TV LICENCE DETECTION 2

The latest weapon in the battle against licence-fee dodgers is a green torch-like device weighing less than 1lb. The hand-held detector linked to a set of headphones beeps if an operating TV is inside a radius of 29ft. It means licensing officers can now target places previously inaccessible by cumbersome vans, such as homes in very remote areas and individual flats in blocks. Kate Fisher, of TV Licensing, said, "The message is clear. We have the technology to ensure that anyone watching TV without a valid licence can and should expect a visit, wherever they live."

She added, "The vans these days are designed to be discreet, whereas in the old days they were more obvious. There is much more focus on being covert and the hand-held device is a logical extension of that trend. We tend to work undercover more than in the past. Any van in the street could be a TV detector van these days. We are definitely catching evaders off their guard." Having a TV is not illegal, however watching live transmissions, is so the detector van can't prove anything as you could be watching a DVD.

They still have to prove to a court that there is a TV on the particular premises. Unfortunately for them, they have no power of entry into private premises and they rely on ignorance of the householder to let them in. A court will only accept evidence that a TV has actually been seen on the premises. The householder is innocent until proven guilty. (Source: Mail on Sunday, Jul/07)

TV Licensing refuses to believe that some people live without television and does not regard payments to itself as proof that a licence has been purchased. Mr F Hoyle of Chichester has been told that inspectors might appear on his doorstep at any time with a warrant to search his premises for an illegal TV because he does not have a licence. The fact that he has paid handsomely for a licence every year and has spent the past three months trying to prove it has not put these people off.

The farce began when he notified the authority that he would be moving house. Official threats began arriving at his new address weeks before he did. When he tried to complain by telephone he met with long delays or was cut off. He tried the internet and was told the system did not recognise his postcode even though the authority used it to address its warning letters.

Eventually he sent a message via a weblink and was promised a reply within two days, but it was several weeks before an official called him and blamed confusion over his new address. It was agreed that he did indeed have a valid licence and he was promised peace. Not long afterwards he was threatened with inspectors.

TV Licensing said it "encountered some problems" transferring the licence to Mr Hoyle's new address although it is delighted with itself for arranging his previous move effectively. The last warning letter, it explains, had already "been processed" when Mr Hoyle called and so could not be stopped, but he should ignore it. (Source: Guardian, Sep/06)

John Yeadon has received more than 150 "threatening" letters from the TV licensing agency, despite not owning a television. He has not owned a TV for 15 years and has informed the licensing authority several times but has been receiving the letters for the past 10 years.

Mr Yeadon said, "I don't want to watch television these days. It's all drivel anyway. TV Licensing used to send me forms to fill in every so often to sign to say I didn't have a TV. I used to fill them in but, after a few years, I thought, 'Why am I wasting my time and money posting these forms off when I've already told them?'"

In October 2005, he received one letter which reads: "If you watch or record television programme services without a valid TV licence, it is against the law and we now suspect you of wilful evasion of payment." A letter the previous June reads: "You are hereby notified that officers from our enforcement division have now been authorised by us to visit your home."

A TV Licensing spokeswoman said, "We would like to apologise to Mr Yeadon if any inconvenience has been caused by our mailings. We are currently looking into the situation and will be in touch with him directly to resolve the situation." Maybe Mr Yeardon should threaten to sue the TV Licensing Agency for damages under The Protection from Harassment Act 1997. (Source: Derby Evening Telegraph, Jul/06)

We have one of the few homes that do not possess a television set, and for over 30 years have been "persecuted" by the TV Licensing Authorities for not having a licence. Despite having told them on several occasions over the years that we do not possess a TV set, have no plans to buy one, do understand the legal requirements and would buy a licence should we need to, they continue to "harass" us.

The most recent letter received tells us that our address would be visited by an officer from TV Licensing Regional Enforcement Division. Almost all of their letter assumes that we are using a TV set and only on the final line does it admit that someone may have no need of a licence. They ask that we phone them to "arrange a visit to confirm the situation". What annoys me most is that our declarations of non-ownership and statements of the understanding of our legal obligations given on a number of occasions is not accepted.

I understand that there is no legal obligation to allow inspection of our home, but it is not inconceivable that some recipients of this letter might be intimidated into purchasing a licence just to avoid the authority's visit. Although I support prosecution of those who do not contribute to the cost of services they receive, I very much condemn the heavy-handed approach employed by the TV Licensing Authorities. Anyway, what happened to the TV detector van? D J Ogden

For the benefit of the TV Licensing Agency:
Not owning a TV is NOT an offence!

<<< Prev