TV LICENCE FEE

Page 1 | 2 | 3
 

If you were born in the 1970’s, then the prospect of a TV detector van was more terrifying than Lou Ferrigno’s Hulk chasing you (the stuff of my nightmares, at least). These people could see into your house? Christ, better get that TV licence paid Mum, or we’re all going to jail. Curious then, that a request last year made under the Freedom of Information Act about how TV Licensing identifies households without a licence, was denied.

The BBC refused to answer questions concerning how many detection devices the corporation possessed, how often they were deployed and the technical specification of TV detection devices, if they existed at all. A complaint was then raised with the Information Commissioner’s Office, who promptly investigated why the beeb wouldn’t comment. Rather frustratingly, the ICO sided with the BBC, but in explaining their position the BBC made some rather curious statements:

The BBC explained that the number of detector vans in operation, the location of their deployment and the frequency is not common knowledge. It relies on the public perception that the vans could be used at any time to catch evaders. This perception has built up since the first van was launched in 1952 and has been a key cost effective method in deterring people from evading their licence fee.

The BBC state that to release information which relates to the number of detection devices and how often they are used will change the public’s perception of their effectiveness. If the deterrent effect is lost, the BBC believes that a significant number of people would decide not to pay their licence fee, knowing how the deployment and effectiveness of vans and other equipment will affect their chances of success in avoiding detection. If the thought had already crossed your mind that TV detector vans were an imaginary deterrent, what do you think now? (Source: Bitter Wallet, Jan/09)

Tips for Avoiding TVL/BBC harassment

There are two schools of thought.

1 - No Contact

Simply ignore TVL/BBC. Their letters are computer-generated and sent out by the hundred-thousand. The purpose of these "official warnings" and threats of "imminent legal action" is psychologial rather than actual. Once this is realised, the letters cease to have any effect or credibility.

The same applies to street visits. If someone called at your door and asked to see whether you had a washing-machine or a food-mixer, would you let them in? Of course not, so why permit TVL/BBC to look for a TV, video or DVD player? People who work for TVL/BBC have no more right to enter private residences than people selling dusters.

Without entry, TVL/BBC have no sure means of knowing whether a house has equipment set up to receive broadcasts. That is why they rely on mass mailshots, declaring messages such as, "This is your final warning". They rely on householders' own reaction to these letters, and on self-incrimination during street visits. Without YOUR co-operation, TVL/BBC is impotent.

What about search warrants? Before a search warrant can be issued, TVL/BBC must satisfy the court that they have "reasonable grounds" for believing that broadcasts are being received at the unlicenced address. The simple absence of a licence does not constitute this, nor does the householder's refusal to communicate with TVL/BBC. To obtain a search warrant, TVL/BBC must offer the court positive evidence, such as seeing or hearing a television, or the householder's own admission. Without such evidence, TVL/BBC cannot apply for a search warrant, and without a search warrant, they cannot enter. So, they are back to square one.

The "no contact" method is therefore to ignore the letters and to keep the door shut to TVL/BBC visitors. A drawback of this approach is that TVL/BBC will keep coming, but the benefit is that it wastes their time and money: every £100 spent chasing "no contact" households is £100 less spent on the BBC itself. And that can only be a good thing.

2 - Implied right of access

For some households, letters and visits are not an option. Fortunately, there is a way to stop TVL/BBC approaches. Although houses and flats are private property, there exists an "implied right of access" to enable postal deliveries, newspaper rounds, etc.

This means that the pathway, doorbell and letter box may be used by visitors without the express permission of the owner. Invitiation to use them is implied. As a result of this, TVL/BBC can come up your path and ring your door bell. To prevent TVL/BBC approaching your property, write to them, stating that you have withdrawn their implied right of access.

There is no need to indicate whether you have a television, and you do not need to give your name. You can withdraw access in the name of "legal occupier". That will (should) keep their employees away, but it will not stop the delivery of TVL/BBC letters, since it is the postman who uses your letter box. So, inform TVL/BBC that you consider their written contact as harassment.

This combined approach - withdrawing the right of implied access and informing them that their actions are harassment - should prevent further contact. At least for a while.

Other information

The less TVL/BBC know about you the better, so here are some more ideas to keep them off your back:

i) Be mindful of what information you give retailers. Retailers are required to pass names and addresses to TVL/BBC of all customers who buy a television, DVD or video player. TVL/BBC then use this information to update their mailing database. (This is about to change, see here)

ii) If you move house, do not inform TVL/BBC. There is no legal obligation to do so.

iii) Important: make sure your TV is not visible through the window, or audible from the letterbox. While there is nothing unlawful about having a television without a licence, TVL/BBC will automatically assume that it is receiving broadcasts.

iv) TVL/BBC sometimes send letters by recorded delivery, requiring your signature. This enables them to confirm your identity and update their database. They also hope that signing for an "official warning" will give you a fright. So, ask to see where a recorded delivery has come from before signing. If it is from Bristol BS98 1TL, refuse it (keep a note of TVL's address by your front door for easy reference).

v) TVL/BBC sometimes phone people up. If a caller asks for you by name, ask who is phoning before confirming your identity. If the reply is "TV Licensing" or similar, replace the handset. Do not engage in conversation. If you give your identity, it enables TVL/BBC to update their database.

vi) Beware dirty tricks. For instance, a caller pretending to do a survey; "Have you got a music centre?", followed by, "Have you got a TV?", or "What's your favourite TV programme?" Always confirm the identity of the caller. (Source: One Billion Page Views)

Dr Nigel Knott received the letters because TV Licensing, which is contracted by the BBC, had been holding a number of slight variations on his address. When he repeatedly informed TV Licensing that he was licensed, call centre staff were unable to detect duplicate records on their database using his name and post code. When an Enforcement Officer finally visited only Dr Knott's wife was at home and she refused entry into the house but told the officer they had a valid licence.

This still did not stop the letters. Dr Knott claims that the letters amount to "deception and intimidation" and objects to notices on the front of some of the envelopes. He said, "Saying 'notice of impending action' on the front of the envelope is not something I want to postman to read. It impugns my professional reputation. This organisation needs to be called to heel. It's outrageous that the cost of the licence fee has been wasted in sending me all these letters."

Dr Knott added that the organisation "is totally out of control", running a database "that's stuck in a feudal state" and is "concerned solely with assuming people are criminals". Several of the letters implied that TV Licensing staff had police-style powers, despite their staff having no such rights, saying that, "Enforcement Officers have been authorised by us to visit your address to interview you under caution in compliance with the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 or Scottish criminal law."

Jo Pierce, a TV Licensing spokesman, said that the problem in this case had been fixed and that an apology would be issued to the Knotts. However, she added, "There is a small possibility that they will receive some more letters in the next few weeks. This is only because they are generated automatically by computer, and they should not worry." (Source: Daily Telegraph, Nov/08)

<<< Prev