Rob's Blog

I’ve just been phoned by TV Licensing. They’ve been trying to phone me for a while (I know because I googled the incoming number) but I usually answer to silence so I hang up. This time I listened to the silence for about 20 seconds before someone came on the line.

Anyway, my attitude to TV Licensing is this: I do not do business with them, therefore they are strangers. I don’t give out information to strangers on the telephone. The conversation went like this (paraphrased from memory):

TVL: This is just a courtesy call about your TV license at [old address]
Me: Okay.
TVL: I notice that your direct debit was cancelled in July last year.
Me: Okay.
TVL: Why was that?
Me: I don’t live there any more. [I slipped up here. I meant to say, "I no longer require a TV license for that address".]
TVL: When did you move out?
Me: I really don’t remember exactly. [I should have said, "none of your business", but was trying to be polite.]
TVL: Okay, what’s your new address?
Me: I don’t see why you need to know that.
TVL: Okay, fair enough. But we need to know whether you are licensed at your new address.
Me: I am licensed at my new address. [I should have said, "that's not my problem."]
TVL: Okay. Well, you may be due a refund on your old license because you were paying monthly, and therefore 6 months in advance.
Me: But you don’t think I owe you money?
TVL: No you don’t owe us money.
Me: Well, I’m not interested in any refund.
TVL: Okay, it’s your money, but I just wanted to let you know.

That was about it. To give them credit, they didn’t pressure me for information or threaten me. I suppose it’s legitimate for them to call me as I did previously do business with them (so it’s not quite a *cold* call). But they did seem surprised that I was so defensive. Most people probably just hand over any information asked to strangers who call from official sounding organisations.

See my previous encounters with TV Licensing.

ThePresentOccupier writes:

Unfortunately, the ASA has concluded that the fraudulent demand for immediate payment does not constitute advertising; consequently, it doesn’t fall under their remit. I shall be debating the point politely with them, as they have no rights to send me *any* material, nor do I intend to jump through their hoops only to be treated as a liar at the end of it.

Ah well. Trading Standards are next on the list as a potential weapon.

So despite the fact that their letters are requests for payment for a service, the ASA hold that they are not advertising. Really this is about who is sending the letters not what is in them. If a private company sent identical letters, they would be considered advertising, or worse: harrasment. Somehow, TV Licensing has taken upon itself an air of authority, and like fools people believe in it.

Of course, TV Licensing is a private company.

The Present Occupier has received this latest missive from the folks at TV Licensing:

We have reason to believe your address is unlicensed. Your details have been passed to a TV Licensing Enforcement Officer who will be visiting your street soon.

Below this is a table that states, “Amount due: �116.00″ and “Payment due: IMMEDIATELY”. In tiny print below it reads, “If you have recently purchased a license, please ignore this letter”, and you have to read to the bottom of the page for, “Please see reverse for important TV Licensing Information, including exclusions and how to pay.”

In effect this is an invoice, not dissimilar to the one sent out by Nodots, who the ASA upheld a complaint against. In that case,

The Authority considered that, although the smallprint on the mailing stated “Should you not want a Qname, please disregard the invoice”, the invoice section of the mailing did not make clear enough that it was merely a marketing communication offering an Internet service. The Authority concluded that the mailing was misleading.

By these standards, the TV Licensing letter is certainly misleading. It is also obnoxious and threatening. But what can you expect from goons paid to extract protection money?

Related Link: I came across a TV Licensing Mini-FAQ that explains when you need a TV license and when you don’t, and how TV Licensing try to obfuscate this information.

Previous Episodes: Not Owning A TV Licence Is A Crime; TV Licence Update; TV Licence Update 2.

The Present Occupier’s address is on TV Licensing Enforcement Extraordinaire John Thompson’s, “priority list” according to a new letter he has received. “We are planning to take further action,” the letter brays. “Our records show that despite our previous correspondence, there is still no License for this address.”

Funny that, considering there is no TV at this address. An enforcement “Officer” is planning to visit The Present Occupier shortly.

Watch this space for updates, but don’t hold your breath on an enforcement employee actually appearing. Similar threats have been made in the past, but they have so far been just threats.

My friend with TV Licence hassles, who shall henceforth be known as The Present Occupier, as he is addressed in letters from the TV Licensing people, has provided a link to campaign site BBC Resistance run by Jonathan Miller and Erik Oostveen.

The site is a fantastic resource. Its manifesto makes the argument that the TV Licence is no longer legitimate because it is unfair, poor value, anti-competitive, and fuels a journalistic bias in favour of the BBC’s (and the license fee’s) survival, breaching the charter the BBC is duty bound to uphold in return for our money.

The site contains information on what you need a TV License for and what you don’t. The law is quite clear – it is the act of receiving broadcast TV that requires a licence, not owning a TV or using it for purposes such as watching DVDs or playing computer games. However, if you don’t need a TV licence, the site explains how TV Licensing will harass you anyway – the correspondence pages make for an entertaining read.

Another site by Duncan Bennett also highlights how difficult it is to refuse television. Despite co-operating fully with TV Licensing, he has had to continually write letters explaining that he does not have a TV, and still these people want to violate his privacy by coming into his home.

The TV Licence really is past its sell-by date. It may have been appropriate in 1949 when there was only one broadcaster. Now there better ways to fund the BBC, through subscriptions or advertising, without having to force people to pay for a service they don’t want to use.

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.