Even if you don’t own a TV.
A friend of mine who does not own a TV is continually harassed by TV licensing authorities. Leaving asside the issue of whether or not TV licensing is a Good Thing, and accepting for the moment that TV licence evasion is an actual crime, the assumptions in the letters he has received are rather insulting.
One letter begins, “Once again, if you use or install TV receiving equipment to receive or record television programme services, you are legally required to have a TV licence.” Which is true, if somewhat irrelevant. It soon becomes rather threatening, however.
“We have written to you twice recently and we still have no record of a response from you. If you need a TV licence, you must buy one in the next few days or you could find yourself facing prosecution and a fine.”
The letter turns patronising: “I feel I must, as TV Licensing Enforcement Manager for your area, remind you of the following, since ignorance of the law will not be accepted by TV Licensing as an excuse.” It goes on to repeat that having a TV without a licence is an offence incurring prosecution and a fine.
My friend is then informed that his address is high on the manager’s priority list. One of his team of Enforcement Officers will, “issue a report for prosecution if there is evidence of an offence.” Evidence that they will, of course, not find.
The letter essentially says, we think you are a criminal and want you to buy a TV licence. It graciously allows, “If you have bought a licence recently, please ignore this letter.” No mention is made of the possibility that there isn’t a TV at the address except for the following offer: “If you do not have a TV receiver, please write to us…so we can update our records.” No-one is obliged to send any letter stating that they are not committing a crime. It takes time and effort to compose a letter and post it. Not much, but in principle there is no reason for someone who does not have a TV to spend any time justifying why he has not bought a licence.
Imagine having to send a letter for every service you have not used. Dear Vodaphone, I have not paid my phone bill because I do not have a mobile phone. Dear Tesco’s… My friend has sent letters in the past and they have had little effect.
A few days after the letter arrived, an “Enforcement Officer” visited when my friend was not at home. Another letter was left, repeating all the same warnings. It did allow, “If you do have a TV licence, or do not use a TV, I’m sorry for any concern this letter may have caused.” But in this case he is told to fill in a form and post it. Why should he? And what difference would it make anyway, given that anyone could fill in the form whether they own a TV or not? The letter barely takes breath from this apology before making more threats.
All this chasing up and visiting houses of people who don’t own TVs is a pointless waste of licence payers’ money.
It seems to me that TV licensing enforcement is done all wrong. Instead of the detector vans and detector men of lore, who could be going around gathering actual evidence of licence evasion and bothering only those found to be breaking the law, an entirely cynical approach is used. Everyone who has not paid for a TV licence is assumed to be a criminal and is harrassed until they pay up. If I don’t own a TV I shouldn’t have to come into contact with TV licensing authorities at all. On the other hand, if I do have a TV without a licence, it seems I will get endless chances to pay up without being prosecuted.
The innocent are getting a worse deal than the guilty.
