As previously discussed on here I have eventually managed to secure a very positive offer on my deceased Mothers house. To all intents and purposes the house is empty of furnishings and there are only a few of my odds and sods that I am using whilst I complete some interior work.
There certainly is no TV, not even a Tranny (radio).
Every now and again a letter is on the mat addressed to 'The Occupier' - which of course there isn't. These are from TV licensing. On two occasions they have informed 'The Occupier' that their records show there is not a licence in force and this has been ongoing and they are going to send an Enforcement Officer round who can get a warrant blah blah. These have gone straight into the bin. Now one has arrived, again addressed to 'The Occupier' stating that they are taking them to Court and explains the court proceedings blah blah. The 'Occupier can of course ring certain telephone numbers or even visit their website.
Looking forward to the next threatening letter or even a Court Summons addressed to 'The Occupier'.
It seems that Government departments are resorting to the same bully boy, scaremongering tactics that I thought were the preserve of these fly by night parking enforcement companies.
|
I had the same when I bought our cottage in the Borders.
We had a TV-DVD combo but no aerial at all so I wasn't worried about someone showing up.
Received the same escalating 'scare' letters as I presume you did.
Once I sorted an aerial 6 or 7 months later so we could get Freeview, however, we got the Licence.
|
|
TV Licensing run by Crapita.
|
>> TV Licensing run by Crapita.
Its a very simple process now. The assumption is that every domestic address has a TV so needs a license. Just compare the two lists and target the anomalies.
|
A simple phone call would fix the issue
|
Do you know Z I agree with you. But on this occasion I am feeling rebellious. Its this presumption thing. Its not about any standard of proof.
I know that the VEL laws have been tightened up so either a vehicle is taxed or SORN'd. If it isn't you cop for a fine through the post. But there is legislation to back that up. As far as I am aware that doesn't exist for TV licencing.
|
It's the assumption that you're telling them porkies if you say you haven't got a telly that bugs me.. My young neighbours a few doors up don't have one so why should they even reply to the threatening letters, which, being rebellious sorts , they don't. His attitude is let them send a man round or take them to court......nothing to hide, it's none of their business.
It's not as though the DVLA adopt the same attitude if you don't have a driving license ! I can't remember being harassed by the authorities because I don't have a license to fly a plane !
|
The whole scam depends on some poor person (apparently most often a single mother on benefits)
believing the visiting heavy who says " our detector shows that you have an unlicensed TV, and coughing for it.
If you don't have a TV, then there is no prospect of them being able to take you to court - it falls at the first fence - no evidence of a TV.
We do have one - and a licence - we didn't for two years and ignored the letters, which were fairly unthreatening then.
The current ones would stick in my craw, and would be filed in the appropriate place were we to be in that situation.
|
>> Its this presumption thing
I'm with you. Its a stinky attitude and a somehow underhand process, based as it is upon the fallacy of detector vans.
|
Just think of it as a Section 1 under PACE if that helps :-) (reasonable grounds = most houses need a TV licence but yours doesn't have one)
btw I think this has been the same for years and years - way pre Crapita I'd say, and I'm not sure what colour government was in when it began
|
|
They used the same assumptions between 1977and 1981 when we didn't have a TV. Someone actually came to the door, and asked if I knew it was an offence etc. "Yes" ; did I have a licence "No"; did I intend to get one, "No"; why was that "Because I don't need one". And so on. Never actually asked whether I had a receiver, and I continued to get the threatening letters.
|
>> A simple phone call would fix the issue
>>
>>
That is not the experience of my daughter.
By coincidence yet another letter arrived this week and yes she has made several phone calls.
|
How many TVs can you have legally on one licence?
Suppose you don't ever watch all that Communist propaganda people think is shown on the BBC? Do you still have to have a licence?
It's a hangover from the fifties and a damn imposition. I wonder where the money goes?
|
The licence is levied upon the act of watching or recoridng live TV, irrespective of what channel you watch or record, subject only to the proviso that it is live broadcast TV. So even if you watch/record ITV only, then you still have to pay.
It is not relevant how you receive that TV, be it terrestrial or satellite for example, it just needs to be a live broadcast.
IF, however, you neither watch nor record TV as it is broadcast, perhaps you watch catchup services only, then you do not need a licence.
Or if you watch Netflix only, for example.
Neither do you need a licence if you only watch DVDs, play games or whatever.
The fee supposedly goes to the BBC. And that is about as accurate as the assumption that the revenue from the road fund licence is spent on roads.
It actually goes into the central taxation pot, from which the BBC is also funded. There is no need, call or reason for the amount of one to be tied to the amount of the other.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 9 May 15 at 00:58
|
Clearly then its time that the BBC moved to smart cards and decoders like Sky. That way if you don't pay you don't get it.
And If I were the DG would put mark on the black list and tell him to eff off if he wanted one.
|
|
House next door has no letter box, neither has it any occupants, also there was a mix up with plot numbers and house numbers here. Consequently we get letter addressed to the "Occupant" for next door. TV Licence threats have been arriving here for some time, much the same as for Fullchat. My wife broke ranks and phoned them the other day. I wouldn't have bothered personally. I deal with TV Licensing through work, on a case by case basis, I find them ok to deal with and will bend over backwards to resolve matters (i.e. save themselves the expense of taking a summons out). They're still Crapita though and this is the thin end of the wedge, just wait until Policing activities are privatised.
|
I just return these letters to them with a note on the envelope that there is no requirement for a TV licence at this time. However, I usually have to repeat this a couple of times before they eventually inform me that they have updated their records, and confirm that they will not be contacting me again for nearly two years.
Not sure why it should be 'nearly' two years, though.
|
>> The fee supposedly goes to the BBC. And that is about as accurate as the
>> assumption that the revenue from the road fund licence is spent on roads.
>>
>> It actually goes into the central taxation pot, from which the BBC is also funded.
I don't think that's right. The licence fee is near unique in UK as a hypothecated tax. The BBC itself is the statutory collection agency.
Government have raided the 'fund' in recent years towards funding the World Service the digital rollout etc and possibly Channel 4 too. It's all spent on broadcasting.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 9 May 15 at 11:19
|
>> It's all spent on broadcasting.
But not necessarily upon the BBC.
The BBC is authorised to collect it. They give it to the Government. The Government largely passes it back to fund the BBC. But I *think*, and I may be wrong, that its hypothecation relates to its connection to Broadcasting (in a pretty wide sense) not necessarily to the BBC.
Equally I am not sure that the fee is actually and legally restricted, I think that's just effectively how it has come to work.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom
www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/aboutthebbc/entries/9637e45d-c96c-36c6-9e3f-af141e81cab4
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 9 May 15 at 21:14
|
It seems that Government departments are resorting to the same bully boy, scaremongering tactics that
>> I thought were the preserve of these fly by night parking enforcement companies.
TV licensing is NOT a Government department!
It is operated and enforced, as a tax, by the private sector in the persona of Capita, whose "licensing enforcement officers", not only have no right of access to your home, but also receive a commission for every person they frighten intro paying up for the licence.
Most of their threats are bluster and bravado.
Only a simpleton, or the nervous, actually invite them into the house, where if they see a TV working, or extract an admission of live TV use, can they legitimately force action via court proceedings.
Obtaining a court issued warrant to enter a house to establish if there is a connected TV viewing live TV is very, very, very, rare.
I'd let the bludgers try to get an non-existent "occupier" to court.
If they do - ROTFLMAO!
|
I suspect the stream of letters are bring automatically generated. It's not possible to summons an anonymous 'occupier' and given that issue of proceedings incurs a cost a human being would be involved before getting that far. They'd also send an agent round to whom the property's lack of occupancy would presumably be obvious.
Personally though I'd make a quick phone call and advise them that property is empty and under offer for sale.
|
>> Personally though I'd make a quick phone call and advise them that property is empty
>> and under offer for sale.
It's quite likely that the recipients of their letters don't like their attitude, and are not inclined to be particularly helpful.
|
The license fee is pretty small for what you get (compared to say a real world Sky fee). I for one would be fairly annoyed a significant portion of that fee went on compliance and enforcement. Clearly the most cost effective way is to automate the checking and compliance process in the simplest manner possible, and that is what they have chosen to do.
I'm pretty sure a letter saying "Wouldn't it be nice if you paid your license please" would be ignored by those who chose not to pay it (or get if free but still bitch about it), so i think this is being blown out of proportion.
You lot would be screaming blue murder if RFL enforcement was restricted to mildly assertive letters and the subsequent wide spread non compliance by motorists.
Must be a slow news day post election.
|
"Personally though I'd make a quick phone call"
Yeah, I'd do the same. Why cause extra effort, even though it may be automated? There must be a cost which eventually comes back on us all, and clearly the letters bring a degree of stress to some people.
|
|
Unfortunately I suspect the people who are the genuine culprits would ignore a polite letter, and need something mildly threatening
|
I had similar issues with bad debt companies. The occupiers previous to the the vendors who we bought the house from had done a moonlight leaving a number of bad debts. Letters from debt recovery companies arrived on the mat. I took the time to contact by phone on premium lines to explain that the current and previous occupants were no longer their targets and a simple voters check would corroborate this fact. Despite being assured that the matter would be closed the debts were sold on to other named companies and the letters arrived again. When you do some background checks these companies are all linked.
I wrote again explaining what I had already told them and informed them that any future correspondence would incur a fee for my response. Sure enough they arrived and I duly sent my invoice for £100 payable within 28 days. Also indicated that a copy had been forwarded to the Information Commissioner as their records did not comply with the principles of Data Protection. [I didn't really :) ] This initiated a pesonal response that the matter would be looked into. Surprisingly they could find no trace of my letter indicating that a fee would be charged however promised to amend their records. No contact since :)
|
>> I had similar issues with bad debt companies. The occupiers previous to the the vendors
>> who we bought the house from had done a moonlight leaving a number of bad
>> debts.
Now there you and I share common ground. I have been dealing with several of those issue from the previous occupier of my mothers new house.
The council (unpaid council tax) were pretty insistent at first and very quick with a court summons but rapidly followed that up with thanks and an apology when I provided them with a name to chase.
British gas however have been a PITA. Well not them per say, they were good at killing the debtor account and starting a new one with accurate billing, but they sold the debt to a recovery company. Now they have been a right bunch of sheets, leading me to have several heated conversations with them and the threats of me throwing a harassment lawsuit at them.
|
Suggest you try my tack Z. However the letter outlining your T&Cs should be sent recorded delivery.
I am sure you are more than capable of composing suitable letter :) but this is how I concluded mine:
..........A simple electoral roll check will corroborate the above.
You and/or associated companies (XXXXXXXX) have been informed of the facts however continue to send communications to the address. There are Data Protection breaches in that the personal data you hold is incorrect.
If you or any associated debt recovery companies send any further communications which require my intervention I will be obliged on behalf of the estate of my late Mother to charge £100 for each communication I have to respond to.
Likewise I will be contacting the Information Commissioner.
I will add that I have no knowledge of the whereabouts of XXXXXXXXXX.
Your Faithfully
|
To be honest you seem to like making heavy weather of a minor bit of bureaucracy. Just fill in the online form at the licensing fee site and they will stop sending demands. You could have done that in the time you spent posting here. :-)
www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-does-your-licence-fee-pay-for-top13
|
>> To be honest you seem to like making heavy weather of a minor bit of
>> bureaucracy. Just fill in the online form
I don't think he is.
I for one, wouldn't be filling in their online form. They want too much information about the location of the property; more than I would be prepared to put on the internet if I was responsible for a property that was unoccupied, and very likely displaying a 'For Sale' sign.
|
>> Suggest you try my tack Z. However the letter outlining your T&Cs should be sent
>> recorded delivery.
thanks - thats my next line of attack if it continues.
|
>> >> Suggest you try my tack Z. However the letter outlining your T&Cs should be
>> sent
>> >> recorded delivery.
>> thanks - thats my next line of attack if it continues.
You might be better off just getting a proof of posting chitty.
As far as I can remember, only one of the last five recorded delivery letters I've sent over the past few years has actually been "recorded", although all have been delivered. Funnily enough the last one I sent (about nine months ago) was signed for by a neighbour of the recipient, who is also a good friend of ours, but it was not recorded and I received yet another book of first class stamps by way of compensation.
Can't remember the last time I had to buy a first class stamp!
|
>> As far as I can remember, only one of the last five recorded delivery letters
>> I've sent over the past few years has actually been "recorded", although all have been
>> delivered. Funnily enough the last one I sent (about nine months ago) was signed for
>> by a neighbour of the recipient, who is also a good friend of ours, but
>> it was not recorded and I received yet another book of first class stamps by
>> way of compensation.
>>
>> Can't remember the last time I had to buy a first class stamp!
>>
Now that gives me an idea. just send yourself a recorded delivery letter and collect a free book of stamps and cash them in. And again, and again ,and again....... until they stop giving compensation.
|
>> TV licensing is NOT a Government department!
>> It is operated and enforced, as a tax, by the private sector in the persona
>> of Capita, whose "licensing enforcement officers", not only have no right of access to your
>> home, but also receive a commission for every person they frighten intro paying up for
>> the licence.
>> Most of their threats are bluster and bravado.
>> Only a simpleton, or the nervous, actually invite them into the house, where if they
>> see a TV working, or extract an admission of live TV use, can they legitimately
>> force action via court proceedings.
>> Obtaining a court issued warrant to enter a house to establish if there is a
>> connected TV viewing live TV is very, very, very, rare.
>> I'd let the bludgers try to get an non-existent "occupier" to court.
>> If they do - ROTFLMAO!
You get it free you don't even ruddy pay it, so whats your beef.
|
|
I have dealt with a number of Council Tax Offices on behalf of clients. They are generally very good.
|
I'm not 100% sure that Capita have been the only contractors the BBC have employed for this, but historically the collection was a GPO activity for which they charged the BBC a considerable amount. In the end, the BBC got parliament to allow them to organise the collection as more of the proceeds would go to the BBC.
A long time ago, my brother and I managed to confuse TV licensing as for a period we shared a house and as we both had TV licences but mine ran for about 3 months more, I transferred mine to the new address and we let his run out. It was ok doing that, but when we each got our own houses again, they managed to confuse things and sent me, his reminder at my address. A telephone call sorted the mess out. No question of any prosecution as we'd paid correctly, just that their paperwork was wrong.
|
Just got an email today from a credit card company saying my statement is available on line.
Opened my account straight away to set up payment for just before the due date and guess what.........the due date is today !
I've paid it on-line by faster payment but I'll be very upset and the phone will be red hot if they fine me £12 for ' late payment ' Speshly as it's the weekend !
|
I find the temptation to tease heavy-handed organisations almost irresistible.
Soon after I moved here the PO changed the post code, and also the "city" to which our isolated rural property is theoretically attached postally. So for 30 years we have had two addresses, depending on whether an organisation has used the old list or the new one.
TV Licensing of course used both, so even though I had a valid licence for one, I got the repetitive threatening letters addressed to the other.
Childishly I waited to see whether they would ever actually do anything, and they did. They sent out a detector van, with a man who said he had been driving around for ages trying to find the place. He demanded to see my licence, which I showed him, and he went away puzzled because he had been given the wrong address.
A few years later the PO changed the address again, but I think TV Licensing have given up.
|
I don't watch live TV at my house and don't have a licence.
I do watch films and TV programs on streamed services (Fire TV) on a big TV that is not connected to aerial or to a TV box but I do pay for a full Sky service for my lad who lives with his mum. The bills for that come to me.
Capita / TV licencing have been so rude claiming that as I pay for Sky that I must be watching live TV (Sky must be under an obligation to tell them about new subscribers).
They sent a man around who tried to force his way in when he heard the TV on and I had to hold the door firm to stop him. I was livid and he was almost frothing at the bit when he though he had caught me and then he had the nerve to gave me a piece of paper to sign saying that he needed it signed to show he had visited.
I took it off him and it was effectively a confession and if I had signed it I would have ended up in court.
They have been told, in writing, that I have withdrawn their implied right to access my property and they have written back stating that they will check that I am not using a TV by other means, whatever that means!
The sooner the BBC shows commercials or to a pay tv service the better, IMHO.
|
>> they will check that I am not using a TV by other means, whatever that means!
They will drive around near your house in a van with an impressive looking, non-functioning aerial thing on the roof until you panic and confess. I think that's the standard technique.
|
|
When I had a faff with mine, they just seemed to go around in a cycle of letters, they'd start off as reminders then get more serious then end up being red letters, then go back to the reminders. Nothing more.
|
>>They will drive around near your house in a van with an impressive looking, non-functioning aerial thing on the roof until you panic and confess. I think that's the standard technique.
Oh well, as I am hardly ever their I guess I won't notice it!
I did wonder if they might try to bring up the record of subscribing to Sky as a way to get a summons and a day in court. I would then need to show that I am proving the subscription for my lad, the box being at another house. I could show that I paid for a dish to be installed there.
|
|
Posted twice in error - sorry!
Last edited by: zippy on Sat 9 May 15 at 19:20
|
|
Some years ago I saw a TV detector van and display at a country fair type event. As the van was being used for display purposes I had a look around. I could hardly control my mirth on seeing the dilapidated ancient oscilloscopes not connected to the random wiring looms which did not go anywhere near the aerials on the roof of the van. The only surveillance equipment in the van was fitted to the guy trying to waffle about its capabilities. I did not let on that I know a little about surveillance and electronic warfare kit. :-)
|
Heh heh... you got it ON. But you don't need any technical expertise to spot an official scam designed to terrorize the ignorant, just half a brain.
Ancient oscilloscopes... tee hee!
|
In the days when a cathode ray tube was the only way of watching, you could detect the Line OutPut Transformer (LOPT). That is what detector vans used to look for, and yes, you could tell what was being watched.
But since the LEDs, LCDs and Plasma sets appeared, none of that works anymore.
I wouldn't be surprised if a dummy van was sent to shows, few folk really know how to work such things, I know I can use a spectrum analyser better than most Radio Investigation Engineers as I helped them with an investigation many years ago.
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Sat 9 May 15 at 20:55
|
|
The van I saw was firmly in the CRT age and I can assure you it could not detect anything in the RF range. It was a very poor attempt to frighten the punters.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 9 May 15 at 20:57
|
The van I saw was firmly in the CRT age and I can assure you it could not detect anything in the RF range. It was a very poor attempt to frighten the punters.
Decoy van then. The real thing did exist, but would have been very expensive to build and would have needed a pretty good engineer/driver/operator. At a time when a new Discovery was about £20000, the BBC built two survey vehicles which in terms of what they had were comparable. I don't know the final bill, but if it added more than a nought to the price, I'd not be at all surprised. If they built two real ones and eight decoys, seems sensible to me.
But to be honest, the most common fraud used to be to buy a black and white licence, but have a colour set. A colour set in analogue CRT days radiated 4.43 MHz, not much but it was there and you could detect it too.
|
>> Decoy van then. The real thing did exist, .......
>>
I am sure driving a decoy van around an area would increase the licence uptake.
A bit like the DVLA clamping contractors van. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Sat 9 May 15 at 23:35
|
re black and white: a relative was proud to show the latest thing, if you couldn't afford a colour TV: janreetze.blogspot.co.uk/2014_05_01_archive.html
Scroll down to the magic sheet:)
Last edited by: NortonES2 on Sun 10 May 15 at 08:18
|
>> The sooner the BBC shows commercials or to a pay tv service the better, IMHO.
Tsk. Honestly zippy, whose side are you on? Do you think we're made of money? Just zip it, OK?
|
>>The sooner the BBC shows commercials or to a pay tv service the better, IMHO.
There are very good reasons to have a funded Public Broadcaster, its just that the BBC usually chooses to forget it is one.
Unless its indulging in some sanctimonious whinging. Then it can't stop reminding people.
|
|
Worse, what like tv licence riots?
|
I'd never heard of John Whittingdale, now that's twice in one day.
"Veteran Tory MP John Whittingdale is to become Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport" (www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32683868 )
I guess he will therefore have the influence to carry out his desire, above.
Last edited by: smokie on Mon 11 May 15 at 11:22
|
>> it falls at the first fence - no evidence of a TV.
That used to be the case. These days (almost) everybody has something in his pocket that allows him to watch live TV. This makes it very difficult to enforce.
|
|
It's an anacronism and should be scrapped. The cost of admin, plus the load on the courts (sure I read half of mag court cases are non-payment of licence fee), must make it barely covering its costs. Just abandon it and pay for it out of general taxation.
|
TV Licensing - Getting Heavy - Lygonos
