would no doubt say how well you'd be covered should the argument ever have ended up in a court of law!

I imagine it would be rather hard to prove one way or the other whether batteries were being used at the time or not.

Perhaps in practice the fact that a device can operate while not plugged into the mains would mean the onus is on BBC/Capita/whoever to prove that the mains was being used at the time?

Good luck with that!

 

[Kite159]

How long until the BBC manage to get the law changed so that their TV Tax is collected via council tax bills or some other method to cut out on the people wising up to ditch the Tax and watch only on demand