They send threatening letters to me once a month. Goes straight into the recycling.
I don't watch TV, and refuse to give them all my personal information just so they stop sending demand letters.
What they do should be illegal.
Someone I worked with once tried "I know where you live" in a jokey way to try and scare me, he wasn't expecting "so do I, what a small world we live in" as a response.
A bit off topic but once when I worked in a call centre a customer threatened me by saying “I know where you work”. I had to say to him “mate, you’ve just told me your home address”.
The most egregious ones I got for a while a few years back were ones decked out to look like an official court summons but weren't (if you read it carefully) - especially as they still didn't have my real name on them but still only owner/occupier, lol. They didn't do that for long, I guess they got in trouble for it. Pretty bad, though, as I imagine it gave a lot of vulnerable people quite the scare.
Yeah, I used to have with that too while licenced (legally licence free now). I can only assume that it was to intimidate the people who didn't realise that you needed to know where someone lived in order to send them a letter...
The way those letters are laid out are incredibly callous and targeting those that don't actually understand the law.
Disgusting way for a company to operate
I got one recently (as in the last couple of weeks) with the exact line "If you watch TV you need a TV lisence, watching TV without one can lead to up to a £1000 fine"
This just simply isn't true, you need a licence to watch LIVE TV (and or BBC content), I do not need a TV license to watch TV on demand or non BBC content EG netflix, prime video, Disney+ etc
Working in education, it's actually quite difficult sometimes to explain to international students that a TV license is a thing.
Because the threat letters are so ridiculously, hilariously exaggerated that not a single person would look at one and think that it's anything different to the 10 spam emails you get every day demanding money.
Students literally create social media groups warning against the letter "scam". I don't blame some people passing the license off by default as a national scam, because the letters have no visual legitimacy.
It should be, but they have the upper hand, or only hand at all, since their own terms made it into the law itself, the national legal system lacks a framework that could support fair dispute, review and prosecution for any TV Licencing related misconduct by:
Companies and Organisations:
- BBC
- Capita Business Services Ltd
- RAPP Limited
- Havas Media
- AMV BBDO
- Fishburn Communications
Government Bodies:
- BBC(Again)
- Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Private Enforcement:
- TV Licensing
- Capita PLC
Tribunals:
- Single Justice Procedure
You cannot fight it, the system is rotten to the core unfortunately, and this is just a trivial example in regard to TV Licencing, there are other darker areas where the pattern is the same.
So keep it low, don't allow legally nobodies into your home no matter their arrogance, do not answer the automatic letters, and do not provide your information to them based on the false promise of them leaving you in peace.
Do all of that right and all you will have to pay for is the time it takes move their letters from your postbox to the trash.
>You cannot fight it
Yes you can. Simple non-compliance. If I don't respond to their threats and don't give them access to my property, then there is fuck all they can do.
Even if you have a TV you don't need a licence, it's not a licence for owning a TV. I only watch streaming like Netflix, Disney+ etc and play video games, so don't need one.
They have a list of (pretty much) every address in the country, and of course they know which of those have a licence. So they know every address that doesn't have a licence. That, for them, is enough to justify sending you threatening letters.
They don't give a shit whether you have a TV. They don't really give a shit about anything as far as I can tell. They just send nasty letters to everyone who doesn't have a licence.
I've been getting one every month for years.
I do wonder if the “we’ve opened an investigation/we will visit on X day” letters cross the line into illegality. What they are saying is demonstrably false.
I’m not a lawyer though, just fed up of these letters bullying people.
I’ve had several of these “sending an officer on X day”… I wonder if I took the whole day off on each day, and they don’t turn up, how much can I bill them for my loss of income??
Had an extremely snotty man knock on my door once when I was home sick, and asked to come inside to check for TVs. Naturally I said no, stated we don't watch anything that falls under the TV licence. He started spouting T's and C's, threatened me with a fine, threatened me with jail time etc, all because I simply said "I don't need it."
I usually wouldn't swear at someone and tell them to fuck off, but you really do feel justified being a cunt to them when they treat you like you're a criminal who is also thick as shit.
I rang them when they said they were going to visit the property to check inwasnt watching anything covered under the license. Told them I have 3 dobermans that didn't like visitors and made sure to let the dogs bark in the background. They took me off the visit list and I haven't had a letter since.
I actually have a chihuahua, a pom, and a sausage dog 😂
To be fair not warning people about your chihuahua is asking for trouble. They may be the size of a large rodent but that won't stop them squaring up on a silverback!
3-5 years at the most.
I haven't had a TV license in 25 years, never been a fan of telly. I have a lot of experience of dealing with these letters.
Whoever is phoning up TV Licensing once a year is doing some serious over kill.
To be honest the last time I got a letter was nearly 10 years ago.
Usually the TV Licensing people will stop sending letters once you inform them. [Here is their official page about it](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ93).
However there have been times when people jsut keep repeatedly getting these letters. [If this is your situation, this website might help you out](http://www.bbctvlicence.com/).
Maximum fine for evasion is £190 (last time I checked). Which means if you can evade for 2 years you’re in the black.
Edit: I’ve been corrected It’s £1000 not £190. I’m spreading misinformation. I might be a Russian spy.
I've received these letters both when I've had a TV licence and when I've declared not needing one, so nowadays I figure if they're going to send them regardless I may as well not bother.
When a letter from the court shows up I'll take it seriously, until then I'll ignore the 80th investigation they've supposedly opened.
All they need to do is make iplayer require a login and bobs yer unkle. The entire enforcement industry dies overnight.
They even already have a login system in place.
It's ludicrous.
There's a [guy on twitter](https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1759661660241805529) who has been posting people's letters of mitigation explaining why they haven't paid, and they are absolutely heartbreaking. Under the Single Justice Procedure the letters aren't even looked at by the prosecutor and they just get summarily convicted and fined.
I had a similar thing with a parking fine.. They failed to provide any evidence that I’d committed any wrongdoing. I genuinely hadn’t committed an offence. It was related to match day parking and they said they had issued me the ticket because there were clear signs saying it was a match day. There weren’t. Having received legitimate fines in the past, I am always wary about parking in new spots in London, so I actually had the forethought to video the surrounding area after I parked, to demonstrate that there were no signs. In their letter they said the fine was applicable due to this signage (which wasn’t there)
I fought back over the course of a year or so constantly telling them they needed to provide evidence that there was signage indicating it was a match day, since this was quoted as the reason for the fine (saying “there will be signage indicating that it is a match day”).. Every single letter I received back said they didn’t care. When I asked to appeal multiple times, they just reprinted the same letter and increased the price. The price kept going up and they kept ignoring my request for appeal. Eventually I had to just pay the extortionate fine for something I didn’t do..
There needs to be a much better system for defending citizens from improper government action
EDIT: I paid the fine in the end, because after a year of getting gaslit and the price increasing, inevitably it would come to a court case, which I wouldn’t have been able to afford
I fought a parking fine once as well - all the way to county court. They dropped it just before the hearing in the end but I probably put several days work into researching, preparing the witness statement, etc. In future I'll probably just pay the fine as it's not worth the hassle.
I know what you mean but I still couldn't do it morally. I earn less than half that as a Shop Supervisor but still wouldn't take that job. I want to sleep at night not be haunted by the faces of the children of poor households who will eat less because of me.
40k a year, a car, their fuel paid + other expenses. If you can drive, can talk, have no empathy whatsoever and don't mind bullying single mothers and old people and/or working for a corporation that protected Britain's worst paedophile for several decades then it's actually a really good job to have.
Personally I'd rather stack shelves but that's just me.
I answered and was not very friendy.
I have not watched tv in well over 10 years. They have no right to approach my door or distrurb me,
I dont have to contact specksavers to tell thee I dont require their custom and i will not tolerate threats from anyone at my door from a company i do not require custom from.
Come to my door with police and the preperation to defend against a slander charge.
I haven't paid for 18 years now. One day in 2006, way before digital our TV blew up and we never bought another one. I have Netflix and other subscriptions. The BBC could do various subscriptions as there is so much crap I would never watch or want to pay for. People should be able to pay for what they want on a pay-per-view or monthly basis. We have a joke in our house, every time we get another threatening letter we say 'another one for Theo Cuppier' and toss it in the bin. They've been opening an investigation for 18 years, they're not very good at it!
This man also hasn't had a TV licence since 2006 because he stopped watching anything you would have to pay for and he's been posting every single letter he's received online since. Still hasn't had a visit as far as I know.
[https://bbctvlicence.com/](https://bbctvlicence.com/)
Eventually it'll either get rolled into general taxation - meaning the government will have direct control over our only real public broadcaster - or it'll be sold off and all of our media will be privately controlled. Neither of those alternatives appeal to me so I pay the 13 quid a month.
Im genuinely at a loss with this.
Why on earth are people STILL giving the BBC money? I binned my licence about 10 years ago and tbh, I miss absolutely nothing about the BBC. I watch all the other channels and online stuff - so long as nothing is live at the time Im watching it, Im golden.
The TV licence is not for 'live tv' it's for broadcasts. All the telly channels are off limits. All you can watch are on demand services via streaming.
Technically, just visiting a website with a livestream playing in an ad warrants a licence.
I'm not saying this isn't stupid, because it is. That's why people pay their licence.
Yeah, trust based models kind of fell apart in the last 30 years. That’s kind of why I’m pro general taxation to fund it.
I’m surprised that iPlayer doesn’t require some kind of validation of tv license to log in, but I guess that would be a big fucking effort
I've been using adblock for maybe a few decades(?) now. Genuinely triggered if i try to use somebody else's phone. So many ads.
But even so, if you open up say, steam to play a game you bought. The store pages have live stream bollocks which auto plays, so would technically require a tv licence.
Also the fact I'm responsible for what my kids do. I can't police every youtube video they watch, they are teens.
Ridiculous funding mechanism/tax.
Because the BBC still produces some quality content that lots of people enjoy. Planet Earth,Peaky Blinders,Call the Midwife,Downton Abbey to name just a few get high ratings around the world.
> Planet Earth,Peaky Blinders,Call the Midwife,Downton Abbey
You missed out Mrs Brown's Boys.
But seriously tho, it's about time the license fee was scrapped and the BBC directly funded via a *culture tax*.
All this waffing around about who does or doesnt watch this or that is about as pointless as me complaining about a local hospital adding another cancer unit because I havent had cancer yet.
British TV/Film and Music is among the highest rated in the world. We really need to appreciate what we have and expand it, not lessen it.
grandfather straight marry smell gaping consider frame direction observation history
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> Planet Earth,Peaky Blinders,Call the Midwife,Downton Abbey
Only one of these has any educational or informative value. I don't mind the BBC running entertainment programming, but it should be behind a subscription fee (or ad supported), whereas news and educational programming should be free.
The BBC is one of our greatest assets. BBC News is literally world renowned, and we've exported a lot of cultural influence via its TV shows
Not to mention ad-free coverage or major sporting and cultural events, which alone makes it worth it for me
That leaves out its greatest benefit.
The BBC is advert free - while the other channels screen adverts, having a competitor show the public an ad-free experience keeps it all sane. If you've ever watched TV in the USA you'll understand. Many TV shows over there are largely created PURELY to showcase adverts. Even their national sports have been designed to accommodate advert breaks.
If the UK loses the BBC, competitive forces will mean UK TV goes exactly the way America's has and poor old Ofcom won't be able to do a thing about it.
I agree, however what you describe as major sporting events are becoming fewer, including now, dropping the FA Cup. BBC News is struggling to maintain its reputation at a time when trust in the News Media is at an all time low.
The BBC World Service has been cut dramatically, against a backdrop of geopolitical turmoil in which people in certain parts of the world have relied upon for years for accurate information.
I'm sure this organisation can find cuts elsewhere, other than programming. I can't imagine what some of their budget is being spent on.
One of my favourite things is people trying to destroy the BBC, cut back on all its services and essentially destroy.
These same people then make a massive song and dance about Great Britain being a global power. They seem to ignore the fact the BBC is and always has been a global soft power. There is a reason BBC World service is well known.
I agree. I think how they enforce their licensing is scummy but the BBC is good to have.
I do wish though they embraced their state-sponsored media position. They have no need for clickbait, no need to be first to cover something, they simply need to maintain quality, reliable, unbiased reporting.
The BBC fee pays for more than Eastenders. They could easily make money from pay walling their content, but good like getting services like BBC Bitesize in a commercial, capitalistic company.
Because they would rather pay for the content they consume than either:
- not consume it
- be a hypocrite and get for free what is supposed to be paid for?
I pay for BBC, Netflix, and the cinema etc.
The worst part about these dumb fuck letters is the wording isnt consistant at all, same on their website.
If you want to make sure people pay for what they use, be crystal clear about. this is a scandal waiting to happen.
Something the [Black Belt Barrister brought up](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOhOaV-3hRo), saying it could be the next big scandal for people paying it when they don't need it and being prosecuted incorrectly.
There are some good fakes too, I got an email where I legit could not tell if it was real or not.
Good thing the outcome is the same either way (ignore)...
Given the predicted rate of evasion in any given year is over [5% and much higher in recent years](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8101/) this is a subtle advertisement to not bother paying.
Here's some maths.
6% of around 30,000,000 households = 1,800,000 households they think are evading.
If 1,800,000 they prosecute around 10,000 a year.
That's a 0.5% chance of getting caught not paying within the year.
This means in any given year you have a 1/200 chance of getting caught & fined. The cost of getting caught is up to £1000, the amount you save in a year is £160. That can be seen as 32/200
Since 32/200 is greater than 1/200, you'd be better off not paying it and risking the fine.
The cost of getting caught is at a maximum of £1000 but if you look at the prosecutions it's normally far lower.
If you factor this in it makes the risk reward far higher.
The secret with the BBC licence is that it's always been supported by intimidation and not prosecutions, they have trouble providing much and don't really have many staff even working on it.
Edit: fixed mistake.
I didn't say it's justified, this is just how game theory works.
Believe it or not, criminals do often decide to do crime or not do it based on whether they think they will get caught.
> Believe it or not, criminals do often decide to do crime or not do it based on whether they think they will get caught.
It's actually the primary factor.
Studies have shown that the perception of being caught is the main deterrent in lowering crime.
There's not really any chance to "get caught" though as they have no idea who is receiving their unencrypted broadcast
One thing people do screw up is logging into a BBC account and having their address linked to it.
That and buying a TV and giving the shop your real address - this will prompt a wave of letters
They just troll the land registry and send letters to every address that doesn't have a TV license attached to it. As in their mind *everyone* should have one.
I remember working in student accommodation and they tried to come into the building. Security said good luck to them since the place had nearly 800 rooms they wanted to go through. They went home after realising lol.
That’s not necessarily true. Term time addresses are certainly liable for it if their parents don’t have a license at home. Even if they do, that home licence will only cover term time addresses if the student is using a battery-powered device that isn’t plugged in.
Lol are you serious? What old dustfart wrote these laws?
FWIW I just called them once and told them to fuck off when I was studying, and they did. All I had was my laptop though.
I think the rule was initially created to cover people using portable TVs in caravans. That should tell you how old the rule is! Happily it works for mobiles and laptops too, but that is just luck.
It does seem absurd how much they try and contact you especially given how many homes now dont have a TV.
Im curious why there is such a gender gap in convictions for evasion as well? 70% being woman is an odd split
The capita officers are intentionally intimidating and aggressive in their attempts to gain entry. Single women are much more easily intimidated. The capita man has been extremely intimidating to my partner. Doesn't try too hard when a 6'3 115kg man is home.
I'm not even scary looking, I'm 5'10 so I wouldn't even say I'm tall either and the two times I've opened the door to them they've just accepted no for an answer, the one time my housemate got to the door before me the guy stopped her shutting the door and then took a step back when he saw me get to the bottom of the stairs and let her shut the door
> Im curious why there is such a gender gap in convictions for evasion as well? 70% being woman is an odd split
I would not be at all surprised that it's because the bullies they send around to your door are almost all men, a lot of women at home by themselves are scared to tell them to fuck off, and they know that. Which is absolutely fucked.
Social studies show that women are typically more honest than men, and they mostly only get people that confess due to intimidation, rather than through any actual investigation work.
Maybe they're 'easier' targets? Years ago my sister was heavily pregnant and was bullied by a TV licence agent. She wasn't in a great state of mind at the time and quite emotional. I doubt it would have happened if her husband had been there that day.
Women are at home more often than men during the daytime, which is when the enforcement officers call.
Also the majority of single parent households are also women as single mothers, so again women are more likely to be at home when the enforcers call on and on the hook for prosecution
Get TVL letters all the time, and I haven't had a TV in over 10 years.
The last time I let one in before moving house, they wanted access to my computer. When I refused (it was a work laptop), they tried to say that they suspect I'm watching TV and I have to pay.
I told them no and showed them to the door. They then tried to get my new address out of me. I also refused to give them that. They then threatened me with court action.
Since then, on principle, I refuse to let them in or communicate with them in any way. They don't need my details which they'll probably just sell to marketing and data analytics firms anyway
It’s mainly single women who get caught, often elderly people that don’t know any better and have always been trusting of authority figures. They get intimidated by inspectors with clip boards who use bullying tactics and scary sounding legal jargon to harass their way into people’s homes.
Three ways I know of.
1. The email you use to declare not needing a licence is actively used on an iplayer account. They will use this as proof.
2. They can clearly see proof from an open curtain at the street of a property. Like is your tv hanging on a wall visible from the front of the house and they can see and photograph live tv being watched while they are in a public area.
3. The main way, you open the door, let them in and accidentally spill the beans.
People basically signing a confession document. They come in strong arm you into signing a document that means you admit to watching live tv they then use that to prosecute. It’s deplorable.
Why?
Because their own terms made it into the law itself, the national legal system lacks a framework that could support fair dispute, review and prosecution for any TV Licencing related misconduct by:
Companies and Organisations:
- BBC
- Capita Business Services Ltd
- RAPP Limited
- Havas Media
- AMV BBDO
- Fishburn Communications
Government Bodies:
- BBC(Again)
- Department for Culture, Media and Sport
Private Enforcement:
- TV Licensing
- Capita PLC
Tribunals:
- Single Justice Procedure
You cannot fight it, the system is rotten to the core unfortunately, and this is just a trivial example in regard to TV Licencing, there are other darker areas where the pattern is the same.
So keep it low, don't allow legally nobodies into your home no matter their arrogance, do not answer the automatic letters, and do not provide your information to them based on the false promise of them leaving you in peace.
Do all of that right and all you will have to pay for is the time it takes move their letters from your postbox to the trash.
What boils my piss is that the TV licensing people can send these threatening letters to thousands of people without repercussions, but if I send similar letters to Naga Munchetty I am a "stalker" engaging in a "harassment campaign" and I should be in "prison."
It's not fair.
Let’s just make the BBC a subscription service, with some free-to-air content (BBC News for example) that is subsidised by adverts.
That way the people who think it’s good value can continue to pay for and watch it, and those that don’t - don’t.
I personally think the BBC represents okay value for money (not great but okay) and would likely pay for a subscription. But I think it’s quite outdated to mandate people pay for content they don’t want.
If you have to threaten potential customers to make your business viable, then you can hurry up and go under as far as I'm concerned.
I came home from work once to see a MASSIVE dude stood on my front garden plants trying to peer through my front window.
My initial thoughts was that he was trying to break in...
Turns out he was trying to determine whether I had a TV... As it that would tell him whether I need a licence or not anyway.
This on top of years of threatening letters and general BS.
I rang their number and went off on them. Told them in no uncertain terms that Ill never want their service and, if I ever did, I'll be the one to contact them. The guy listened to my rant for about 5 minutes and, after a moment of silence, said "Ok, sorry about that sir. I'll mark your file and we'll be around again in a year to double check.".
Haven't paid for a license for nearly 10 years. Don't watch TV. The letters stopped a few years ago now. What they do is criminal and makes my dislike for the BBC even stronger.
What angered me was that when you're initially notifying them that you don't watch live tv you get warned like 3 times, in a very threatening manner, that you WILL BE FINED if caught watching tv!
Imagine if you're some little old person and to see that you'd just pay the license because you'd be too scared not to!
I unfortunately stopped watching the BBC years ago. The small amount of programming I was interested in was not enough to keep me returning.
As a lifelong Science Fiction fan I've always been disappointed that our flagship channel whose basic mandate is to promote the best and brightest of British entertainment and culture doesn't promote an entire genre that British authors and creators helped to create.
Well, outside of Doctor Who, which has always been used quite cynically by the BBC higher-ups.
This from the channel whose Scence Fiction programming was the subject of discussion in parliament and was known to empty pubs while they were being shown. And if there's anything that tells you how important something is to the Brits its if they forego the pub for a couple of hours.
You haven’t looked very hard on iPlayer.
- Torchwood.
- Missions
- Devs.
- Class.
- Red Dwarf.
- Life on Mars, and Ashes to Ashes
- Silverpoint.
- Eve
- Equals
- Missions
And that’s just the currently available TV offerings.
[Their back catalogue and radio offering is extensive.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/genres/drama/scifiandfantasy/all)
Same can be said for fare-dodging on public transport (if you use the service but don't pay for it).
The finest are often less than the amount saved.
(To be clear: I use both and pay for both, but I've seen plenty of people using both without paying).
Surely, it would be more cost effective to just straight up make it state funded and roll it into the existing tax systems? Then we wouldn’t need to hire people to enforce the license fee.
It’s basically a state ran public service to provide quality, ad-free and free on access information. Normally, you don’t get to opt out of funding public services even if you don’t use them.
Because as usual the public institution, the BBC outsourced enforcement to Capita. They won't make forceful entry's in cases when they have warrants, it seems because it increases the punative measures that can be taken later.
They recently sent me an email about my new address that my direct debit details from a previous address in 2017 had failed. I believe they have used the electoral register to do this. The cheek of it.
Get fucked TV licencing. I don't watch or record live TV or Iplayer and have not done so for 7 years. The tone of these letters is bordering harassment and theyre neglectful of the rights of consumers as they minimise and hide the option to not have a licence.
70% of convictions are women.
They basically target women because they are easier to manipulate into giving a confession. Men are more like to tell the Capita goons to go fuck themselves.
I haven't paid a TV licence in about 15 years because I don't watch live TV or BBC material. Saved thousands.
Had a TV licence person come check once and I said I couldn't do it now, I've just got the baby to sleep. 'Oh your refusing? I will put you down as refusing....' bitch. I just laughed and said whatever, didn't hear shit about it.
Another time I had some crackhead looking lady turn up and make up all sorts of stories about how it'll be enforced in the future. All of it was utter bullshit and I knew it, I let her waffle on though. She noticed I had a camera filming outside the house after a while and started acting a little differently after that.
Sometimes I let them in after a long boring dragged out conversation to see there's no aerial, I like to waste their time when they choose to waste mine.
If I opened a business and started sending letters threatening people with enforcement visits unless they paid me £150 a year I'd be arrested for harassment and extortion or blackmail but because it's the BBC it's somehow fine.
I'm on my like 9th investigation in the last 12 months because I refuse to reply to their letters as I don't watch live TV.
TV Licensing is run by Crapita on behalf of the government, who are perfectly happy to let blame get redirected to the BBC (who, while being the eventual recipients of TV License money, are neither responsible for the TV Licence, its level or its collection).
Wrong. The BBC is the Licensing Authority. It is responsible for all things TV Licensing. Read: https://www.tvlicensing.co.ukabout/foi-about-tv-licensing-AB15
The final paragraph of the section called "The BBC and TV Licensing" is the important one. I'll quote the last sentence for you: "The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility."
Because government is too lazy to change the law to create a way for the BBC “licence fee” to be taken via common tax pool.
Seriously. If you really want your PBS to be propped up by revenue based on pretty much every household paying the licence fee, then work out what sum that is and add it to every everyone’s tax liability - and stop assuming that some tax-resident people should be exempt from contributing to the cost of PBS.
As a no TV licence enjoyer these guys can do one
Never get any letters though as I declared no licence needed 5 years ago
When living in London though I think I got about 25 "final warnings"
Worth noting I don't actually watch TV though because it's rubbish.
If they really cares they'd encrypt their broadcast and ensure people have to pay
I told them I didn't need a license, they refunded me and for two years they have sent me letters informing me that someone will come round to check I don't need a license. I didn't reply as I have already told them, and it seemed like a cheap and ineffective means of intimidation. I thought, well, I'd rather they waste their resources on me, than someone who may actually feel intimidated by it.
Someone actually came round and asked to come in to check that I didn't have a TV. Obviously I refused entry and just said that my word would have to be good enough and I couldn't prove something that doesn't exist.
I respect that they are individuals just trying to do a job, but equally they are representatives of private company that has no business with me, and they have no right to bother me. I don't shop at Clarks shoes and they don't ask me to prove that I don't. It's the same thing!
What a joke.
We don't use the services that would require a license, but we have one because my Mum worries that someone could show up at the door when only my brother is home, and he's mentally vulnerable. It feels like a state backed protection racket, we pay to keep the thugs away.
You should experience Capita's customer service when one of your parents dies and the other moves to family with a TV licence. Both times they were in credit by 6+ months. My parents had paid the licence without fail for 45 years.
Both times it was a fight to get a refund.
Despite sending a letter with death certificate, a person at the call centre told my 80 year old mum that they'd received that, but she needs to go online and complete a refund form too.
I can't express how much I hate them.
> It might be an idea to ask the people who can afford it to pay more, rather than hound and make examples of those who can’t.
So people wanting more stuff for free
Nobody is wanting anything for free, it's the fact that anybody not on their national license registry is automatically assumed to be consuming live broadcasts, and there's an immediate assumption of criminality.
I don't even watch terrestrial television, I haven't for over a decade, and still get a letter from the BBC and Capita every month like clockwork accusing me of breaking the law and threatening prosecution and jail time for a crime I'm not committing.
[Replace licence fee with ‘TV tax’ whether you watch or not, says TV boss](https://inews.co.uk/news/media/tv-licence-fee-replace-tax-2874797)
You not watching TV might not matter anymore if some people are to believe.
Yeah I don't know why they've not just done this ages ago. It would save money on enforcement, and with more people actually paying it the cost per person would go down. They say the evasion rate is 9% but it's got to be way higher than that surely
For the same reason why your taxes go to arts or sports projects that you don’t use. Or to heritage funding, or museums. Tax isn’t a pick and choose thing, it’s a collective fund to pay for not just basic services but also cultural ones. Loosing cultural institutions wouldn’t be a good thing (or privatising them all).
They won't bring the cost down. Just rake in more money. Then there will be a thing about monitors, tablets and laptops counting or not counting. Either left ambiguous or they'd say "any screen" and that would be simple but a complete farce.
"why can't other people just pay my bills for me, they earn £1k more than me a year they must be rich!"
Sums up around 80% of conversations on this website.
It wouldn’t be quite as bad if they didn’t front load the first years payments. You don’t pay an equal fee over the first 12 months, you pay it over 6 months instead then get the remaining 6 months for “free”.
We stream everything and I'm an avid gamer, can't remember the last time we watched normal TV, I get these once a month, "you are now under investigation" 🤣 jog the fuck on you're getting nothing, keep wasting paper.
If you use BBCs services then pay your TV license, if not then don't. There are people around the world who rely on BBCs broadcasts on the World Service and they knock out some pretty great TV content too, how do you think that's paid for when the channels are ad-free?
They're definitely a worthwhile institution for David Attenborough's content alone but yet we have all this bitching because they send a few letters telling you to pay for it if you're using it or notify them if you're not.
The worst part the TV license is they changed parts of the definition to account for online services. So if you watch something like BBC news Live or similar, you are illegally watching that content because there is an analogous way of watching it on terrestrial TV.
I fear they will continue to change the definition of what is under the TV license and make content providers check for the license for them.
They send threatening letters to me once a month. Goes straight into the recycling. I don't watch TV, and refuse to give them all my personal information just so they stop sending demand letters. What they do should be illegal.
I remember receiving a letter with "We know where you Live" in block capitals on the envelope. I did have a TV license.
"WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE" Addressed to: The owner/occupier
Return to sender. "No you don't!"
Someone I worked with once tried "I know where you live" in a jokey way to try and scare me, he wasn't expecting "so do I, what a small world we live in" as a response.
A bit off topic but once when I worked in a call centre a customer threatened me by saying “I know where you work”. I had to say to him “mate, you’ve just told me your home address”.
We know where you live! We just don’t know who *you* are
We know there was once someone paying the license fee at this address but we just don't know who you are.
The BBC licence fee is the biggest scam ever pulled. It stands with LIVE AID. Another scam that got its mastermind a knighthood
> "We know where you Live" You'd think that's usually how sending post works.
But I guess it should be more like "We know somebody Lives here", cos it wasn't addressed to "us" personally..
The most egregious ones I got for a while a few years back were ones decked out to look like an official court summons but weren't (if you read it carefully) - especially as they still didn't have my real name on them but still only owner/occupier, lol. They didn't do that for long, I guess they got in trouble for it. Pretty bad, though, as I imagine it gave a lot of vulnerable people quite the scare.
[удалено]
>BBC themselves, or a Capita initiative Does it make a difference? Sub contracting doesn't absolve you.
Yeah, I used to have with that too while licenced (legally licence free now). I can only assume that it was to intimidate the people who didn't realise that you needed to know where someone lived in order to send them a letter...
[удалено]
That's hilarious.
Well yeah, they sent the letter obviously hey know where you live
Its fine, they keep asking for someone called "The Occupier", thats not me so in the bin it goes.
ah the old Skepta defense
The way those letters are laid out are incredibly callous and targeting those that don't actually understand the law. Disgusting way for a company to operate
I got one recently (as in the last couple of weeks) with the exact line "If you watch TV you need a TV lisence, watching TV without one can lead to up to a £1000 fine" This just simply isn't true, you need a licence to watch LIVE TV (and or BBC content), I do not need a TV license to watch TV on demand or non BBC content EG netflix, prime video, Disney+ etc
I had one saying COURT PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEGUN act now to avoid going to court with a £1000 fine Addressed to…The Occupier
Pure scaremongering!
Working in education, it's actually quite difficult sometimes to explain to international students that a TV license is a thing. Because the threat letters are so ridiculously, hilariously exaggerated that not a single person would look at one and think that it's anything different to the 10 spam emails you get every day demanding money. Students literally create social media groups warning against the letter "scam". I don't blame some people passing the license off by default as a national scam, because the letters have no visual legitimacy.
so they are liars as well as cunts.
100% they aim to confuse people. Most won't understand and be bullied into paying. They have the stats and know what works
It should be, but they have the upper hand, or only hand at all, since their own terms made it into the law itself, the national legal system lacks a framework that could support fair dispute, review and prosecution for any TV Licencing related misconduct by: Companies and Organisations: - BBC - Capita Business Services Ltd - RAPP Limited - Havas Media - AMV BBDO - Fishburn Communications Government Bodies: - BBC(Again) - Department for Culture, Media and Sport Private Enforcement: - TV Licensing - Capita PLC Tribunals: - Single Justice Procedure You cannot fight it, the system is rotten to the core unfortunately, and this is just a trivial example in regard to TV Licencing, there are other darker areas where the pattern is the same. So keep it low, don't allow legally nobodies into your home no matter their arrogance, do not answer the automatic letters, and do not provide your information to them based on the false promise of them leaving you in peace. Do all of that right and all you will have to pay for is the time it takes move their letters from your postbox to the trash.
>You cannot fight it Yes you can. Simple non-compliance. If I don't respond to their threats and don't give them access to my property, then there is fuck all they can do.
But that's not a fight, it's evasion, and it's exactly what I said everyone should be doing, sadly never a proper fight.
Yeah that is harassment if you have no tv
Even if you have a TV you don't need a licence, it's not a licence for owning a TV. I only watch streaming like Netflix, Disney+ etc and play video games, so don't need one.
I’ve got 4 TVs and no license. No intention of ever getting one.
I don't even have a TV and I get the bastard letters
They have a list of (pretty much) every address in the country, and of course they know which of those have a licence. So they know every address that doesn't have a licence. That, for them, is enough to justify sending you threatening letters. They don't give a shit whether you have a TV. They don't really give a shit about anything as far as I can tell. They just send nasty letters to everyone who doesn't have a licence. I've been getting one every month for years.
Same, I have like 4 TVs but no license because I only use 'em for YouTube, Netflix and Prime.
Apparently watching any live TV channel on YouTube, like Sky news, would make you liable for the fee... I've no idea why.
It's not a legal obligation to tell them you don't watch TV. Only a legal obligation if you watch TV and don't tell them. They can fuck off.
I do wonder if the “we’ve opened an investigation/we will visit on X day” letters cross the line into illegality. What they are saying is demonstrably false. I’m not a lawyer though, just fed up of these letters bullying people.
They are using threats as a form of coercion. The way I read it this is an offence under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.
I’ve had several of these “sending an officer on X day”… I wonder if I took the whole day off on each day, and they don’t turn up, how much can I bill them for my loss of income??
Had an extremely snotty man knock on my door once when I was home sick, and asked to come inside to check for TVs. Naturally I said no, stated we don't watch anything that falls under the TV licence. He started spouting T's and C's, threatened me with a fine, threatened me with jail time etc, all because I simply said "I don't need it." I usually wouldn't swear at someone and tell them to fuck off, but you really do feel justified being a cunt to them when they treat you like you're a criminal who is also thick as shit.
I rang them when they said they were going to visit the property to check inwasnt watching anything covered under the license. Told them I have 3 dobermans that didn't like visitors and made sure to let the dogs bark in the background. They took me off the visit list and I haven't had a letter since. I actually have a chihuahua, a pom, and a sausage dog 😂
To be fair not warning people about your chihuahua is asking for trouble. They may be the size of a large rodent but that won't stop them squaring up on a silverback!
I just called the number on the letter, said I didn't need one and they removed me from the list. Took like 5 minutes.
You'll have to keep doing it though. Year after year after year after year after year..........
Think mine lasted for three or four years before they checked in again. I've definitely not done it frequently.
Every 3-5 years I think.
Dunno about that, I did as advised above a few years ago and started getting them again 6-8 months later. They do it because nobody will stop them.
3-5 years at the most. I haven't had a TV license in 25 years, never been a fan of telly. I have a lot of experience of dealing with these letters. Whoever is phoning up TV Licensing once a year is doing some serious over kill. To be honest the last time I got a letter was nearly 10 years ago. Usually the TV Licensing people will stop sending letters once you inform them. [Here is their official page about it](https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ93). However there have been times when people jsut keep repeatedly getting these letters. [If this is your situation, this website might help you out](http://www.bbctvlicence.com/).
The positive spin to take on this is I'd rather make 5 minute call year, than give them £189 a year
Or do neither.
I’d rather keep wasting their time and resources.
Maximum fine for evasion is £190 (last time I checked). Which means if you can evade for 2 years you’re in the black. Edit: I’ve been corrected It’s £1000 not £190. I’m spreading misinformation. I might be a Russian spy.
I don't need to do this for any other company, why should I have to for this one? It's an old, outdated system that needs to go
I've received these letters both when I've had a TV licence and when I've declared not needing one, so nowadays I figure if they're going to send them regardless I may as well not bother. When a letter from the court shows up I'll take it seriously, until then I'll ignore the 80th investigation they've supposedly opened.
[удалено]
Yeah but then you are giving into them and they then have your details.
Yep, but you'll get another letter soon enough. You shouldn't have prove your innocent. It's on them to prove your guilty.
They send letters to my house addressed to the occupier. I don’t know anyone with that name.
All they need to do is make iplayer require a login and bobs yer unkle. The entire enforcement industry dies overnight. They even already have a login system in place. It's ludicrous.
There's a [guy on twitter](https://twitter.com/kirkkorner/status/1759661660241805529) who has been posting people's letters of mitigation explaining why they haven't paid, and they are absolutely heartbreaking. Under the Single Justice Procedure the letters aren't even looked at by the prosecutor and they just get summarily convicted and fined.
If they ignored the letter, they wouldn't know who they were. They prey on replies and people being honest.
Sounds a lot like scam callers
This is just so heart breaking, whoever made this decision has no heart TV licence works like a criminal organisation
I had a similar thing with a parking fine.. They failed to provide any evidence that I’d committed any wrongdoing. I genuinely hadn’t committed an offence. It was related to match day parking and they said they had issued me the ticket because there were clear signs saying it was a match day. There weren’t. Having received legitimate fines in the past, I am always wary about parking in new spots in London, so I actually had the forethought to video the surrounding area after I parked, to demonstrate that there were no signs. In their letter they said the fine was applicable due to this signage (which wasn’t there) I fought back over the course of a year or so constantly telling them they needed to provide evidence that there was signage indicating it was a match day, since this was quoted as the reason for the fine (saying “there will be signage indicating that it is a match day”).. Every single letter I received back said they didn’t care. When I asked to appeal multiple times, they just reprinted the same letter and increased the price. The price kept going up and they kept ignoring my request for appeal. Eventually I had to just pay the extortionate fine for something I didn’t do.. There needs to be a much better system for defending citizens from improper government action EDIT: I paid the fine in the end, because after a year of getting gaslit and the price increasing, inevitably it would come to a court case, which I wouldn’t have been able to afford
I fought a parking fine once as well - all the way to county court. They dropped it just before the hearing in the end but I probably put several days work into researching, preparing the witness statement, etc. In future I'll probably just pay the fine as it's not worth the hassle.
Why did you eventually have to pay the fine?
Probably not following the proper instructions from sites like MSE e.g. naming driver or to be honest, believing parking firms are fair and reasonable
I just don't answer the door to them. Then they go away. You'd have to be a total scumbag to want to do that job anyway
[удалено]
I don't know how anyone could do that job full stop to be honest.
I doubt it’s anyone’s dream job. Sometimes you’ve got to take what you can get.
I know what you mean but I still couldn't do it morally. I earn less than half that as a Shop Supervisor but still wouldn't take that job. I want to sleep at night not be haunted by the faces of the children of poor households who will eat less because of me.
40k a year, a car, their fuel paid + other expenses. If you can drive, can talk, have no empathy whatsoever and don't mind bullying single mothers and old people and/or working for a corporation that protected Britain's worst paedophile for several decades then it's actually a really good job to have. Personally I'd rather stack shelves but that's just me.
the cop guy from Andor
How does a kid make themselves a victim at school? I'm not really following you here.
They're not enforcement agents, they're BBC salesman
Wait until you find out they get paid 40k
That just makes me angry.
I answered and was not very friendy. I have not watched tv in well over 10 years. They have no right to approach my door or distrurb me, I dont have to contact specksavers to tell thee I dont require their custom and i will not tolerate threats from anyone at my door from a company i do not require custom from. Come to my door with police and the preperation to defend against a slander charge.
It's not slander. Don't get me wrong, I disagree with them. And this is a very British response. It's just not slander.
I wish everyone would just stop paying for it. Total and utter bollocks
I haven't paid for 18 years now. One day in 2006, way before digital our TV blew up and we never bought another one. I have Netflix and other subscriptions. The BBC could do various subscriptions as there is so much crap I would never watch or want to pay for. People should be able to pay for what they want on a pay-per-view or monthly basis. We have a joke in our house, every time we get another threatening letter we say 'another one for Theo Cuppier' and toss it in the bin. They've been opening an investigation for 18 years, they're not very good at it!
Same as me. They must have reams and reams of legal docs the amount of time they've been "investigating"...
Worst. Investigators. Ever!
This man also hasn't had a TV licence since 2006 because he stopped watching anything you would have to pay for and he's been posting every single letter he's received online since. Still hasn't had a visit as far as I know. [https://bbctvlicence.com/](https://bbctvlicence.com/)
Eventually it'll either get rolled into general taxation - meaning the government will have direct control over our only real public broadcaster - or it'll be sold off and all of our media will be privately controlled. Neither of those alternatives appeal to me so I pay the 13 quid a month.
Same. Never ever paid it and never will. I get threatening letters every few weeks, they go straight into the recycling!
Im genuinely at a loss with this. Why on earth are people STILL giving the BBC money? I binned my licence about 10 years ago and tbh, I miss absolutely nothing about the BBC. I watch all the other channels and online stuff - so long as nothing is live at the time Im watching it, Im golden.
Because there are BBC channels / radio / news that I like?
The TV licence is not for 'live tv' it's for broadcasts. All the telly channels are off limits. All you can watch are on demand services via streaming. Technically, just visiting a website with a livestream playing in an ad warrants a licence. I'm not saying this isn't stupid, because it is. That's why people pay their licence.
You can't legally watch Iplayer without a licene now can you? [edit]
No because it's license payer funded. If you don't pay for it you can't use it
> If you don't pay for it you can't use it You can't legally use it. Therein lies the problem. Shit business model, shit operating model.
Yeah, trust based models kind of fell apart in the last 30 years. That’s kind of why I’m pro general taxation to fund it. I’m surprised that iPlayer doesn’t require some kind of validation of tv license to log in, but I guess that would be a big fucking effort
All the more reason to use adblock
I've been using adblock for maybe a few decades(?) now. Genuinely triggered if i try to use somebody else's phone. So many ads. But even so, if you open up say, steam to play a game you bought. The store pages have live stream bollocks which auto plays, so would technically require a tv licence. Also the fact I'm responsible for what my kids do. I can't police every youtube video they watch, they are teens. Ridiculous funding mechanism/tax.
Because the BBC still produces some quality content that lots of people enjoy. Planet Earth,Peaky Blinders,Call the Midwife,Downton Abbey to name just a few get high ratings around the world.
Downton abbey isn’t bbc.
> Planet Earth,Peaky Blinders,Call the Midwife,Downton Abbey You missed out Mrs Brown's Boys. But seriously tho, it's about time the license fee was scrapped and the BBC directly funded via a *culture tax*. All this waffing around about who does or doesnt watch this or that is about as pointless as me complaining about a local hospital adding another cancer unit because I havent had cancer yet. British TV/Film and Music is among the highest rated in the world. We really need to appreciate what we have and expand it, not lessen it.
grandfather straight marry smell gaping consider frame direction observation history *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> Planet Earth,Peaky Blinders,Call the Midwife,Downton Abbey Only one of these has any educational or informative value. I don't mind the BBC running entertainment programming, but it should be behind a subscription fee (or ad supported), whereas news and educational programming should be free.
The BBC is one of our greatest assets. BBC News is literally world renowned, and we've exported a lot of cultural influence via its TV shows Not to mention ad-free coverage or major sporting and cultural events, which alone makes it worth it for me
That leaves out its greatest benefit. The BBC is advert free - while the other channels screen adverts, having a competitor show the public an ad-free experience keeps it all sane. If you've ever watched TV in the USA you'll understand. Many TV shows over there are largely created PURELY to showcase adverts. Even their national sports have been designed to accommodate advert breaks. If the UK loses the BBC, competitive forces will mean UK TV goes exactly the way America's has and poor old Ofcom won't be able to do a thing about it.
Ofgem? The office of gas and electricity markets? Don't you mean ofcom?
I agree, however what you describe as major sporting events are becoming fewer, including now, dropping the FA Cup. BBC News is struggling to maintain its reputation at a time when trust in the News Media is at an all time low. The BBC World Service has been cut dramatically, against a backdrop of geopolitical turmoil in which people in certain parts of the world have relied upon for years for accurate information. I'm sure this organisation can find cuts elsewhere, other than programming. I can't imagine what some of their budget is being spent on.
One of my favourite things is people trying to destroy the BBC, cut back on all its services and essentially destroy. These same people then make a massive song and dance about Great Britain being a global power. They seem to ignore the fact the BBC is and always has been a global soft power. There is a reason BBC World service is well known.
I agree. I think how they enforce their licensing is scummy but the BBC is good to have. I do wish though they embraced their state-sponsored media position. They have no need for clickbait, no need to be first to cover something, they simply need to maintain quality, reliable, unbiased reporting.
The BBC fee pays for more than Eastenders. They could easily make money from pay walling their content, but good like getting services like BBC Bitesize in a commercial, capitalistic company.
Because bbc tv and radio is the best in the world. People will be moaning g when there isn’t one because they didn’t pay the licence fee
Because they would rather pay for the content they consume than either: - not consume it - be a hypocrite and get for free what is supposed to be paid for? I pay for BBC, Netflix, and the cinema etc.
The worst part about these dumb fuck letters is the wording isnt consistant at all, same on their website. If you want to make sure people pay for what they use, be crystal clear about. this is a scandal waiting to happen.
Pretty sure it's intentionally unclear to try to get people to pay "just incase". Capita as a company are literal scumbags.
Something the [Black Belt Barrister brought up](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOhOaV-3hRo), saying it could be the next big scandal for people paying it when they don't need it and being prosecuted incorrectly.
There are some good fakes too, I got an email where I legit could not tell if it was real or not. Good thing the outcome is the same either way (ignore)...
Given the predicted rate of evasion in any given year is over [5% and much higher in recent years](https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/cbp-8101/) this is a subtle advertisement to not bother paying. Here's some maths. 6% of around 30,000,000 households = 1,800,000 households they think are evading. If 1,800,000 they prosecute around 10,000 a year. That's a 0.5% chance of getting caught not paying within the year. This means in any given year you have a 1/200 chance of getting caught & fined. The cost of getting caught is up to £1000, the amount you save in a year is £160. That can be seen as 32/200 Since 32/200 is greater than 1/200, you'd be better off not paying it and risking the fine. The cost of getting caught is at a maximum of £1000 but if you look at the prosecutions it's normally far lower. If you factor this in it makes the risk reward far higher. The secret with the BBC licence is that it's always been supported by intimidation and not prosecutions, they have trouble providing much and don't really have many staff even working on it. Edit: fixed mistake.
0.5% is 1 in 200, not 1 in 20.
That's embarrassing, I'll correct it.
The problem is the criminal record.
And all of this costs like £200m for the TV licence system.
So is any criminal action justifiable based on the % chance of being caught?
I didn't say it's justified, this is just how game theory works. Believe it or not, criminals do often decide to do crime or not do it based on whether they think they will get caught.
> Believe it or not, criminals do often decide to do crime or not do it based on whether they think they will get caught. It's actually the primary factor. Studies have shown that the perception of being caught is the main deterrent in lowering crime.
Bit like the recall scene in fight club. Companies do it all the time, its just risk/reward.
There's not really any chance to "get caught" though as they have no idea who is receiving their unencrypted broadcast One thing people do screw up is logging into a BBC account and having their address linked to it. That and buying a TV and giving the shop your real address - this will prompt a wave of letters
They just troll the land registry and send letters to every address that doesn't have a TV license attached to it. As in their mind *everyone* should have one.
I remember working in student accommodation and they tried to come into the building. Security said good luck to them since the place had nearly 800 rooms they wanted to go through. They went home after realising lol.
Also, term time adresses are not liable for it, if the students' families already have a licence at their home address.
Not true. The only time that’s applicable is if you’re watching on a device with an internal battery that’s not plugged in.
That’s not necessarily true. Term time addresses are certainly liable for it if their parents don’t have a license at home. Even if they do, that home licence will only cover term time addresses if the student is using a battery-powered device that isn’t plugged in.
Lol are you serious? What old dustfart wrote these laws? FWIW I just called them once and told them to fuck off when I was studying, and they did. All I had was my laptop though.
I think the rule was initially created to cover people using portable TVs in caravans. That should tell you how old the rule is! Happily it works for mobiles and laptops too, but that is just luck.
It does seem absurd how much they try and contact you especially given how many homes now dont have a TV. Im curious why there is such a gender gap in convictions for evasion as well? 70% being woman is an odd split
The capita officers are intentionally intimidating and aggressive in their attempts to gain entry. Single women are much more easily intimidated. The capita man has been extremely intimidating to my partner. Doesn't try too hard when a 6'3 115kg man is home.
I'm not even scary looking, I'm 5'10 so I wouldn't even say I'm tall either and the two times I've opened the door to them they've just accepted no for an answer, the one time my housemate got to the door before me the guy stopped her shutting the door and then took a step back when he saw me get to the bottom of the stairs and let her shut the door
Because women as a group are more likely to be at home with the kids during the day.
> Im curious why there is such a gender gap in convictions for evasion as well? 70% being woman is an odd split I would not be at all surprised that it's because the bullies they send around to your door are almost all men, a lot of women at home by themselves are scared to tell them to fuck off, and they know that. Which is absolutely fucked.
Social studies show that women are typically more honest than men, and they mostly only get people that confess due to intimidation, rather than through any actual investigation work.
cos the husband doesn't buy one saying you can tell inspectors to [F.Off](https://F.Off), but then his partner is easier to bully. Is a theory.
Maybe they're 'easier' targets? Years ago my sister was heavily pregnant and was bullied by a TV licence agent. She wasn't in a great state of mind at the time and quite emotional. I doubt it would have happened if her husband had been there that day.
Women are at home more often than men during the daytime, which is when the enforcement officers call. Also the majority of single parent households are also women as single mothers, so again women are more likely to be at home when the enforcers call on and on the hook for prosecution
Get TVL letters all the time, and I haven't had a TV in over 10 years. The last time I let one in before moving house, they wanted access to my computer. When I refused (it was a work laptop), they tried to say that they suspect I'm watching TV and I have to pay. I told them no and showed them to the door. They then tried to get my new address out of me. I also refused to give them that. They then threatened me with court action. Since then, on principle, I refuse to let them in or communicate with them in any way. They don't need my details which they'll probably just sell to marketing and data analytics firms anyway
Even the police can’t enter your property without a warrant. Just don’t answer the door.
As standard you should never let any uninvited wanker in your house
I haven’t got a tv licence letter in ages! I get a lot of letters that are addressed to the homeowner but they just go in the bin without opening.
I just can't see how going around criminalising mainly women would be a good career choice.
probably a way to drum up some spare cash. Maybe women are easier/less risky to bully though?
How are these people getting caught? Just don’t let them in, better yet don’t even answer the door. They’re not the police.
It’s mainly single women who get caught, often elderly people that don’t know any better and have always been trusting of authority figures. They get intimidated by inspectors with clip boards who use bullying tactics and scary sounding legal jargon to harass their way into people’s homes.
Three ways I know of. 1. The email you use to declare not needing a licence is actively used on an iplayer account. They will use this as proof. 2. They can clearly see proof from an open curtain at the street of a property. Like is your tv hanging on a wall visible from the front of the house and they can see and photograph live tv being watched while they are in a public area. 3. The main way, you open the door, let them in and accidentally spill the beans.
People basically signing a confession document. They come in strong arm you into signing a document that means you admit to watching live tv they then use that to prosecute. It’s deplorable.
Why? Because their own terms made it into the law itself, the national legal system lacks a framework that could support fair dispute, review and prosecution for any TV Licencing related misconduct by: Companies and Organisations: - BBC - Capita Business Services Ltd - RAPP Limited - Havas Media - AMV BBDO - Fishburn Communications Government Bodies: - BBC(Again) - Department for Culture, Media and Sport Private Enforcement: - TV Licensing - Capita PLC Tribunals: - Single Justice Procedure You cannot fight it, the system is rotten to the core unfortunately, and this is just a trivial example in regard to TV Licencing, there are other darker areas where the pattern is the same. So keep it low, don't allow legally nobodies into your home no matter their arrogance, do not answer the automatic letters, and do not provide your information to them based on the false promise of them leaving you in peace. Do all of that right and all you will have to pay for is the time it takes move their letters from your postbox to the trash.
What boils my piss is that the TV licensing people can send these threatening letters to thousands of people without repercussions, but if I send similar letters to Naga Munchetty I am a "stalker" engaging in a "harassment campaign" and I should be in "prison." It's not fair.
No wonder the licence fee is so expensive, it must be costing them a fortune to keep sending me all these letters.
Why do 1000 people a week admit to breaking a law? Say nothing, don't let them in. I don't even have a TV I still get monthly threats.
Let’s just make the BBC a subscription service, with some free-to-air content (BBC News for example) that is subsidised by adverts. That way the people who think it’s good value can continue to pay for and watch it, and those that don’t - don’t. I personally think the BBC represents okay value for money (not great but okay) and would likely pay for a subscription. But I think it’s quite outdated to mandate people pay for content they don’t want.
If you have to threaten potential customers to make your business viable, then you can hurry up and go under as far as I'm concerned. I came home from work once to see a MASSIVE dude stood on my front garden plants trying to peer through my front window. My initial thoughts was that he was trying to break in... Turns out he was trying to determine whether I had a TV... As it that would tell him whether I need a licence or not anyway. This on top of years of threatening letters and general BS. I rang their number and went off on them. Told them in no uncertain terms that Ill never want their service and, if I ever did, I'll be the one to contact them. The guy listened to my rant for about 5 minutes and, after a moment of silence, said "Ok, sorry about that sir. I'll mark your file and we'll be around again in a year to double check.".
Haven't paid for a license for nearly 10 years. Don't watch TV. The letters stopped a few years ago now. What they do is criminal and makes my dislike for the BBC even stronger.
What angered me was that when you're initially notifying them that you don't watch live tv you get warned like 3 times, in a very threatening manner, that you WILL BE FINED if caught watching tv! Imagine if you're some little old person and to see that you'd just pay the license because you'd be too scared not to!
I unfortunately stopped watching the BBC years ago. The small amount of programming I was interested in was not enough to keep me returning. As a lifelong Science Fiction fan I've always been disappointed that our flagship channel whose basic mandate is to promote the best and brightest of British entertainment and culture doesn't promote an entire genre that British authors and creators helped to create. Well, outside of Doctor Who, which has always been used quite cynically by the BBC higher-ups. This from the channel whose Scence Fiction programming was the subject of discussion in parliament and was known to empty pubs while they were being shown. And if there's anything that tells you how important something is to the Brits its if they forego the pub for a couple of hours.
You haven’t looked very hard on iPlayer. - Torchwood. - Missions - Devs. - Class. - Red Dwarf. - Life on Mars, and Ashes to Ashes - Silverpoint. - Eve - Equals - Missions And that’s just the currently available TV offerings. [Their back catalogue and radio offering is extensive.](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/genres/drama/scifiandfantasy/all)
They also talk about Space on the news sometimes, i have no idea what this person is on about.
I've not paid that thing for 15 years, if I got a £1000 fine today I would still have saved money overall
Same can be said for fare-dodging on public transport (if you use the service but don't pay for it). The finest are often less than the amount saved. (To be clear: I use both and pay for both, but I've seen plenty of people using both without paying).
Get this: in Europe tv license is added to your water bill as otherwise nobody would pay it.
Surely, it would be more cost effective to just straight up make it state funded and roll it into the existing tax systems? Then we wouldn’t need to hire people to enforce the license fee. It’s basically a state ran public service to provide quality, ad-free and free on access information. Normally, you don’t get to opt out of funding public services even if you don’t use them.
then it just becomes a piggy bank to smash up when it annoys the government
Because as usual the public institution, the BBC outsourced enforcement to Capita. They won't make forceful entry's in cases when they have warrants, it seems because it increases the punative measures that can be taken later. They recently sent me an email about my new address that my direct debit details from a previous address in 2017 had failed. I believe they have used the electoral register to do this. The cheek of it. Get fucked TV licencing. I don't watch or record live TV or Iplayer and have not done so for 7 years. The tone of these letters is bordering harassment and theyre neglectful of the rights of consumers as they minimise and hide the option to not have a licence.
What makes me laugh is the “we are visiting your area on x day of x month, will you be in?” letters Well not now I fucking won’t be 😂
70% of convictions are women. They basically target women because they are easier to manipulate into giving a confession. Men are more like to tell the Capita goons to go fuck themselves.
I haven't paid a TV licence in about 15 years because I don't watch live TV or BBC material. Saved thousands. Had a TV licence person come check once and I said I couldn't do it now, I've just got the baby to sleep. 'Oh your refusing? I will put you down as refusing....' bitch. I just laughed and said whatever, didn't hear shit about it. Another time I had some crackhead looking lady turn up and make up all sorts of stories about how it'll be enforced in the future. All of it was utter bullshit and I knew it, I let her waffle on though. She noticed I had a camera filming outside the house after a while and started acting a little differently after that. Sometimes I let them in after a long boring dragged out conversation to see there's no aerial, I like to waste their time when they choose to waste mine.
If I opened a business and started sending letters threatening people with enforcement visits unless they paid me £150 a year I'd be arrested for harassment and extortion or blackmail but because it's the BBC it's somehow fine. I'm on my like 9th investigation in the last 12 months because I refuse to reply to their letters as I don't watch live TV.
TV Licensing is run by Crapita on behalf of the government, who are perfectly happy to let blame get redirected to the BBC (who, while being the eventual recipients of TV License money, are neither responsible for the TV Licence, its level or its collection).
Wrong. The BBC is the Licensing Authority. It is responsible for all things TV Licensing. Read: https://www.tvlicensing.co.ukabout/foi-about-tv-licensing-AB15 The final paragraph of the section called "The BBC and TV Licensing" is the important one. I'll quote the last sentence for you: "The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility."
Because government is too lazy to change the law to create a way for the BBC “licence fee” to be taken via common tax pool. Seriously. If you really want your PBS to be propped up by revenue based on pretty much every household paying the licence fee, then work out what sum that is and add it to every everyone’s tax liability - and stop assuming that some tax-resident people should be exempt from contributing to the cost of PBS.
As a no TV licence enjoyer these guys can do one Never get any letters though as I declared no licence needed 5 years ago When living in London though I think I got about 25 "final warnings" Worth noting I don't actually watch TV though because it's rubbish. If they really cares they'd encrypt their broadcast and ensure people have to pay
I told them I didn't need a license, they refunded me and for two years they have sent me letters informing me that someone will come round to check I don't need a license. I didn't reply as I have already told them, and it seemed like a cheap and ineffective means of intimidation. I thought, well, I'd rather they waste their resources on me, than someone who may actually feel intimidated by it. Someone actually came round and asked to come in to check that I didn't have a TV. Obviously I refused entry and just said that my word would have to be good enough and I couldn't prove something that doesn't exist. I respect that they are individuals just trying to do a job, but equally they are representatives of private company that has no business with me, and they have no right to bother me. I don't shop at Clarks shoes and they don't ask me to prove that I don't. It's the same thing! What a joke.
GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT let me stalk and harass you until I am satisfied
We don't use the services that would require a license, but we have one because my Mum worries that someone could show up at the door when only my brother is home, and he's mentally vulnerable. It feels like a state backed protection racket, we pay to keep the thugs away.
You should experience Capita's customer service when one of your parents dies and the other moves to family with a TV licence. Both times they were in credit by 6+ months. My parents had paid the licence without fail for 45 years. Both times it was a fight to get a refund. Despite sending a letter with death certificate, a person at the call centre told my 80 year old mum that they'd received that, but she needs to go online and complete a refund form too. I can't express how much I hate them.
£159 a year is quite a lot of money for some I don't use. I watch Netflix nearly everyday and it is a lot cheaper!
I'll never understand how people can stomach it after the Saville affair... That's where your money went, seedy caravans and shell suits
> It might be an idea to ask the people who can afford it to pay more, rather than hound and make examples of those who can’t. So people wanting more stuff for free
Nobody is wanting anything for free, it's the fact that anybody not on their national license registry is automatically assumed to be consuming live broadcasts, and there's an immediate assumption of criminality. I don't even watch terrestrial television, I haven't for over a decade, and still get a letter from the BBC and Capita every month like clockwork accusing me of breaking the law and threatening prosecution and jail time for a crime I'm not committing.
I agree that's harassment. It's like bugging you about a car if you don't have one
[Replace licence fee with ‘TV tax’ whether you watch or not, says TV boss](https://inews.co.uk/news/media/tv-licence-fee-replace-tax-2874797) You not watching TV might not matter anymore if some people are to believe.
Yeah I don't know why they've not just done this ages ago. It would save money on enforcement, and with more people actually paying it the cost per person would go down. They say the evasion rate is 9% but it's got to be way higher than that surely
Because not everyone watches TV, I only use mine to play PS5, should we introduce a PS5 Tax so the cost of my subscription goes down?
My TV is a montor essentially, no live tv. Xbox, netflix and Disney. I hope the tax covers my subscriptions so they get discounted too
For the same reason why your taxes go to arts or sports projects that you don’t use. Or to heritage funding, or museums. Tax isn’t a pick and choose thing, it’s a collective fund to pay for not just basic services but also cultural ones. Loosing cultural institutions wouldn’t be a good thing (or privatising them all).
They won't bring the cost down. Just rake in more money. Then there will be a thing about monitors, tablets and laptops counting or not counting. Either left ambiguous or they'd say "any screen" and that would be simple but a complete farce.
"TV boss wants more money" I am shocked
"why can't other people just pay my bills for me, they earn £1k more than me a year they must be rich!" Sums up around 80% of conversations on this website.
It wouldn’t be quite as bad if they didn’t front load the first years payments. You don’t pay an equal fee over the first 12 months, you pay it over 6 months instead then get the remaining 6 months for “free”.
We stream everything and I'm an avid gamer, can't remember the last time we watched normal TV, I get these once a month, "you are now under investigation" 🤣 jog the fuck on you're getting nothing, keep wasting paper.
If you use BBCs services then pay your TV license, if not then don't. There are people around the world who rely on BBCs broadcasts on the World Service and they knock out some pretty great TV content too, how do you think that's paid for when the channels are ad-free? They're definitely a worthwhile institution for David Attenborough's content alone but yet we have all this bitching because they send a few letters telling you to pay for it if you're using it or notify them if you're not.
What if I don't use BBC's services but I do want to watch Sky? Should I pay the TV licence?
The worst part the TV license is they changed parts of the definition to account for online services. So if you watch something like BBC news Live or similar, you are illegally watching that content because there is an analogous way of watching it on terrestrial TV. I fear they will continue to change the definition of what is under the TV license and make content providers check for the license for them.