TV licensing investigation..

[renegadeimp]

Computer generated stuff and nonsense. Sooner they abolish this evil tax, the better..

 

Fully agree. It's amazing how people still try and justify this tax to subsidise a private, corrupt company, when every other company manages fine through advertising etc.

[Consumer dude]

Even the term 'Tv licensing' makes me feel quite ill..

[woad]

Provided you really, really, really do not watch live TV (TV as it is broadcast, either by satellite, cable, terrestrial or internet) nor record it, then you are fine. You do NOT need a licence simply because you own a TV, video/DVD recorder, PVR, mobile phone, or computer. You can watch 'catch up TV' such as 4OD, BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 5 OD, etc to watch TV that has already 'aired'. You watch pre-recorded video (VHS, DVD, Blu Ray etc) and play video games... all without a TV licence.

 

Just do not watch or record TV as it is broadcast, not even using - for example - iPlayer to watch a program from the start x minutes after it started on air. Oh, and as of just before Xmas you no longer have to provide your details when you purchase a TV, ect in a shop.

 

How the system worked:

 

1. All sales of devices capable of receiving broadcast TV required the seller to record the name and address of the buyer, and provide this information to TVL - (no longer a requirement)

2. All councils and landlords were required to provide TVL with details of new tenants/rate payers/CT payers

3. All councils and homebuilders were required to provide TVL with details of new properties built.

4. TVL ran adverts about Mr Detector Van Man and his detector van...

 

TVL took the information from these three sources to build a database of properties. They then matched each property against licence records to generate the list of "licensed" and "unlicensed" properties. If they had an address with no record of a licence, they sent a letter. An address had to be 'empty' for ten years before it would age out of the database.

 

The detector van was a myth, and always has been. The van held nothing more complicated than a packet of sandwiches and a copy of the Sun (see note below though). So why do TVL come knocking? When a given number of addresses in a given geographical area do not have a licence. It is then economically viable to send a collector to that area, assuming that a certain % of householders will buy a licence. TVL were not entirely cold-hearted; they did understand that people genuinely forgot to renew. But thats an aside.

 

How they catch you out. The first mistake is opening the door with the TV on visible from the open door. That's a bit 'open and shut'. Its also the most honest.

They may ask if you have a licence, when you say "no", inform you that you need one and 'mislead' you into buying a colour TV licence - whether you have a TV or not, or even just a B&W set. This has been documented, often in the case of OAPs

They will seek a search warrant. This is the one that leaves a bad taste in the mouth, as often the 'proof' provided to the magistrate involves a statement such as "I saw a blue glow from the window". A magistrate - imho - should ask for video or photographic evidence. Regrettably, many do not. Once they have the warrant, they do have the power to enter You may be able to attack the original warrant as being flawed; for example if it was granted because "I saw a blue glow" and the room in which a TV is located is not visible from the public path. AIU, the magistrates in South Cheshire do not grant TVL warrnats as they are not convinced of the standard of proof given when seeking a warrant

 

Simply put, if you do watch broadcast TV, buy a licence. If you don't, do what I did and send letter back asking "exactly what is my premise unlicenced for? I am not serving alcoholic beverages, in the business of taking an accepting bets, nor offering goods of an adult nature". But when a chappie knocks at the door, be polite and pleasant, smile, say "hi", and then "no, I dont have a licence as I do not watch broadcast TV". Then politely decline his request to come in and check. Most of them (most, not all) are just peeps doing a job and will not bother you if you are polite, they are just doing a job.

 

*The detector van legend. Blandford School of Signals is HUGE; the perimeter is 8miles round, the married quarters are inside, there is even a bus route passing though it. 20+ years ago no one bothered buying a TV licence. When TVL wished to come a knocking, they had to provide the camp with advance notice simply to gain access, after an incident when the Guard refused them access. Consequently, the fact that TVL would be on-site was put on Daily Pt 1 orders. Now for the urban myth. Legend is that one day TVL detector van turned up, and was stripped to components. The method that TVL claimed they used to detect TV signals is identical to a method that can be used to evesdop on sensitive communications, and Blandford also houses COMCEM, a comms centre handling military communications traffic classified Secret and above... Its prolly an urban myth, but one that does make for a nice smile.

 

Sorry for long post.

[snowy101]

 

 

 

How the system worked:

 

1. All sales of devices capable of receiving broadcast TV required the seller to record the name and address of the buyer, and provide this information to TVL - (no longer a requirement)

No longer a legal requirement, but some retailers are still providing the information, which they are paid for

 

2. All councils and landlords were required to provide TVL with details of new tenants/rate payers/CT payers

Incorrect

 

3. All councils and homebuilders were required to provide TVL with details of new properties built.

Again, incorrect

 

Simply put, if you do watch broadcast TV, buy a licence. If you don't, do what I did and send letter back asking "exactly what is my premise unlicenced for? I am not serving alcoholic beverages, in the business of taking an accepting bets, nor offering goods of an adult nature".

 

Why would anyone waste time & effort & confirm the address is occupied by sending letters back to TVL?. When you can just ignore them & leave it there. Lets be clear, by sending letters to TVL you are playing into their hands, they now know they have a live one who has bitten. For the benefit of new posters or people who are LLF but not sure how to proceed, lets stop this please. The best & most effective method for those who don`t require a licence is the " no contact " rule.

 

 

 

 

But when a chappie knocks at the door, be polite and pleasant, smile, say "hi", and then "no, I dont have a licence as I do not watch broadcast TV". Then politely decline his request to come in and check. Most of them (most, not all) are just peeps doing a job and will not bother you if you are polite, they are just doing a job.

 

You don`t have to be polite to someone who would lie, trick, cheat & con you into signing a 178 form & would put you in a court . They are not your friends & were not invited onto your property. Treat them accordingly.

[woad]

 

 

 

How the system worked:

 

1. All sales of devices capable of receiving broadcast TV required the seller to record the name and address of the buyer, and provide this information to TVL - (no longer a requirement)

No longer a legal requirement, but some retailers are still providing the information, which they are paid for

 

2. All councils and landlords were required to provide TVL with details of new tenants/rate payers/CT payers

Incorrect

 

3. All councils and homebuilders were required to provide TVL with details of new properties built.

Again, incorrect

 

Simply put, if you do watch broadcast TV, buy a licence. If you don't, do what I did and send letter back asking "exactly what is my premise unlicenced for? I am not serving alcoholic beverages, in the business of taking an accepting bets, nor offering goods of an adult nature".

 

Why would anyone waste time & effort & confirm the address is occupied by sending letters back to TVL?. When you can just ignore them & leave it there. Lets be clear, by sending letters to TVL you are playing into their hands, they now know they have a live one who has bitten. For the benefit of new posters or people who are LLF but not sure how to proceed, lets stop this please. The best & most effective method for those who don`t require a licence is the " no contact " rule.

 

 

 

 

But when a chappie knocks at the door, be polite and pleasant, smile, say "hi", and then "no, I dont have a licence as I do not watch broadcast TV". Then politely decline his request to come in and check. Most of them (most, not all) are just peeps doing a job and will not bother you if you are polite, they are just doing a job.

 

You don`t have to be polite to someone who would lie, trick, cheat & con you into signing a 178 form & would put you in a court . They are not your friends & were not invited onto your property. Treat them accordingly.

 

Sorry for the quoted quoting... to address the points s raised

 

1. I did say that it was no longer a legal requirement prior to the selected quoting, and then used the past tense 'required'

 

2. Actually, that is correct. There was an obligation to provide details to TV Licencing (or the Beeb, as it was many moons ago). It was one of the system inputs. (edit: I did not mean social landlords - which three decades ago didn't exist, and I'm hazy whether it included private landlords, too much time has passed together with my design notes. IIRCc it was details of an occupied property, not the name of the dweller)

 

3. Again, it is correct. My 'source' is that I was one of many who validated the SSADM system design. How else do you think TVL (edit: generic term, not the current entity known as TVL) maintained an address database? One of the lacking inputs was a means - other the 10-year aging out - of demolished properties, hence licence reminders being sent to non-existent addresses.

 

4. Perhaps slightly misphrased on my part. By all means, like any other junk mail bin it. On the other hand, why not have some fun with them? If you don't need a licence, tell them, they will stop hassling you. If you want some fun, waste their time. Dont get me wrong, I think the fee is anachronistic and should be abolished, and I don't agree with some of the methods used to collect it nor the lack of any attempt to stamp them out. By wasting their time you not playing into their hands - either way one day someone may knock at the door anyway.

 

4. Do you always treat people in such a fashion? I find that being polite and reasonable with people works wonders. Its like demanding a refund, asking for a refund. Option B works wonders. You immediately assume that ALL agents of TVL are liars and cheats? I've dealt with many reasonable honest individuals, and one ignorant prat. He was treated with the same courtesy I would accord any other stranger in life, until they demonstrate they are worth otherwise. Someone stood at your door askign you to fill in a form? Simple "no thank you, goodbye" and close the door. They start to harrass or pester, what a shame my dog was outside at the time - there is a warning of a dog. You wish to obtain a warrant - feel free, I either have a licence, or dont have an antenna connected to the TV. But I won't be rude to someone on the basis of whom they work for, not until they show that they should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Edited January 15, 2014 by woad

[rebel11]

We'll I'm fairly sure in the future, the BBC will be funded by Advertising Revenue, can't tell you when, but it will happen. It makes so much sense. The BBC's reputation has been shot to bits. It's a cash cow for paying off executives who couldn't run a car boot sale, with no boots for sale.

[snowy101]

1. I did say that it was no longer a legal requirement prior to the selected quoting, and then used the past tense 'required'

 

Check your quote, no selective quoting here. You say it is not required , no mention of the word " legal" . I pointed out that some are still continuing with this practise, for financial gain, as a warning to be careful. You also posted on another TVL topic recently, stating, that it was a legal requirement for companies selling equipment capable of receiving live feeds to inform TVL. I & another member corrected you, check your post history.

 

2. Actually, that is correct. There was an obligation to provide details to TV Licencing (or the Beeb, as it was many moons ago). It was one of the system inputs. (edit: I did not mean social landlords - which three decades ago didn't exist, and I'm hazy whether it included private landlords, too much time has passed together with my design notes. IIRCc it was details of an occupied property, not the name of the dweller)

 

You will know then that is is illegal for outsourced companies, Capita in this case, to have access to cross reference data on who or whom is the legal occupier . So you are not correct. The property is listed on the data base, as all properties in the UK are, not the LO. This is why they address it to the Legal occupier when you let your licence slide or move into a new property & don`t contact them.

 

3. Again, it is correct. My 'source' is that I was one of many who validated the SSADM system design. How else do you think TVL (edit: generic term, not the current entity known as TVL) maintained an address database? One of the lacking inputs was a means - other the 10-year aging out - of demolished properties, hence licence reminders being sent to non-existent addresses.

 

Exactly, they do not have a legal right to the LO name, only property details, which, as you have said , become obsolete.

 

4. Perhaps slightly misphrased on my part. By all means, like any other junk mail bin it. On the other hand, why not have some fun with them? If you don't need a licence, tell them, they will stop hassling you. If you want some fun, waste their time. Dont get me wrong, I think the fee is anachronistic and should be abolished, and I don't agree with some of the methods used to collect it nor the lack of any attempt to stamp them out. By wasting their time you not playing into their hands - either way one day someone may knock at the door anyway.

 

 

Not good advice for newly LLF members. If you & others want to have some "fun " as you put it, then that`s your choice & enjoy it, but at the risk of re repeating myself. We owe it to members who are looking for advice, that they are given , legal, secure , concise & confidence building advise on how to deal with TVL & any callers representing them. The no contact rule is a proven place to start them off from. If they then decide to have fun with letter tennis or use WOIRA that is their business .

 

4. Do you always treat people in such a fashion? I find that being polite and reasonable with people works wonders. Its like demanding a refund, asking for a refund. Option B works wonders. You immediately assume that ALL agents of TVL are liars and cheats? I've dealt with many reasonable honest individuals, and one ignorant prat. He was treated with the same courtesy I would accord any other stranger in life, until they demonstrate they are worth otherwise. Someone stood at your door askign you to fill in a form? Simple "no thank you, goodbye" and close the door. They start to harrass or pester, what a shame my dog was outside at the time - there is a warning of a dog. You wish to obtain a warrant - feel free, I either have a licence, or dont have an antenna connected to the TV. But I won't be rude to someone on the basis of whom they work for, not until they show that they should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

 

You can choose to be as polite as you want, it is not a popularity contest & no prizes are given out. I have no interest or trust or even respect for people who choose to do this particular job. I wonder how many vulnerable old people , single mothers on benefits [ the biggest group TVL take to court for prosecution] & the legally naive they have screwed over this week. I think on a consumer advice site , we should be looking out for the consumer [ or non consumer in this case] & not be worried about hurting the feeling or appearing to be rude to a Capita salesman at the door.

Edited January 15, 2014 by snowy101

[woad]

1. I did say that it was no longer a legal requirement prior to the selected quoting, and then used the past tense 'required'

 

Check your quote, no selective quoting here. You say it is not required , no mention of the word " legal" . I pointed out that some are still continuing with this practise, for financial gain, as a warning to be careful. You also posted on another TVL topic recently, stating, that it was a legal requirement for companies selling equipment capable of receiving live feeds to inform TVL. I & another member corrected you, check your post history.

 

Am I missing some smiley's here? I hope so. I did not say 'selective quoting', I said "selected quote". There is a difference. You selected a quote from my post whilst overlooking that I had already said it was no longer a requirement to give details, then explained how the system worked (past tense) - as opposed to works current tense. If retailers are being paid to collect details. AFAIK, any other topic I posted on was prior to the requirement being removed, hence I would still be right.

 

2. Actually, that is correct. There was an obligation to provide details to TV Licencing (or the Beeb, as it was many moons ago). It was one of the system inputs. (edit: I did not mean social landlords - which three decades ago didn't exist, and I'm hazy whether it included private landlords, too much time has passed together with my design notes. IIRCc it was details of an occupied property, not the name of the dweller)

 

You will know then that is is illegal for outsourced companies, Capita in this case, to have access to cross reference data on who or whom is the legal occupier . So you are not correct. The property is listed on the data base, as all properties in the UK are, not the LO. This is why they address it to the Legal occupier when you let your licence slide or move into a new property & don`t contact them.

 

Again, I was talking past tense, not current. I am correct, given I was describing the system as it worked, not as it does now. At the time. Have I made it sufficiently clear that I was describing a historical system? When it changed, I have no idea, and neither care.

 

4. Perhaps slightly misphrased on my part. By all means, like any other junk mail bin it. On the other hand, why not have some fun with them? If you don't need a licence, tell them, they will stop hassling you. If you want some fun, waste their time. Dont get me wrong, I think the fee is anachronistic and should be abolished, and I don't agree with some of the methods used to collect it nor the lack of any attempt to stamp them out. By wasting their time you not playing into their hands - either way one day someone may knock at the door anyway.

 

Not good advice for newly LLF members. If you & others want to have some "fun " as you put it, then that`s your choice & enjoy it, but at the risk of re repeating myself. We owe it to members who are looking for advice, that they are given , legal, secure , concise & confidence building advise on how to deal with TVL & any callers representing them. The no contact rule is a proven place to start them off from. If they then decide to have fun with letter tennis or use WOIRA that is their business .

 

And the most legally secure advice is "if you watch broadcast TV, get a licence". If you don't have a licence, they will eventually call. Maybe sooner, maybe later, whether it is still done on a trigger level of 'non-licenced' addresses in a given area I cannot say (but thats easy enough to do). If you don't have a TV, tell them, either at the door or via letter. if you use a TV for non-broadcast uses, ensure it is disconnected from the antenna, and the cable rolled up, taped out of reach of the TV, and the antenna plug (and even sockets) taped over; so if they do obtain a warrant it is obvious the equipment was not used to view broadcast TV.

 

You can choose to be as polite as you want, it is not a popularity contest & no prizes are given out. I have no interest or trust or even respect for people who choose to do this particular job. I wonder how many vulnerable old people , single mothers on benefits [ the biggest group TVL take to court for prosecution] & the legally naive they have screwed over this week. I think on a consumer advice site , we should be looking out for the consumer [ or non consumer in this case] & not be worried about hurting the feeling or appearing to be rude to a Capita salesman at the door.

 

I'm not worried about hurting anyone's feelings. But I was brought up to treat other people in a manner I would expect to be treated. So I do, until such time as someone demonstrates they should be treated different. Much like the way, in times gone by, people would tip their hats to, or open doors for, ladies. Being nice to people can work wonders.

[snowy101]

Am I missing some smiley's here? I hope so. I did not say 'selective quoting', I said "selected quote". There is a difference. You selected a quote from my post whilst overlooking that I had already said it was no longer a requirement to give details, then explained how the system worked (past tense) - as opposed to works current tense. If retailers are being paid to collect details. AFAIK, any other topic I posted on was prior to the requirement being removed, hence I would still be right

 

TBH , you`re missing the past by the sound of it.

 

As i said , check your post & you will see, you made that post on the 28th November 2013. You posted the wrong information & 2 members corrected that information. Long after the law had changed.

 

 

 

Again, I was talking past tense, not current. I am correct, given I was describing the system as it worked, not as it does now. At the time. Have I made it sufficiently clear that I was describing a historical system? When it changed, I have no idea, and neither care.

 

What good is advice?, if it is retrospective, If you don`t care then why post on current issues. As i said, your post was not relevant to the present system & is wrong. As i posted in my reply.

 

 

 

And the most legally secure advice is "if you watch broadcast TV, get a licence". If you don't have a licence, they will eventually call. Maybe sooner, maybe later, whether it is still done on a trigger level of 'non-licenced' addresses in a given area I cannot say (but thats easy enough to do). If you don't have a TV, tell them, either at the door or via letter. if you use a TV for non-broadcast uses, ensure it is disconnected from the antenna, and the cable rolled up, taped out of reach of the TV, and the antenna plug (and even sockets) taped over; so if they do obtain a warrant it is obvious the equipment was not used to view broadcast TV.

 

No one is under any legal obligation to inform them of their status, you are giving them personal information that is only to there benefit. You are advocating contacting a company who`s only interest in getting money out of you . Not the best advice i would suggest. No contact , ever.

 

 

 

I'm not worried about hurting anyone's feelings. But I was brought up to treat other people in a manner I would expect to be treated. So I do, until such time as someone demonstrates they should be treated different. Much like the way, in times gone by, people would tip their hats to, or open doors for, ladies. Being nice to people can work wonders.

 

I wholeheartedly agree:shock:, being nice to people can work wonders, i assume it is most people`s default position in life. Not for any gain but it makes the world a more enjoyable place to be......... , as i have already stated , it dose not extend to Capita salesmen / women .

Edited January 15, 2014 by snowy101

[woad]

I can't quote, as (not suprisingly) there are that many quotes one of us has missed an endquote.

 

I am not "missing the past", neither was I posting advice - "What good is advice?, if it is retrospective". It wasn't advice, it was an overview of how the system works.

 

"If you don`t care then why post on current issues. As i said, your post was not relevant to the present system & is wrong" I post because I can - are you the post-relevance moderator? And it is not wrong, unless we were misled during the analysis phase. And even if we were, then I am still correctly quoting my source, but it is my source that is incorrect. We hold different opinions; opinions are like a********, everyone has one.

 

I wholeheartedly agree:shock:, being nice to people can work wonders, i assume it is most people`s default position in life. Not for any gain but it makes the world a more enjoyable place to be......... , as i have already stated , it dose not extend to Capita salesmen / women .

 

Waaaay! There is a reason I am initially polite to all, regardless of whom they are and what they do; I belong to a demographic that is often treated with abuse. Not that I am as pure as driven snow, and never have been.

[snowy101]

I can't quote, as (not suprisingly) there are that many quotes one of us has missed an endquote.

 

I am not "missing the past", neither was I posting advice - "What good is advice?, if it is retrospective". It wasn't advice, it was an overview of how the system works.

 

"If you don`t care then why post on current issues. As i said, your post was not relevant to the present system & is wrong" I post because I can - are you the post-relevance moderator? And it is not wrong, unless we were misled during the analysis phase. And even if we were, then I am still correctly quoting my source, but it is my source that is incorrect. We hold different opinions; opinions are like a********, everyone has one

 

Finally , we get there. I choose to advise on this site on TVL matters , i deal in the facts, law & proven methods of non compliance for those who are LLF. I don`t intend to insult people, but i will question them or point out mistakes in their posting for clarification purposes .

 

 

 

Waaaay! There is a reason I am initially polite to all, regardless of whom they are and what they do; I belong to a demographic that is often treated with abuse. Not that I am as pure as driven snow, and never have been.

 

None of us are, although sometimes it can be immense fun:wink: . We all belong to a demographic that is often prone to abuse, especially more so these days, be it, being on benefits , unable to work for whatever reason, in debt, or just not able to cope, or any one of the reasons that people are vulnerable . Anyone can hit hard times ,i don`t like bully`s & the BBC is just that, their record of, wasting money & treating the public with a shocking contempt is the reason i hope to see them forced to survive on their own, not publicly funded Anyway.... Good luck .

Edited January 16, 2014 by stu007

[woad]

We agree on something

[snowy101]

None of us are, although sometimes it can be immense fun:wink: . We all belong to a demographic that is often prone to abuse, especially more so these days, be it, being on benefits , unable to work for whatever reason, in debt, or just not able to cope, or any one of the reasons that people are vulnerable . Anyone can hit hard times ,i don`t like bully`s & the BBC is just that, their record of, xxxxxxxx ,wasting money & treating the public with a shocking contempt is the reason i hope to see them forced to survive on their own, not publicly funded Anyway.... Good luck .

 

 

Can one of the Admin / mods , please tell me why this post has been edited & why no explaination is given when editing is done. Even via a PM

[woad]

Possibly the use of the the term which has been edited out? There were individual employees who have been since been found guilty of that, but not the organisation as a whole - at a guess.

[snowy101]

Possibly the use of the the term which has been edited out? There were individual employees who have been since been found guilty of that, but not the organisation as a whole - at a guess.

 

Ah, i knew it was you. Over & out Beeboid.

[woad]

Ah, i knew it was you. Over & out Beeboid.

 

Ok, you've lost me now! But if you meant I had something to do with it... nope.

[porkyp1g]

Lol, snowy and that tin foil hat. Thinks anyone who disagrees with him must work for the bbc. I can't just be a paying tvl customer and want anyone who does watch live tv to also pay their license. People who watch live tv and don't pay make me as mad as these capita folk do with people who don't need a license but they hassle anyway.

[Consumer dude]

Another letter from TV licensing to confirm they have opened an investigation. Is it possible to have more then one investigation going on at the same time ?..

[woad]

Oh yes, and unless you do watch live TV - or now, use iPlayer - without a licence, don't sweat it.

[Consumer dude]

None of it makes any sense, and to inform someone there is an investigation going on when it appears this is made up must be misleading to say the least..

 

Perhaps I should inform them that I am having my own investigation to decide why there investigations never seem to be concluded..

[andydd]

None of it makes any sense, and to inform someone there is an investigation going on when it appears this is made up must be misleading to say the least..

 

Perhaps I should inform them that I am having my own investigation to decide why there investigations never seem to be concluded..

 

Im sure theyd claim that everyone without a licence is permanently being investigated therefore its kinda true

[Consumer dude]

Is it reasonable to expect an update of any current investigation and some confirmation when any such investigation is to be concluded..

[Bazooka Boo]

No, they've been investigating my property for the past 9 years, then they kindly send me a letter the following month to tell me what to expect in court......

 

I always look forward to their letters...

[andydd]

Maybe Mr Jim Hale wants to be your friend ?

[Consumer dude]

Maybe Mr Jim Hale wants to be your friend ?

 

Does he actually exist ?..