TV licensing [Matthew's Journal]

Frankly, I think it's ridiculous that you have to have a license for a TV at all... but that's a cultural difference, I think.

I'm still wigged by the idea of having to pay by the minute for use of a landline phone, too.

[link] [reply]

The licence fee supports the BBC, which is quite a useful institution. I'm inclined to think it should be funded from general taxation instead, but there you go...

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

naath.livejournal.com

Am I being unreasonable?

Nope. The TVLA are as an organisation obnoxious bullies who are best ignored. If they do come round make sure they're put to maximum trouble to discover that you're not breaking any law.

Alternatively, you could start telling all local and national authorities every few months that you don't need a licence as you still don't own a shotgun or radio transmission equipment, still aren't a market trader and so on.

[link] [reply]

No, you're not unreasonable. TVL are a bunch of idiots with a semi-legal license to harass the populace.

My suggestion:

If you have a TV, buy a TV licence. Renew it every year.
If you don't have a TV, don't buy a licence.
Ignore all communications from TVL regardless of shape, size or colour.

Attempting to tell them that you don't have a TV doesn't seem to have much effect. It's much less hassle simply to bin the letters unread.

Incidentally, our building has just received a red letter from TVL addressed to flat J. There is no such flat...

[link] [reply]

The chaplain at Selwyn has been in a big tussle with them because he moved into a house that was previously an HMO, and TVL refused to believe him when he said there was only one household there now, so they only wanted 1 TV licence...

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

rustica.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

enismirdal.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

didiusjulianus.livejournal.com

It's very odd; I don't think they've sent me a letter for ages (as in possibly four years).

You don't need to let them in without a warrant, and they won't get a warrant without good cause (which, last time I looked, "not having paid the license" most certainly didn't count as).

Of course, the interesting question is whether the BBC are making any online streamed material available "at or nearly at the same time as a wireless broadcast of the same material", since that'll change the whole question of who needs a license ...

[link] [reply]

We've never owned a TV license, and we've never had a problem with the TVL. When I first bought a video recorder, they sent me a letter. At the time, I was a student with no money and was only intending to use it for pre-recorded videos, so I phoned and asked, and they said if I wrote them a letter saying that I had this equipment and did not intend to use it to receive, they'd be happy. So I did.

When we moved into the flat, we got a random visit, by a guy who came and looked at our TV sitting on the floor and made inaccurate comments about NTSC after seeing our collection. He went away happy even though he had nothing more than our verbal promise that we weren't going to use the equipment to receive. We sent another letter, and heard nothing from them for ages, even though during that time two different friends have stayed with us on different occasions and each time have bought a TV licence for this address which was cancelled when they moved out.
Recently, about 3 years later, we got another letter basically saying they wanted to check that we were still telling the truth, which irritated me a bit. I phoned them and said we still didn't receive but we did have a lot of equipment, as detailed in my letter. They said that was fine, and they'd send someone round in the evening (because we both work). That was about 6 months ago, and we haven't seen hide nor hair of anyone ^^;; I fully expect the same to happen in another 3 years, to be honest.

I know most people have a lot of hassle from them, but apart from the regular letter and phone call, we have no problem at all.

[link] [reply]

With respect to my last comment, that does not mean I approve of them. I find their insinuation that I'm lying very offensive and don't see why I have to prove myself not a liar every 3 years. That said, after a couple of letters/calls they do take my word for it and go away again ^^;;

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

didiusjulianus.livejournal.com

(no subject) — (anonymous)

I don't think you're being remotely unreasonable and I have no intention of letting them in either. Especially now they're sending out actively misleading letters implying the possession of a computer or a mobile phone requires a TV license.

I don't intend to give them any information about me either - since they cannot in any way prove I'm using an unlicensed TV (especially as I'm not!!) then I don't see how any information they hold on me can be used in any way but against me.

I honestly am not sure they normally even bother getting warrants - I have a feeling if they had enough evidence to get a search warrant, they'd skip that and go straight to court where the money is.

I want them to come and park a magical detector van on our road to magically detect which students in our block are using unlicensed TVs (there are several, I believe, none of them me)! We all had red letters the other week. I'm told that after the red letter you get another letter saying, "TVLA officials called but you were out. You're still a lying scumbag, blah blah blah."

[link] [reply]

i agree that you shouldn't let them in. they can, after all tell that you have no television without entering the property using a detector van... can't they...? :) [or on recalling a more recent scare-vert, handheld detectors]

[link] [reply]

Ignore them as much as possible. The letters I have had from them are unnecessarily antagonistic. They assume that you have a TV, with a small section on the back, saying if you have no TV, do *many things*, and then they will check anyway. there is no way that it is your duty to contact them. You may make life easier for yourself if you let them in, but you are certainly not obliged to do so.

[link] [reply]

I put all their letters straight in the recycling and always vaguely looked forward to an inspector calling just so I could uphold my right not to own a television and not to be answerable to anyone because of that choice...

[link] [reply]

I've given up worrying about them, and bin everything from them sight unseen. Given they're not especially significant noise in the level of junk mail, it seems less hastle than trying to get them to stop.

[link] [reply]

We used to get a lot of hassle from them, but once they sent someone round, who we allowed to look round our TV-free flat, they stopped sending rude letters. I think that was 3 or 4 years ago. I guess you're within your rights to prevent them coming in, but I imagine they'll keep sending annoying letters if you do that.

[link] [reply]

Note: letters are only annoying if you allow them to be :) I'd definitely not let them wander around my place largely uninvited. But obviously your choice.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

vyvyan.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

didiusjulianus.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

rustica.livejournal.com

I think they're staggeringly rude for people who, ultimately, work for us. I wouldn't give them the time of day. No, you're not being unreasonable. People should know that they should have judicially-reviewed probable cause before they feel entitled to go poking around people's houses for things. Especially as they do write things at one that strongly suggest that they think it plausible that one's lying.

[link] [reply]

Yes, you're being unreasonable. You're letting them get to you.

They're subcontracted revenue generators. They're paid to bully anyone they can get their hands on. They fundamentally have no authority, but seem to enjoy pretending they do.

You're not being paid to deal with them, and have no reason to have to do so.

Bin the letters unopened. If they phone up, be rude then hang up. If they want to expend effort chasing you, let them. Spend as little effort yourself as you can, which is almost no effort at all. The only, very unlikely, situation they are entitled to impose on you is if they are accompanied with police officers and a search warrant - at which point you show them around and they leave within 15 minutes with nothing to show for it. They have to work extra hard to get there.

Help prove how little value for money they're providing.

[link] [reply]

No, you're not being unreasonable.

They can't come in without your permission or with a warrent. They can only get a warrent if they detect a TV in use on the proprty. But be warned - they will use any method to get in. Apparently, one broke into my father's house when he went into his garage and left the house door unlocked.

I would rather like to get rid of my TVs because I never watch them. Unfortunately, I made the mistake of setting up a direct debit a few years ago, and I suspect that I will *never* now get their fingers out of my bank account, no matter what I do :((((

Any advice? I have no intention of letting some random man into my house to poke around and make empty threats. I know *technically* one is supposed to be able to cancel a direct debit, but I have known several people whose banks have refused to...

[link] [reply]

The direct debit guarantee is quiet fierce, actually. Specifically, the form you originally signed Must have had a bit on it saying, roughly:

You can cancel a direct debit at any time by writing to your bank or building society. Please send a copy of the letter to us.

My bank (Nationwide) shows me my direct debits in the online banking, and it looks like I could cancel them from there. In any case, stopping a DD should be straightforward, but you might have to do so in writing.

[link] [parent] [reply]

I also have no intention, especially as a woman living alone (when in Cambridge) of letting anyone into my flat. Period.

In Highbury, we have a licence, and yet they keep sending threatening letters to the house itself (there are 8 flats) but never to anyone in any of the flats. I mean come on, if they have less information than anyone else who can look up residences by postcode, why ever should I take them seriously?

[link] [reply]

No you're not; I felt exactly the same way when they sent a (what can only be described as) threatening letter to me

[link] [reply]

We've always had a licence but we occassionally switch whose name it's in. We still get threatening letters but I refuse to believe we need more than one licence to watch the one tv we have in the house. I just put them all in the bin now. We also pay by cheque so they can't get their claws into our bank account. Do you know if you pay monthly (as they push you to do) you have to pay for the first year in the first six months so that on average you've paid halfway through the year. This sucks if you move a lot.

[link] [reply]

Why does this suck if you move a lot, when you move house, you don't have to pay 6 months up front again, only the first time...you just transfer to the new property.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

piqueen.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

didiusjulianus.livejournal.com

No, you're not being unreasonable at all. They're fooless cluckwits who seem to exist solely to threaten and bullying people.

Are the threatening letters likely to cause distress? If so, consider letting them in if they ever get round to calling, and start keeping evidence so you can sue them for damages caused by harassment some day.

[link] [reply]

I'm not saying you're being unreasonable. I'm saying that (in the comments at least 2, and more that I know of) people who let them look in their living room then don't get nagged by them for three years, which would be nice. Yes, they have no right to go in our living room. That doesn't mean we can't let them if we think it would be to our advantage. Minimising us hassle is to our advantage. In the unlikely event that a TV licensing person does turn up on our doorstep, I think we'll cause much more stress by saying that under no circumstances can they come in than by just letting them see we don't have a TV.

I'm sorry I don't care enough about the moral rights of this issue to want to do what's right instead of what's easy.

[link] [reply]

IKWYM.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

mostlyacat.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

ex-lark-asc.livejournal.com

I always sent the forms back when there was a reply-paid envelope and binned them otherwise. I think you're perfectly reasonable.

[link] [reply]

Incidentally, I've heard (from the IT guy at work) that you supposedly *do* need a licence for a computer. Which I think must be complete bollocks *so long as it can't receive a signal*. Can anyone confirm this?

[link] [reply]

It's bollocks, although it's a bit of FUD that's going around a lot currently.

You would need a TV licence for your computer if it had a TV tuner card which you used to watch TV, or if you were watching streaming TV live (unlike the clips you get on e.g. news.bbc, which are pre-recorded).

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

ashfae.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

emarkienna.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

ashfae.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

emarkienna.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

emperor

(no subject) —

ashfae.livejournal.com

(no subject) —

alitalf.livejournal.com

You should get a TV - then you can watch Alice... :-)

[link] [reply]

I've not had a TV for about 20 years. We've had various letters from TVL at various times, usually they've been the rude, objectional form ones. At one point amalion wrote them a poem about having no TV when they were being particularly obnoxious and sending stuff every few weeks. That seemed to get their attention.

We recently had another one, much more polite this time, saying that they just wished to check on the information that we gave them a bit over a year ago after we had moved into our present house. They would be sending a chap round to visit us. So far, to our knowledge, he hasn't turned up and amalion has mostly been in.

I generally agree with most of the other comments here that the TVL people appear to be a bunch of bullies. The classic "traffic warden" mentality.

Regarding using a computer to receive streamed media, they'd have a bit of difficulty proving that I needed a licence for that, as my firewall very successfully blocks that. I've never got round to fixing it and since getting a DAB radio I'm even less likelty to get round to it.

[link] [reply]

A while ago TVL produced a load of posters and bus adverts that were meant to scare people into buying TV licences. They were customised for the local area - "6 households in Chesterton Road Cambridge have no TV licence". I think the campaign backfired a bit because everyone I know who saw them immediately thought "6 houses in Chesterton Road are either empty or are being unreasonably hassled for their TV-free lifestyle".

We got three or four rude threatening letters when we moved to our current address, despite transferring our TV licence promptly. It seems they update their "who has just bought a TV" list more frequently than their list of licensed addresses. Bah :-(

Apparently the reason they won't take people's word for it is that 50% of the people who sign to say they don't own/watch TV actually do. Though personally I don't think a 50% chance is high enough to treat everyone as a liar.

[link] [reply]

I’d heard the figure was 20%, which is even more unreasonable.

[link] [parent] [reply]

(no subject) —

damerell.livejournal.com

I don't think you're being unreasonable exactly, but I also don't think this is the best of way of handling it. I think this is one of those occasions when I have to grudgingly admit that the question "What Would Jesus Do?" does have some value. If I think of the "Render to Caesar" incident, and the miraculous payment of the Temple tax with the coin from the fish's mouth, it seems to me that his approach to minor official injustices in his day was to comply, but at the same time mentally to dismiss them as irrelevant and not worthy of too much of his attention. That left him free to get on with his real mission. In his case, it meant paying the tax, and in yours, I think it means letting the enforcement officers in - unless you feel that campaigning against the licence fee system is something you're being called to, which I suppose is possible. Otherwise, refusing to let them in just seems likely to increase your stress levels (and

atreic's) to no good purpose.

[link] [reply]

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25 1
26	27	28	29	30	31

Matthew's Journal

October