Would you be as proud to write "As of today I have gone 73 weeks without buying a rail ticket and saved over £200. Only had one inspection in that time which was ignored."?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
TV Licence problems
- Thread starter 142094
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
bradders1983
Member
The difference being rail evasion is policied in a much effective way, and not by drones working for a private company which TV Licensing outsourced to.
Invalid comparison.
Fare evasions are often private prosecutions rather than the CPS.
bradders1983
Member
Do the TV Licensing people stand on private land and ask me to produce a TV License when I leave the house for work in a morning?
Going back to the OP - your friend is, quite frankly, an idiot, for speaking to them in the first place. They have as much legal authority to enter your house/speak to you/ be on your land as a double glazing salesman has.
Last edited:
Broken Viking
On Moderation
Ow do all! 
I've had my fair share of dealings with the mindless fools at TV Licensing. A week before moving into my current home in 2006CE, I purchased a licence as I intended to buy and use a television set around the time. Despite giving my address when purchasing my licence at the P.O. counter though, they sent me a series of threatening and abusive letters ordering me to buy a TV licence...And when I told them that I already had a licence (And enclosed a photocopy of said licence) the letters still didn't stop! :roll:
After a few months, it became clear to me that I would not be purchasing a television or other licensed device after all, so I sent them a letter stating this fact (And another photocopy of my licence) and requesting information on how to obtain a refund. At this point the threatening letters stopped and I was sent back a letter telling me how to obtain a refund and register my property as legally unlicenced. Of course, they also stated that an inspector would call to verify that what I was telling them was indeed the truth. (Something that - Despite what's been said up-thread regarding their lack of rights - I don't have any problem with.)
Now because of my beliefs and religious practices, it is common for me to wear a Sword or have a similar weapon (Dagger, War-Hammer, Chainsaw etc) to hand at all times when at home - Which is perfectly within the bounds of the Law as my home is private property, and "Weapons in public places" laws do not apply within.
Even though I'm as friendly and non-threatening toward my visitors as much as possible, the TV Licensing inspector was clearly ill at ease* whilst being shown the devices that I was using and the measures that I had taken to prevent them from receiving television signals...Indeed, he left so quickly after the inspection that I still havn't ever seen a Vauxhall Corsa do 0-60mph as fast as his did that day!
hock:
* - The sight of my Blood upon the Blade from the binding Ritual a week before might not have helped, mind!
Anyhow...Since that time, I have remained legally unlicenced and only have to submit a declaration every three years to confirm that this is still the case. Although they say that inspectors will call around again to confirm (Which I'm happy for them to do) they still havn't as of yet!
On the downside though: Even though I had contacted them three months after paying £126,50 of hard earned cash for my licence requesting a refund (And stating clearly that I had never watched television and thus qualified for a full refund) they only refunded 50% of the fee that I had paid, and to this day I am still fighting them to get the other 50% back!
That said, I havn't a clue why on Earth Transvestites are expected to hold a rather expensive licence. Not only are we the only country along with Pakistan that seem to have this odd requirement, it's clearly discrimination on the grounds of gender matters! :roll:
I've had my fair share of dealings with the mindless fools at TV Licensing. A week before moving into my current home in 2006CE, I purchased a licence as I intended to buy and use a television set around the time. Despite giving my address when purchasing my licence at the P.O. counter though, they sent me a series of threatening and abusive letters ordering me to buy a TV licence...And when I told them that I already had a licence (And enclosed a photocopy of said licence) the letters still didn't stop! :roll:
After a few months, it became clear to me that I would not be purchasing a television or other licensed device after all, so I sent them a letter stating this fact (And another photocopy of my licence) and requesting information on how to obtain a refund. At this point the threatening letters stopped and I was sent back a letter telling me how to obtain a refund and register my property as legally unlicenced. Of course, they also stated that an inspector would call to verify that what I was telling them was indeed the truth. (Something that - Despite what's been said up-thread regarding their lack of rights - I don't have any problem with.)
Now because of my beliefs and religious practices, it is common for me to wear a Sword or have a similar weapon (Dagger, War-Hammer, Chainsaw etc) to hand at all times when at home - Which is perfectly within the bounds of the Law as my home is private property, and "Weapons in public places" laws do not apply within.
Even though I'm as friendly and non-threatening toward my visitors as much as possible, the TV Licensing inspector was clearly ill at ease* whilst being shown the devices that I was using and the measures that I had taken to prevent them from receiving television signals...Indeed, he left so quickly after the inspection that I still havn't ever seen a Vauxhall Corsa do 0-60mph as fast as his did that day!
hock:* - The sight of my Blood upon the Blade from the binding Ritual a week before might not have helped, mind!
Anyhow...Since that time, I have remained legally unlicenced and only have to submit a declaration every three years to confirm that this is still the case. Although they say that inspectors will call around again to confirm (Which I'm happy for them to do) they still havn't as of yet!
On the downside though: Even though I had contacted them three months after paying £126,50 of hard earned cash for my licence requesting a refund (And stating clearly that I had never watched television and thus qualified for a full refund) they only refunded 50% of the fee that I had paid, and to this day I am still fighting them to get the other 50% back!
I'd better add a friendly warning that your post - If seen and dumped to hard-copy by TV Licencing - Could be used as evidence against ye. Might be a good idea to edit that post to something non-actionable?
That said, I havn't a clue why on Earth Transvestites are expected to hold a rather expensive licence. Not only are we the only country along with Pakistan that seem to have this odd requirement, it's clearly discrimination on the grounds of gender matters! :roll:
Last edited by a moderator:
Not so. You are evading payment for a service you are using. Theft, pure and simple. How that is policed is irrelevant, as is any view on the cost or even "morality" of the licence (two arguments that are often used for non-payment). Would you recommend just walking by the oft-criticised fare collectors at Manchester Piccadilly, for instance?
Don't confuse transvestites with transsexuals.
Broken Viking
On Moderation
Good point, good point.
For any wondering: One of the two changes gender through choice, whereas the other is born with parts that don't match their apparent gender.
Transvestites don't change sex though. They often crossdress due to reasons other than gender dysphoria.For any wondering: One of the two changes gender through choice, whereas the other is born with parts that don't match their apparent gender.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Shall we get back onto TV licences...?
Television licences.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
bradders1983
Member
I'd better add a friendly warning that your post - If seen and dumped to hard-copy by TV Licencing - Could be used as evidence against ye. Might be a good idea to edit that post to something non-actionable?
That said, I havn't a clue why on Earth Transvestites are expected to hold a rather expensive licence. Not only are we the only country along with Pakistan that seem to have this odd requirement, it's clearly discrimination on the grounds of gender matters! :roll:
Since they dont know who I am, and where I live, I am sure I will be fine
It can be traced.Since they dont know who I am, and where I live, I am sure I will be fine
bradders1983
Member
And how will Capita, a company with no law enforcement powers, do this? Pray tell me.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
Why don't you ask all those that have been prosecuted?
They can obtain a court order.
bradders1983
Member
A court order you say? Really?
Can you point me in the direction of any evidence to suggest Capita have requested IP information via a court order?
Broken Viking
On Moderation
Well, they could have a court order served on Mojo (And anyone else who runs the site) to release relevant I.P. logs showing who's logging on from what address. One of the more minor reasons I place the note in my signature about using public machines (I have no connection of my own) is to declare that anything I post is not accountable to those who own/run the connections that I use to post it.
As for obtaining thy I.P. without a court order though, this is perfectly possible - And it'd be perfectly within the law for them to do so using the following technique.
All it'd take is for them to post something here containing a linked image (Their forum signature, for example) and some serverside coding to record the I.P. addresses accessing that resource. Compare it with the information from the "Users currently online" list, and working out which I.P. ye are going online from is a doddle!
hock:
bradders1983
Member
Well, they could have a court order served on Mojo (And anyone else who runs the site) to release relevant I.P. logs showing who's logging on from what address. One of the more minor reasons I place the note in my signature about using public machines (I have no connection of my own) is to declare that anything I post is not accountable to those who own/run the connections that I use to post it.
As for obtaining thy I.P. without a court order though, this is perfectly possible - And it'd be perfectly within the law for them to do so using the following technique.
All it'd take is for them to post something here containing a linked image (Their forum signature, for example) and some serverside coding to record the I.P. addresses accessing that resource. Compare it with the information from the "Users currently online" list, and working out which I.P. ye are going online from is a doddle!
Right, Ok, and how does an Ip address link to my domestic unlicensed address without requesting the details from my ISP?
In either case, I am on a dynamic IP and use IP addresses as far flung as Tuscon to access the Internet.
Once they have an IP they can then serve the ISP with a court order.
bradders1983
Member
Can you provide examples of this practice from Capita please?
On the downside though: Even though I had contacted them three months after paying £126,50 of hard earned cash for my licence requesting a refund (And stating clearly that I had never watched television and thus qualified for a full refund) they only refunded 50% of the fee that I had paid, and to this day I am still fighting them to get the other 50% back!
I believe that TV licencing will only refund in complete unused quarterly blocks, so, as such, if you have had the licence for 3 months and a day, you would only get a 50% refund if requested at that point
Broken Viking
On Moderation
Without going into technical details (Because I've already been on this thing since 06:30 today and need to get off!) here's how I'd go about it if I wanted to do it for myself.
- Record I.P. addresses used to access the image that I've posted along with other available header info, and snapshots of the "Users online" list taken at the same time.
- Repeat step 1 for a while until enough information is gathered to associate the presence of your username to one of the I.P. addresses previously recorded,
This forum actually makes it easier to do this quickly because the "Who's Online" page shows the last recorded action of each user on the site! - Once the username has been associated with an I.P. address in this manner (And confirmed by further scanning and association) checks can be done against the I.P. address against many online services and reverse DNS lookups, which can localise ye down to the I.Ps town.
- Armed with thy username, I.P. address, locality, and a few photos from thy Facebook, they've got enough info to find ye offline as well as online - Especially if ye've left anything online that could be looked-up against thy local Electoral Roll!
A proxy server? Good call, Sir!
(As long as - Of course - Ye are using a proxy that logs absolutely nothing about thy sessions upon it, meaning that there's nothing to prove that ye ever connected to it. If it's a secure "Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Anonymity" setup though, ye should be safe.
)--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I can provide no evidence as my input in that regard is purely speculative, although ye might find some by searching through TV Licencing cases exposed via FOI requests.
The fact is - However - That I have never actually used a television set (Or other "Television Provisioning Equipment" as they call it.) at any point whatsoever since moving into my home five years ago (And I would state that fact under oath as it is indeed the truth.) and thus I feel that I should have received a full refund of my licence fee - Not a paltry 50% of it! :roll:
It's a bit tricky though as I know I wouldn't qualify for a full refund on a season ticket under similar circumstances unless I had been physically unable to use the railway in any capacity (I.E: I had been in a coma etc.) since before the ticket became valid, and in this case the same rules might well apply.
However, the reason I consider my claim for a full refund to be valid is because otherwise I'm being shafted for my honesty. I could've lawfully bought my TV Licence within a week of purchasing my set (Provided I hadn't used it before getting the licence.) and had I done so back then, I wouldn't have ended up buying a licence in the first place because in the end I didn't purchase a television set.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
Not so.
You did not pay a fee to use TV receiving equipment. You paid a fee for a Licence which authorises you to use TV receiving equipment.
There's a very significant difference.
It is entirely a matter for you whether or not you choose to excercise the permission granted to you by a Licence.
You might hold a variety of Licences, which might authorise you to do various regulated activities, but holding a Licence doesn't require you to do those activities. Conversely, if you don't take the opportunity to do anything you've been authorised to do as a Licence holder, you have no basis to claim that an unused Licence should be retrospectively refunded.
Its what its called - a Licence; a permission; an authorisation to do something; and you chose to request one, you paid for one and you received one. You could have used it while it was valid.
You are technically right, although advanced motoring groups will say that unless there's a good reason NOT to drive at the limit, you should try and drive at it - as you will hinder other motorists. You can't drive at 10mph because you're so early for your meeting, for example.
You should be able to tell when you need to slow down, for weather, visibility etc - and few people should ever just drive at the limit (or their own 'comfortable' speed) in autopilot mode, as sadly so many do.
Luckily all vehicle speedos are required to over read - usually by around 3-4mph - so most people won't accidentally nudge over at all (they are legally able to overread, but not under read by anything). In fact, most people probably drive too slow without realising they have a safety margin.
And those that do get caught probably keep wondering why they're done for a lower speed than they 'knew' they were doing. They either think they were lucky, or the police got it wrong. No; the police have the calibrated equipment (and speedos).
FWIW, the police are likely to show more discretion than a fixed camera, and everyone I know within the police don't really consider speeding to be as evil as the last Government made out (when GATSOs became a great way to make money, especially for people earning good salaries on 'Safety Camera Partnerships'.. not for profit, naturally, but that didn't mean there weren't great salaries to earn, and probably expenses too). Inappropriate speeding is what is dangerous, not merely doing 35 in a 30, or 80 in a 70.
Anyway, back to TV licenses...!
The road may be derestricted but that doesn't mean you can take all bends at 60 mph.
Broken Viking
On Moderation
Actually, I see the point that ye are making. If I bought a rod licence to allow me to fish and then decided not to go fishing at all during the Winter because the local lakes were frozen over, I wouldn't get a refund on the three months where I had chosen not to fish!
And on top of that; Having six months of paid TV Licence under my belt could be handy for licensing and certain end-user rights purposes too...
A quick question about speedometers:
Because of the higher order speeds that I am used to comprehending, I would find a speedometer reading in miles per second easier to use than one reading in the usual miles per hour scale. Would taking a second-hand speedometer, adjusting it to read in these measurements, and using such a speedometer be within the Law?
I only ask because most speedos can't display speeds above 140mph, whereas one reading up to 180miles/sec would be able to register any and all speeds between 0mph and 648,000mph - Which fits my usual speed range a little better...
Try telling me that when I'm driving along the twistier bits of the WCML in a 370...
That was my point. You drive at the most appropriate speed for the conditions, but when there isn't a bend and clear visibility then you can quite happily, and safely, drive at 60mph and don't simply decide to do 30mph because it suits you (and annoys the hell out of those behind you).
If speed was a killer, I should be locked up instantly for having driven at over 150mph last Summer on various motorways.
If this was on a UK motorway you are lucky to not have been banned.
- Status