Is this legal?

[DrPhill]

We do not own a TV. We do not watch live TV programs on our computers. We refuse, on principle, to 'declare that we do not own a TV'. We have never had a 'visit from one of our enforcement officers'. Now they send us this letter. This seems to be very threatening, and I wonder if they are overstepping the bounds of legality. What say you? I can see some people being bullied into buying TV tax even though they do not need it.

I really do think that they are overstepping the mark now.

 

[bodge]

I don't think its too bad to be fair. The current UK law says you must either buy a TV license or declare that you do not need one. I don't see what the problem is with complying with the law and saying "I don't need a TV license." Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
Of course there may be some reason you can't do that, but I'm not sure what it would be.

 

[Oryxdesign]

The website says "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder." If you do not need one just tell them.
From experience that will not be the end of it, they will keep asking and keep threatening, file all the letters for future use.

 

[DrPhill]

I don't think its too bad to be fair. The current UK law says you must either buy a TV license or declare that you do not need one. I don't see what the problem is with complying with the law and saying "I don't need a TV license." Doesn't sound unreasonable to me.
Of course there may be some reason you can't do that, but I'm not sure what it would be.

Is it really law that I must declare that I do not have a television? I do not think that is so, but if you have evidence then that would change my position slightly.

I have searched the BBC site and I can find no mention of a legal requirement to declare that I have no TV. Plenty of stuff about it being a legal requirement to have a licence to watch..... etc etc etc.

From Wikipedia (Bold mine):

The initial contact with occupants of addresses for which there is no current licence is by letter. During the financial year 2011–12, approximately 21 million "standard warning" letters were sent, each costing 18.3 pence in postage (excluding printing and sorting costs).[52] The methods by which an occupant can reply are in writing, by telephone or by filling in an online form [2]. If there is no reply to the first letter and a TV licence is not bought by the occupant, then TV Licensing continues to write regularly to the address and "the tone of the letters progressively becomes stronger to encourage a reply".[38] If a business or household is not obliged to have a TV licence then TV Licensing will request written confirmation of this, even though no such information is required to be given in law.[53][54]

For those interested, that is a very interesting article on what (Wikipedia believes) the BBC can and cannot do.
The [53][54] are two hyperlinked references to support the assertion.

reference 54 is a quote from Shaun Woodward (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport; St Helens South, Labour)

A television licence is required to install or use a television receiver, as defined in regulations made by the Secretary of State, rather than a television set. Members of the public who do not require a television licence are under no obligation to inform TV Licensing of the fact.

 

[t8hants]

They work on the assumption that you must have a set, and if they have no record of you obtaining a licence then they assume you are dodging the fee. It is all done to frighten you into obtaining a licence. The dodgy ground is reached should you be summoned to court because they will I suspect lean on the assumption that any reasonable person would wish to inform the authorities of your perceived exemption. You may win but incur costs. The old detector vans were only to frighten people into buying a licence, they could detect an operating set with a much smaller device so I was told.

My little industrial unit would get letters every three months, they never gave up.

Gareth

 

[Paul Chapman]

What say you?

I think you are being a bit silly about this. Most people watch live television programmes and therefore need a licence. If you are one of the few who don't, just tell them.

You could have dealt with it in less time than it's taken you to moan on here about it.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Steve Maskery]

I get the man at the door as well as the letters. He came when I lived at my last address and he turned up here a couple of weeks ago. On both occasions he told me I needed a licence. On both occasions I told him I didn't. He asked to come in, I refused. This last time he said they would get a warrant. I pointed out that to get a warrant you need prima facie evidence that an offence is being committed and that hard evidence is likely to be found by a search of the premises. As they have so evidence whatsoever, the granting of a search warrant seems a tad unlikely to me.

I just don't see why I should have to prove that I'm not a criminal.

Paul, it's all very well saying "just tell them", the problem is that they don't believe you and continue the harassment regardless.
S

Edit: Phill, as that letter is addressed to "Sir or Madam", I think you can quite rightly claim that they have not sent YOU a letter at all. They cannot prosecute an anonymous person and even if they go to the trouble of finding out your name they still need hard evidence. I don't have a lot of faith in the courts, having been through them and not getting justice, but even I would trust them not to penalise someone without actual evidence.

 

[Paul Chapman]

Paul, it's all very well saying "just tell them", the problem is that they don't believe you and continue the harassment. regardless.
S

That's not been my experience. Back in the 1970s we didn't have a television for about eight years. We received the usual letter asking why we had no television licence and I wrote back and told them why. We heard no more.

I suspect that these days there are more people trying to get away without having a licence, which could explain why they are more persistent.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

 

[Oryxdesign]

Paul, it's all very well saying "just tell them", the problem is that they don't believe you and continue the harassment. regardless.
S

That's not been my experience. Back in the 1970s we didn't have a television for about eight years. We received the usual letter asking why we had no television licence and I wrote back and told them why. We heard no more.

I suspect that these days there are more people trying to get away without having a licence, which could explain why they are more persistent.

Cheers :wink:

Paul

I've had the same experience as Steve, they just don't go away.

 

[DrPhill]

They work on the assumption that you must have a set, and if they have no record of you obtaining a licence then they assume you are dodging the fee.

Or that everyone has to pay, but there is an exemption if you can prove that you do not have a TV. That would make life easier for all concerned would it not? (hammer)

It is all done to frighten you into obtaining a licence.

That is the bit that annoys me. What they are doing is bullying - plain and simple. It verges on 'extracting money with menaces'. One letter said that 'One of our enforcement officers will be round to interview you'. My wife used to manage a sheltered housing block, and had to deal with elderly residents who had been confused and frightened by such letters. This letter implies (incorrectly, which is close to lying) that I am already destined for court, and that the only way to prevent this is to either cough up some money which I am not obliged to pay, or to perform an action that I am not obliged to perform. Does that not seem a teensy-weensy bit immoral if not illegal?

And there are people that fall for this. Sane, rational, adult people who have been conditioned to believe such tosh, just as some people believe that they are obliged to declare their TV free status (And even beligerent me had to check the facts at that point ).

The dodgy ground is reached should you be summoned to court because they will I suspect lean on the assumption that any reasonable person would wish to inform the authorities of your perceived exemption. You may win but incur costs. The old detector vans were only to frighten people into buying a licence, they could detect an operating set with a much smaller device so I was told.

My little industrial unit would get letters every three months, they never gave up.

Gareth

That would be an interesting fight.......
Take me to court for not having a licence, and when they could not prove I needed one claim that it was my fault for not telling them I did not have a TV. Bring it on. I would lean heavily on the legally supported position that I am innocent until proven guilty. And that means totally innocent, not just 'mostly innocent', which would be the implication of 'fining' me costs for defending my position.


Mostly I ignore the letters, but this one seems to have escalated the level of bullying into realms that seem entirely innappropriate for a national institution. It seems, though that many of the responders disagree. That is fine - I posted this to gauge reaction, and thank those that have taken the trouble to respond whatever their opinions.


(I reckon that I am heading for today's 'Victor Meldrew' award.....)

 

[henton49er]

Phill,

You could always reply to their letter saying that you have placed this matter in the hands of your solicitor (which may or may not be true) and that you are going to proceed against them for the harrassment that you have been subjected to by way of their letters, when they have not presented you with a prima facie case that you personally need a TV licence.

You could also advise that you will be seeking recompense for the time that you have spent on this (didn't somebody recently win a court case against a persistent cold call operator for £10/minute?), plus the aggravation and stress you have suffered in the matter and that you consider that threatening you with court action is (a) tantamount to abuse of your rights to privacy and (b) an affront to your standing in the community and is subjecting you to scandal, odium and contempt (or some such similar weasel wording).

Have fun!! (or just write to them confirming that you do not have a TV and therefore do not need a licence - if they then continue to press you would be on much stronger ground for compensation).

 

[Atkins joinery]

Hello. I'm new on here but thought i'd post as i have an problems with them too. My problem was i bought a house to do up then move into when its finished. They seemed to find it unfathomable than a young couple wouldnt have a tv. Didnt seem to get that there was no heating kitchen bathroon doors etc. We said we will buy one when we move in but they kept hounding us. I had us resent ringing up to buy one in the end up.

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Atkins joinery]

Just to add it was our first house so we lived with parents on the electoral roll at houses which had tv licenses

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

 

[Benchwayze]

I don't need a TV licence, there being someone over 75 years on my premises.
When that 'happy' state was reached, the department sent me a notice which clearly stated I didn't need a licence.
They also refunded 10 months of the fee I had paid at the start of that year.
So far no one has bothered me.

Until that concession is revoked, I don't bother with them; and they don't bother me.

I hope!
Mike,

I just dented my monitor screen, trying to 'kill' your avatar! :mrgreen:

 

[Chems]

Is it not just the same as declaring a card off the road? Unless you declare you don't need one don't expect to be left in peace. If they hassle you after they have checked then raise hell as its costing us all for them to waste their time when you've told them you don't need one and they have checked.

 

[beech1948]

Dr Phil,

Read this with interest. I am usually the kind to just go along with whatever is needed to have a quiet life.

BUT...I have recently had to fight off a Local Authority which deployed lies, naked fabrication of false legal positions and compounded by them applying the law such that they were in error. I learned in fighting this that it is the unreasonable man which shapes and makes things better. I learned that so called public service employees are lying, conniving and self serving Bas*ar*s. Surprise surprise indeed.

So my view now would be to fight this.

I would write back quoting the exact paragraphs from the statutes covering this TV licence issue. I would quote the harassment laws, I would quote demanding money with menaces.

My final threat would be to take them to the small claims court (which is cheap to do) to claim compensation for EACH letter they have written.

I would have a go and see what happens provided I was convinced of your rightful position.

Al

 

[beech1948]

The TV licence fee is an anachronism which should be repealed and TV watching should be free to all. There is no justification anymore for TV licence fees. The BBC is now a business just like other commercial TV stations so why do we need a licence.

Al

 

[nanscombe]

... I learned that SOME so called public service employees are lying, conniving and self serving Bas*ar*s. Surprise surprise indeed.

As an ex public servant I've fixed that sweeping generalisation for you. :evil:

 

[Benchwayze]

Chems,

If you are taking a vehicle off the road, no longer can you just leave it uninsured and in the garage.

You are obliged to declare it off-road, or you must insure it.

Such is the Democracy in which we live.

(Well said nanscombe, btw!)

 

[AndyT]

Mostly I ignore the letters, but this one seems to have escalated the level of bullying into realms that seem entirely innappropriate for a national institution.

Don't forget that it's not the 'national institution' doing the licence fee collecting work. TV Licensing is outsourced - currently to Capita - and I would expect their contract to have provisions in it whereby they 'share the reward' for any income realised beyond a set threshold.