TV Licensing

[Mcr Warrior]

Couple of letters received in the post today...

First from TV Licensing claiming that my TV Licence (due for renewal end August) hasn't been paid.

Second my bank statement for August showing that my cheque sent to TV Licensing in early August (together with their payment slip) was cashed on 14th August.

Anyone else experienced similar, and how easy was the issue to resolve?

P.S. Looks like someone on TrustPilot (Avril Harper) has had a similar issue...

Tvlicensing is rated "Bad" with 1.1 / 5 on Trustpilot

Do you agree with Tvlicensing's TrustScore? Voice your opinion today and hear what 848 customers have already said.

uk.trustpilot.com

 

[Bletchleyite]

Probably have to ring them up. I do recommend the direct debit service, you just forget about it then, even if it does mean you have to "double pay" the first 6 months as they won't do it in arrears.

 

[Tetchytyke]

If you're really worried ring them up. If you're not worried, simply file the letter in the nearest bin.

TV Licensing is run by Capita, so expecting them to do anything properly is like expecting my cat to start speaking in fluent Manx.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Life's too short to be ringing up a Kafkaesque Capita-run call centre.

Think I'll see if I can get hold of a scan of the cashed cheque from my bank as (additional) proof of payment and then drop Capita a suitably worded letter marked "COMPLAINT".

 

[py_megapixel]

Yes, I don't think TV licensing has a reputation for being the world's best run organisation...

Though, I do note that on the Trustpilot page @Mcr Warrior links to, a few reviews down, someone states that they "just received confirmation that our direct debit has been set up, but objected strongly to being told to "make sure I have sufficient funds available in our account" - who do they think they are dealing with?".

Isn't that a fairly standard thing for organisations to state when a direct debit is being set up? I always assumed is was at least partially for the benefit of the customer, to avoid them unintentionally overdrawing their account. I simply can't understand who on earth would find a polite warning of that nature offensive.

Anyway, goes to show that even TV Licensing isn't the antagonist in all situations...

 

[Howardh]

Think I paid on-line and got a reciept via e-mail rather than the old paper licence?

What I did have problems with was the licence was free when I was looking after mum, and when she passed away I quickly bought a licence, yet I was continually rung and had letters to mum explaining that she would have to pay sometime this year (??). I got fed up, rang them and they did stop the letters. But they couldn't work out that this address had bought a licence so there was no need to remind anyone inside it to pay.

 

[PeterC]

I renew mine on-line without any problems (so far).

 

[gswindale]

Think I paid on-line and got a reciept via e-mail rather than the old paper licence?

What I did have problems with was the licence was free when I was looking after mum, and when she passed away I quickly bought a licence, yet I was continually rung and had letters to mum explaining that she would have to pay sometime this year (??). I got fed up, rang them and they did stop the letters. But they couldn't work out that this address had bought a licence so there was no need to remind anyone inside it to pay.

We've had a similar problem a few times in the past. Licence in my wife's name, but I'd bought the TV etc in Currys/Comet. TVL did not match the two up.

I believe that if you live in a HMO you need licences per person though

 

[bearhugger]

We've had a similar problem a few times in the past. Licence in my wife's name, but I'd bought the TV etc in Currys/Comet. TVL did not match the two up.

I believe that if you live in a HMO you need licences per person though

I bought a new tv from Amazon in July, first new one I've bought in several years. Never had any issue so far as the license goes out by direct debit and is (I'm fairly sure) in the wife's name as she's lived in the house since before i met her.
Just out of curiousity, with new smart tv's and their ability to have apps like Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime etc, if you didn't tune in the freewview and just watched subscription apps would you still need to give your name / address for tv licnese purposes? Would they send someoe round? I believe the old detector vans are obsolete now we have switched over to digital.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe that if you live in a HMO you need licences per person though

It's about how many households are constituted, which I think depends on the number of rental contracts in place.

 

[Darandio]

Just out of curiousity, with new smart tv's and their ability to have apps like Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime etc, if you didn't tune in the freewview and just watched subscription apps would you still need to give your name / address for tv licnese purposes? Would they send someoe round? I believe the old detector vans are obsolete now we have switched over to digital.

You don't have to give them anything. They will keep sending letters of an increasingly threatening nature with the assumption that you are committing an offence, gradually these letters will get to the point they tell you someone is coming to visit. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't but you can happily ignore them if they turn up.

 

[Trackman]

Couple of letters received in the post today...

First from TV Licensing claiming that my TV Licence (due for renewal end August) hasn't been paid.

Second my bank statement for August showing that my cheque sent to TV Licensing in early August (together with their payment slip) was cashed on 14th August.

Anyone else experienced similar, and how easy was the issue to resolve?

Maybe the system is stretched because of all these pensioners needing a licence from August.

 

[JohnMcL7]

I bought a new tv from Amazon in July, first new one I've bought in several years. Never had any issue so far as the license goes out by direct debit and is (I'm fairly sure) in the wife's name as she's lived in the house since before i met her.
Just out of curiousity, with new smart tv's and their ability to have apps like Netflix, YouTube, Amazon Prime etc, if you didn't tune in the freewview and just watched subscription apps would you still need to give your name / address for tv licnese purposes? Would they send someoe round? I believe the old detector vans are obsolete now we have switched over to digital.

I thought the distinction for whether you needed a license or not was whether the device had a TV tuner so a computer with monitor wouldn't normally need a license but if a TV tuner card was installed then a license would be needed. According to the TV licensing site they now claim that it's whether the device is used for live TV or not regardless if it's through an aerial or streamed.

The detector vans were nothing more than an elaborate PR stunt albeit extremely effective and ludicrously they're even claiming now the detector vans can detect streaming:

The scandal isn’t that TV detector vans are going to intercept your Wi-Fi.

No, the BBC can’t drive up your street and sense that you’re using iPlayer. And it probably never could tell if you were watching TV

medium.com

There's always a defence with some theoretical talk about how these vehicles may have worked but in the many years of their supposed operation there's still nothing of any detail official or leaked about them, supposedly the information has been kept tighter than government secrets. The much simpler solution as mentioned above is to assume people have a TV and send them threatening letters if they don't have a license. My grandmother never had a TV but would regularly get the threatening letters and the van ones used to worry her in case the vans incorrectly identified her as using a TV.

 

[ainsworth74]

I believe the old detector vans are obsolete now we have switched over to digital.

Not that they ever worked!!! Fantastic piece of fear mongering though.

They will keep sending letters of an increasingly threatening nature with the assumption that you are committing an offence, gradually these letters will get to the point they tell you someone is coming to visit. Sometimes they do, sometimes they don't but you can happily ignore them if they turn up.

When I was at Uni in halls of residence like clockwork every October hundreds of letters from TV Licensing would appear and would slowly gather dust in the post pigeon holes until an enterprising clean binned them all. I made friends with some of the support staff at the hall (always befriend the support staff you never know when it might be useful!) and they related to me that one year an inspector had come to the door and demanded to be allowed entry to the halls and shown into every room to check whether the students were watching TV illegally or not. Apparently the response from member of staff who answered the door was less than polite. They never did come back and try to check again. Still sent the letter though like clockwork

There's always a defence with some theoretical talk about how these vehicles may have worked but in the many years of their supposed operation there's still nothing of any detail official or leaked about them, supposedly the information has been kept tighter than government secrets. The much simpler solution as mentioned above is to assume people have a TV and send them threatening letters if they don't have a license. My grandmother never had a TV but would regularly get the threatening letters and the van ones used to worry her in case the vans incorrectly identified her as using a TV.

Ah well you see that's because their so secretive that no-one person knows how they work! I'm not making it up, just quoting their own website!!

How do the detector vans work?

We have a range of detection tools at our disposal in our vans.

Some aspects of the equipment have been developed in such secrecy that engineers working on specific detection methods work in isolation - so not even they know how the other detection methods work.

This gives us the best chance of catching licence evaders.

How do the detector vans work? - TV Licensing ™

We have a range of detection tools at our disposal in vans to catch people watching TV illegally. Find out more.

www.tvlicensing.co.uk

 

[Darandio]

Ah well you see that's because their so secretive that no-one person knows how they work! I'm not making it up, just quoting their own website!!

They really are full of it, aren't they?

I wouldn't for one minute suggest to anyone not to pay if they watch live television, but I completely despite the organisation on every level. The letter sending is a horrible accusatory practice and the goons that do occasionally turn up are sneaky as hell if you let them in. Got a great anecdote about the latter.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Just a gentle word; the number given to call 'TV Licencing' might be a premium charge one.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah well you see that's because their so secretive that no-one person knows how they work! I'm not making it up, just quoting their own website!!

I believe they did work based on the RF "noise" emitted by a CRT TV but that obviously doesn't work any more, so they are (do you even see one any more?) just an empty van containing a list of premises named as not having a licence.

 

[bearhugger]

@Darandio let's hear it then.
Back in the day wasn't it the case of if the TV isn't plugged in and the aerial wasn't connected there wasn't a thing the vans could do. Also don't hear the one about having to disconnect the aerial in thunder & lightning storms anymore.

 

[Bletchleyite]

@Darandio let's hear it then.
Back in the day wasn't it the case of if the TV isn't plugged in and the aerial wasn't connected there wasn't a thing the vans could do. Also don't hear the one about having to disconnect the aerial in thunder & lightning storms anymore.

You can get your TV "zapped" through a lightning strike down the aerial cable. It happened to my parents, it also moved through and fried their Sky box. It causes electronic damage, though, not a spectacular explosion.

 

[Darandio]

@Darandio let's hear it then.
Back in the day wasn't it the case of if the TV isn't plugged in and the aerial wasn't connected there wasn't a thing the vans could do. Also don't hear the one about having to disconnect the aerial in thunder & lightning storms anymore.

Okay, quickly.

It wasn't long after NOW TV had appeared on the scene and a friend moved into a new house and purchased boxes to use both downstairs and in the bedrooms for catchup only, he hadn't bothered with TV at the previous address either and didn't even have an aerial either outside or inside. Letters were arriving on a regular basis and he had contacted them to state why he didn't need a license. A few weeks later one of the goons turned up at the door asking to come in, he had nothing to hide so let him in through the door which led straight into the kitchen. His child was watching some sort of kids programme in the living room which couldn't be seen directly from the kitchen, the goon heard it and started immediately reading my friend his rights with the accusation of watching live television without a license. He tried to explain, offering to show what was being watched and to show no live signal could be received due to the lack of an aerial but it fell on deaf ears so he threw him out of the house.

I believe it was sorted out in the end after a protracted toing and froing but the moral of the story is simple, don't let them in at all.

 

[AM9]

I believe they did work based on the RF "noise" emitted by a CRT TV but that obviously doesn't work any more, so they are (do you even see one any more?) just an empty van containing a list of premises named as not having a licence.

Not quite, but it was possible to detect whether a TV was switched on and tuned to a specific channel, but I doubt that modern DVB-T (digital terrestrial) or DVB-S (digital sattelite) sets can be detected remotely.
Back in the '50s and '60s when all TVs had valves and VHF tuners, the sets themselves were far more crude and both their immunity to interference and emissions of interference was way below modern EMC standards. Consequently, a VHF '405' line receiver* would have a local oscillator tuned above the transmitter frequency to generate the intermediate frequency (IF) where all the filtering took place. I can't remember the IF of a 405 line set but 38.15Mhz rings a bell somewhere. This practice was continued with UHF receivers ('625' line sets) but the IF was set at 39.5MHz. Now as I said earlier, the screening, filtering and general EMC design of sets was sufficiently poor to permit the local oscillator signal to leak out through the aerial socket and if there was an aerial connected, it would be just as effective radiating this RF signal. A fairly good panoramic receiver/spectrum analyser (in a detector van) could see this signal as a line on a screen and the frequency read off a scale. As an example, if a tv set was tuned to BBC1 UHF from Crystal Palace, (vision carrier is 487.25MHz, sound carrier is 493.25 MHz, a narrow band aerial aimed at the aerial on the roof of the house would probably be able to see the local oscillator frequency of 526.75MHz. If the set was quickly turned off when the doorbell was rung, the chap in the van would see the signal disappear, helping the revenue men confirm the use in the premises. Just because most people had never heard anybody admit being caught by a detector van it doesn't mean that they didn't work. Although it was fairly basic engineering knowledge how to do it, the aerial design had to have a very narrow polar response, the technology of which was mainly in use with military equipment.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

All good fun. Just to re-iterate, I'm being harangued for supposed non-renewal, even though I have actually paid.

That's incompetence in my book!

 

[Scotrail12]

The whole idea of the TV license is archaic and not at all fit for today's society. In what way does it make sense? If the BBC are going force people to pay for their drivel, they should at least make their content watchable (most of it isn't, even Strictly has gone down the pan and that was always my favourite), adjust the pay of presenters and reflect the UK a bit more (it's so London centric, it's beyond belief).

I'm moving out to an apartment soon and will not be purchasing a TV and one of the reasons for that is the BBC TV license.

 

[The_Train]

The whole idea of the TV license is archaic and not at all fit for today's society. In what way does it make sense? If the BBC are going force people to pay for their drivel, they should at least make their content watchable (most of it isn't, even Strictly has gone down the pan and that was always my favourite), adjust the pay of presenters and reflect the UK a bit more (it's so London centric, it's beyond belief).

I'm moving out to an apartment soon and will not be purchasing a TV and one of the reasons for that is the BBC TV license.

It's not even just having to pay to watch the turd produced by the BBC these days, it's the fact that I have to pay them to be able to watch other, non-BBC, channels.

Can you imagine if Tesco announced that everyone in the UK had to pay them £100 per year to be able to access any supermarket, whether it be a Tesco one or not?

 

[py_megapixel]

It's not even just having to pay to watch the turd produced by the BBC these days, it's the fact that I have to pay them to be able to watch other, non-BBC, channels.

Just out of interest, what alternative would you propose for funding the BBC then? Personally I think a subscription model would make sense, but it's unclear to me how it could be enforced

I also don't believe that all BBC content is bad; I enjoy a good number of their documentaries, and I value the absence of awful advertisments that scream in your face.
Considering how hard it is to be impartial, they also seem to do a not-unreasonable job of that as well.

 

[Darandio]

It's not even just having to pay to watch the turd produced by the BBC these days, it's the fact that I have to pay them to be able to watch other, non-BBC, channels.

Can you imagine if Tesco announced that everyone in the UK had to pay them £100 per year to be able to access any supermarket, whether it be a Tesco one or not?

This is where you will be told that it's much more than a TV service, there's local radio and online services that nobody can possibly do without. I guarantee someone else will expand on that further for you shortly.

But does it justify having to pay for the TV license to watch hundreds of other channels as they are broadcast? Not on your nelly.

 

[The_Train]

Just out of interest, what alternative would you propose for funding the BBC then? Personally I think a subscription model would make sense, but it's unclear to me how it could be enforced

I also don't believe that all BBC content is bad; I enjoy a good number of their documentaries, and I value the absence of awful advertisments that scream in your face.
Considering how hard it is to be impartial, they also seem to do a not-unreasonable job of that as well.

Being totally honest, I don't really have any care as to how the BBC should be funded if the license fee is ever, quite rightly, scrapped. As you say, a subscription model would seem to make sense. Surely some sort of BBC account could be generated upon activating a subscription and having this account would enable you to log in to the BBC services. If you don't have such an account then you don't have access.

In terms of their programming, in the last week I think I have watched one episode of Mrs Browns Boys (a repeat) out of everything that has been broadcast by the BBC because nothing else enticed me. Admittedly, I do have the BBC news app on my phone but that is just one of a few news apps I have (one of which is Sky News which is still accessible to all whether you are a Sky customer or not) and wouldn't be massively missed if I no longer had access to it.

All of the above matters very little though. The simple fact of the debate is that being charged by one organisation to enable access to offerings from other organisations is disgusting. Does this happen in any other walk of life? I certainly can't think of any other examples!

This is where you will be told that it's much more than a TV service, there's local radio and online services that nobody can possibly do without. I guarantee someone else will expand on that further for you shortly.

But does it justify having to pay for the TV license to watch hundreds of other channels as they are broadcast? Not on your nelly.

People defending this whole thing is probably more crazy than the actual license fee. Going back to my original example of Tesco, would any of these people who are happy to defend the license fee, be happy to pay Tesco a yearly fee which then allows them to shop at Asda or Morrisons (other supermarkets are available) or paying LNER a yearly fee so you can travel on trains operated by other operating companies?

As you say, there is literally no justification for the BBC to charge everyone a fee to be able to watch hundreds of non-BBC channels

 

[Scotrail12]

The BBC also seem to waste a lot of licence fee money.

BBC commits £100m to increasing diversity on TV

The corporation has announced it will allocate greater funding to reflect more diverse audiences.

www.bbc.co.uk

The BBC is to increase diversity by investing £100m of its TV budget over a three year period to produce "diverse and inclusive content".

Director general Tony Hall has described the move, which will apply from April 2021, as "a big leap".

The BBC has set itself a mandatory target - 20% of off-screen talent must come from under-represented groups.

That includes those with a disability or from a BAME or disadvantaged socio-economic background.

Now whilst I'm all for a bit of diversity on TV, I can't help but think that there is too much box ticking going on and that £100m is a total waste of money for something that already exists. And I just know that it will only reflect the way it looks in London, demographics like N. Ireland, Scotland, Wales and even a lot of Northern England are pretty much ignored by the BBC.

 

[John Webb]

A word of caution - there are some nasty scammers out there who sometimes use the threatening TV Licence letter and a fake 'carbon-copy' website to try and improperly obtain your bank details. Do very carefully check website addresses quoted in any such letter. Capita's known incompetence gives these unpleasant people an unwanted chance. (Hasn't happened to me but I have heard reports!)

 

[py_megapixel]

As you say, there is literally no justification for the BBC to charge everyone a fee to be able to watch hundreds of non-BBC channels

The jusification - which I understand, and agree with to at least some extent - is that it's in the public interest for a broadcaster to exist which is duty-bound to at least try to be impartial. If the BBC was funded from general taxation, then the government could use their budget as a weapon to get them to do what they wanted, undermining such impartiality.