TV Licence

[Kier]

Really? I doubt that. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

The fact that they are sent in their name perhaps? If the BBC are putting one of their trading names to a letter and making out like they are sent from them surely they will stipulate the content or at the very least approve it?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

The fact that they are sent in their name perhaps? If the BBC are putting one of their trading names to a letter and making out like they are sent from them surely they will stipulate the content or at the very least approve it?

They aren't though, are they? All the BBC have done is register a trademark for whom ever they choose to contract the licensing to. Quite common when contractors are used because it means there are no arguments over who owns the trademark - it can simply be passed to the new contractor. No letters are sent in the BBC's name - they are sent from Capita Business Services using TV Licensing trademark. They aren't 'making out like they are sent from them'. In fact, the TV licensing website makes it pretty clear that whilst the BBC are legally obliged to run some sort of scheme for it, they have sub-contracted it.

 

[Kier]

They aren't though, are they? All the BBC have done is register a trademark for whom ever they choose to contract the licensing to. Quite common when contractors are used because it means there are no arguments over who owns the trademark - it can simply be passed to the new contractor. No letters are sent in the BBC's name - they are sent from Capita Business Services using TV Licensing trademark. They aren't 'making out like they are sent from them'. In fact, the TV licensing website makes it pretty clear that whilst the BBC are legally obliged to run some sort of scheme for it, they have sub-contracted it.

So you think the BBC just lets Capita use their registered name and lets them send out whatever letters they want under it?

As TV Licensing is a registered name of the BBC, the letters are from the BBC in effect.

 

[table38]

It used to be said that the van detected stray frequencies from the line output circuitry, which a PVR wouldn't have.

See also Tiny ElectroMagnetic Particles Emitting Secret Things

 

[Kier]

There is no such thing as detection. If there was, why would they have to come and knock on doors?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n54_XK77vX8 This shows how to deal with one of their officers and how much power they have.

I do condemn evading the licence illegally, it is not fair that people pay and others don't. But if you are a non TV viewer like myself you should be allowed to exist without the BBC threatening you at evey opportunity.

 

[Greenback]

The licence fee is excellent value. The system is not perfect but regular letters need to be sent as circumstances may change. You might not have a TV on Tuesday, but you might well buy one on Thursday.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So you think the BBC just lets Capita use their registered name and lets them send out whatever letters they want under it?

As TV Licensing is a registered name of the BBC, the letters are from the BBC in effect.

I shall say it again, hopefully for the last time. The letters are not sent by the BBC. They are sent by Capita Business Services under licence from the Beeb. You claimed that the BBC vet every letter. Either back that statement up with evidence, or withdraw it.

 

[starrymarkb]

And the licence fee goes to Central Government who distribute it as they see fit, in the past all the money went to the BBC but IIRC some now goes to Channel 4 and I believe the governments local TV licensees may receive some.

 

[Chew Chew]

I'm not going to say that I've never went without a period of not having a licence because I went for years without having one but I actually think that it is pretty good value for money.

The BBC bouquet of TV channels and radio stations are certainly the ones I watch/listen to most frequently.

It is all well and good to say that every channel should be solely funded by commercials but then the BBC would serve up mush like The Only Way Is Essex and the Jordan and Peter Andre programmes because they are cheap to make and, pardon the expression, "idiots watch them". The likes of BBC4 would never be possible if solely funded by commercials.

 

[Barn]

I shall say it again, hopefully for the last time. The letters are not sent by the BBC. They are sent by Capita Business Services under licence from the Beeb. You claimed that the BBC vet every letter. Either back that statement up with evidence, or withdraw it.

Ralph, they are the BBC's authorised agents. So they are 'from' the BBC even if indirectly.

 

[MikeWh]

I shall say it again, hopefully for the last time. The letters are not sent by the BBC. They are sent by Capita Business Services under licence from the Beeb. You claimed that the BBC vet every letter. Either back that statement up with evidence, or withdraw it.

Look at this another way. Of course the BBC don't vet every single individual letter sent out on every day. There will be an agreed system with letters that will have been agreed with the BBC for each stage of that system. Capita will run a mail merge between an address list and the agreed template letter to generate that days output of letters. Apart from the personal data, the letters will all be the same as each other and it's the common bits that the BBC will have vetted.

 

[O L Leigh]

But if you are a non TV viewer like myself you should be allowed to exist without the BBC threatening you at evey opportunity.

Hang on. Are you saying you don't watch or record broadcast TV at all or simply that you don't watch the BBC? This isn't clear.

If it's the latter then I'm afraid you are still liable for the licence fee. You might as well start getting your money's worth out of it and find something on the Beeb that you enjoy, even if it is just the news coverage.

O L Leigh

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Look at this another way. Of course the BBC don't vet every single individual letter sent out on every day. There will be an agreed system with letters that will have been agreed with the BBC for each stage of that system. Capita will run a mail merge between an address list and the agreed template letter to generate that days output of letters. Apart from the personal data, the letters will all be the same as each other and it's the common bits that the BBC will have vetted.

We haven't seen any proof of that happening either. I doubt anyone at the BBC authorises template letters - otherwise what's the point of contracting it?


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Ralph, they are the BBC's authorised agents. So they are 'from' the BBC even if indirectly.

That's rather like saying you get a letter from the Queen every time HMRC send you one.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Barn]

That's rather like saying you get a letter from the Queen every time HMRC send you one.


Sent from my iPhone 4 using Tapatalk

Whereas your argument is like getting a letter from HMRC and treating it as from the firm that does the printing and mailing.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Whereas your argument is like getting a letter from HMRC and treating it as from the firm that does the printing and mailing.

No, it's like getting a letter from HMRC and treating it as from HMRC as they are the ones that do the administration and enforcement.

 

[hantsman1205]

So you think the BBC just lets Capita use their registered name and lets them send out whatever letters they want under it?

As TV Licensing is a registered name of the BBC, the letters are from the BBC in effect.

The BBC don't care, they just want the money to keep rolling in. Capita are contracted to get the money in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I bet you'd all complain if they didn't send out warnings and the first you new about it was a summons to Court. They can't win!

I suggest people heed O L Leigh's advice - that's if you want to go down the mature and sensible route.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Apparently magnetic fields or something like that. No idea how it all works, but they have handheld thingamajigs as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not entirely correct. Evidence from a detector van would probably not be admissible in court, but it would certainly help them pinpoint householders to take to court through other conventional methods. So whilst they would not be convicted on the evidence from the van, they would probably not be brought to court without it either.

Not one single person has ever been convicted in a court using TV dectector van evidence. While there may be an odd van, they have no means to detect.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Not one single person has ever been convicted in a court using TV dectector van evidence. While there may be an odd van, they have no means to detect.

Did you actually read my post? I said that people wouldn't be convicted on the basis of detector van evidence because AFAIK it's inadmissible in court!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

they have no means to detect.

Are you sure about that? Do you have any evidence? There certainly are ways they can detect TV's being used.

 

[hantsman1205]

Did you actually read my post? I said that people wouldn't be convicted on the basis of detector van evidence because AFAIK it's inadmissible in court!

I did read it, it won't even pin point them, or to be used with other evidence.

Its a complete urban myth that TVL and some people like to spread. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Did you actually read my post? I said that people wouldn't be convicted on the basis of detector van evidence because AFAIK it's inadmissible in court!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Are you sure about that? Do you have any evidence? There certainly are ways they can detect TV's being used.

Ralph have you any connection to the BBC, TVL?

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I did read it, it won't even pin point them, or to be used with other evidence.

Its a complete urban myth that TVL and some people like to spread. :roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Ralph have you any connection to the BBC, TVL?

Surprisingly I don't. There are methods to detect TV's - if you don't want to believe it then don't, but it's difficult to deny scientific fact.

 

[hantsman1205]

Surprisingly I don't. There are methods to detect TV's - if you don't want to believe it then don't, but it's difficult to deny scientific fact.

Neither TVL nor the BBC have any scientific equipmemt to detect unlicenced TV's. If they did and used it in court you could ask to see the evidence. FOI requests have revealed they have never done so.

The only method they have reallly if you don't let them in, is what comes out of your own mouth. TVL/Capita salesman have been know to lie quite often to get their £20 commision to sell you a licence.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Neither TVL nor the BBC have any scientific equipmemt to detect unlicenced TV's. If they did and used it in court you could ask to see the evidence. FOI requests have revealed they have never done so.

Again, you have no evidence to prove your point. In an FOI request the BBC inadvertently revealed that they had made 32 applications to use detector vans. They complained to the ICO and this was removed from the FOI material.

But that's not all. The Decision Notice made the following finding of fact:

13. The information being withheld consists of 32 documents which include the following information:
• Authorisations of detection of television receivers from outside residential or other premises;
• Internal emails and file notes which relate to the request and other similar requests;
• Other internal TV licensing documents.

The Information Commissioner indicates that there were fewer than 32 authorisations for the use of detectors. This disclosure may have provoked an irate reaction from the BBC, since a later Decision Notice, again relating to detector vans and virtually identical to the one above, omits the number of detector authorisations. Examine it here.

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector vans.htm
TVL are subject to RIPA when using the vans.
Scientifically speaking, TV detection is possible.

The only method they have reallly if you don't let them in, is what comes out of your own mouth.

Nope - they'll obtain a search warrant if they have reasonable grounds to believe you are using your TV illegally.

TVL/Capita salesman have been know to lie quite often to get their £20 commision to sell you a licence.

Some TVL officers are self employed and thus earn £20 on direct debits and £18 on payment there and then. To state they lie in order to earn commission is at best factually incorrect.

 

[hantsman1205]

Again, you have no evidence to prove your point. In an FOI request the BBC inadvertently revealed that they had made 32 applications to use detector vans. They complained to the ICO and this was removed from the FOI material.

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Detector vans.htm
TVL are subject to RIPA when using the vans.
Scientifically speaking, TV detection is possible.

Nope - they'll obtain a search warrant if they have reasonable grounds to believe you are using your TV illegally.

Some TVL officers are self employed and thus earn £20 on direct debits and £18 on payment there and then. To state they lie in order to earn commission is at best factually incorrect.

Digital Spy Ralph?

 

[NSEFAN]

I can't see there being such things as actual TV detector vans. They might have worked in "the olden days" when everyone had noisy CRT sets and houses weren't so full of electronic devices, but nowadays we are surrounded by electronic noise. Either way, you would need to some seriously accurate detectors and filters to get the position narrowed down to a particular house in a street (especially in a built up area).

Such accurate equipment would come at a hefty price. Given the cost of one van, I can't see the BBC ever wanting to fork out for a fleet of detector vans to snoop on the population. There can't be THAT many licence evaders out there! Furthermore, there are other ways to keep an eye on who's not paid.

When I worked in PC World part time, our system asked for a name and adress whenever we tried to sell a TV. Unless you entered something it wouldn't let the sale go through. I later found out that we were allegedly required to take these details by law "for TV licencing purposes". It was interesting when someone tried to buy a USB TV antenna to take home to Australia!

 

[causton]

Bought a TV from Sainsbury's for my parents using a self-serve checkout... nobody knew whether I had to fill in a form or not! They said 'wait here for just a minute' - I waited ten minutes, they didn't come back, so I just left with it. Don't know who holds the responsibility if it is apparently a legal MUST that they take down your name and address!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Digital Spy Ralph?

WTF? What's "Digital Spy Ralph?" supposed to mean. If you're insinuating that I have copied any posts then you are severely mistaken.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Such accurate equipment would come at a hefty price. Given the cost of one van, I can't see the BBC ever wanting to fork out for a fleet of detector vans to snoop on the population. There can't be THAT many licence evaders out there! Furthermore, there are other ways to keep an eye on who's not paid.

They recently revealed that they had placed an order for 5 vans.

 

[LLF]

The licence is to have TV receiving equipment in your home.

The need for a licence is decided on the ability to watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.

No it's not.

From the TV Licensing Website:-

"You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast."

"If you don’t watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV, on any device, you don’t need a TV Licence."

the BBC do not want to be associated with collecting it, hence they use the brand name "TV Licensing" which many people incorrectly think of as a separate organisation.

That's correct.

From the TV Licensing Website:-

"TV Licensing" is a trade mark used by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system."

"The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility."

As I said enforcement officers are nothing more than salesman with no powers to enter

True.

From the Visiting Procedures Manual:-

"1.2 When making a visit, EOs are expected to:-

6. only enter a property when given permission.

and you are under no obligation whatsoever to speak to them or answer their questions.

True again.

From the Visiting Procedures Manual:-

"1.2 When making a visit, EOs are expected to:-

5. never threaten or intimidate and to stop the enquiry if asked to leave."

If you refuse to cooperate he will simply assume that you have something to hide and escalate the enforcement process to the next level.

The "enforcement process", such as it is, cannot be "escalated" with evidence of evasion.

It is up to you to prove non-liability.

No it's not. Remember "innocent until proven guilty".

From the Visiting Procedures Manual:-

"Proof “beyond reasonable doubt"

1.1 Any person accused of a criminal offence has the right to have the evidence against them tested in a court of law. Generally they need not submit a defence. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that an offence was committed and that the accused is, in law, guilty of that offence."

They have the power to take statements, and under PACE are required to caution you before doing so.

And you have the power to refuse, and to close the door.

If you have equipment that can view or record live TV broadcasts, but is not used for that, you do not need a TV license

Correct.

From the TV Licensing Website:-

"The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.

You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ‘catch up’ services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD."

That is not a BBC or TV Licensing website and none of the letters claim to be from the BBC.

The BBC are TV Licensing.

"TV Licensing" is a trade mark used by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system."

"The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility."

I bet you'd all complain if they didn't send out warnings and the first you new about it was a summons to Court.

They can't get a summons without evidence, so a summons wouldn't be "the first you knew".

However retailers supposedly provide returns on the tunable equipment they sell

No "supposedly". They do.

Of course, there's no compulsion for you to give the correct details.

I understand Mr Paul Willars of 100 Temple Street, Bristol, BS98 1TL, buys a lot of TVs.

And a quote from that page:


I think it's safe to say they are contracted to run the TV Licensing scheme!

You missed out:-

"The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility."

The letters and visits are on behalf of the BBC.

Likewise, if you make a FOI request about TV Licensing, you send it to (surprise surprise ), the BBC.

Really? I doubt that. Do you have any evidence to back that up?

From the BBC Trust Review of TV Licence Fee Collection 2009:-

"The BBC Executive and its TV Licensing contractors need to use their research and knowledge of the characteristics and behaviour of evaders to revisit the enforcement model to develop ways of increasing the contact rate."

If the BBC do not have any control over the actions of Capita, how can they "revisit the enforcement model" ?

In fact, the TV licensing website makes it pretty clear that whilst the BBC are legally obliged to run some sort of scheme for it, they have sub-contracted it.

Did you miss:-

"The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility."

Hang on. Are you saying you or simply that you don't watch the BBC?

Although this question wasn't addressed to me, I'll answer it, WRT myself.

Yes. I don't watch or record broadcast TV at all.

Not one single person has ever been convicted in a court using TV dectector van evidence.

That's correct, and has been confirmed by the BBC, in a FOI response:-

"In your request for information, reference RFI20101715, you asked:

“Whether or not evidence obtained by detector van/portable detection equipment has ever been presented in court during the prosecution of an alleged licence fee evader.”

Following the Internal review of your request IR2011006 I am happy to supply you with the following answer.

I can confirm that TVL has not, to date, used detection evidence in Court."

They recently revealed that they had placed an order for 5 vans.

But what equipment was ordered to go inside them?
_________________________________________________

NB. Other that Proof “beyond reasonable doubt", all emphasis is mine

 

[ralphchadkirk]

"The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility."

They retain overall responsibility because they are the ones legally obliged to run the scheme - as I have said many times now!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

"The BBC Executive and its TV Licensing contractors need to use their research and knowledge of the characteristics and behaviour of evaders to revisit the enforcement model to develop ways of increasing the contact rate."

If the BBC do not have any control over the actions of Capita, how can they "revisit the enforcement model" ?

Clearly it says "and its TV Licensing contractors". The BBC are only involved because they own the database. Capita do the rest.

 

[Barn]

The key point is that while a public body can ask subcontractors to carry out activities for it, Ralph, that does not in any way absolve the body of any liability. That is one of the risks of subcontracting: retain liability, lose day-to-day control. One cannot simply say 'nothing to do with me, blame my subcontractor'.

 

[hantsman1205]

WTF? What's "Digital Spy Ralph?" supposed to mean. If you're insinuating that I have copied any posts then you are severely mistaken.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


They recently revealed that they had placed an order for 5 vans.

They may well have, but there will be no equipment inside. Its all to keep the urban myth going. :roll: Ralph you seem very pro the BBC do you want to declare any interest now? +