Cancelling a TV licence - are they taking the ****?

[Funk]

I took stock recently and realised I watch very little as it airs any more; much of my viewing is done via 'catch-up' services as my laptop is now connected to my TV which is used as a 42" monitor. I've already cancelled my Sky subscription as I was paying some £300+ a year for something I rarely used. I looked at getting a FreeSat box recently (and thanks if you were one of the people who replied in the thread) but I thought more about it and decided that I still wouldn't be watching stuff as it airs and the main content on FreeSat is BBC, ITV, C4 etc (ie. not 'payable' channels such as Sky1 etc). I can watch all of these later on iPlayer, 4oD etc.

Rather than spend £200 on a FreeSat box that records, I've now thought about cancelling my TV licence completely. Some people will doubtless scoff and call me a liar, but I genuinely don't watch much live TV. The little I do watch I'll quite happily delay by a few hours and watch on iPlayer or similar.

So I went to the TV Licensing site and went through the cancellation procedure, only to be confronted with this at the end:

TV Licensing said:

Include your printed and signed application form and a photocopy of relevant evidence, to show that you no longer require a licence, in an envelope.
Examples of evidence include a photocopy of:
Final utility bill (Gas / Electricity / Water only)
Council Tax bill
Confirmation of college terms
Property Bill of Sale or confirmation
Solicitor's letter on headed paper
Letter from hospital or care home confirming admission
Re-direction confirmation letter from the Post Office
Tenancy Agreement

This seems stupid to me - what 'evidence' does the above provide in demonstrating that I no longer want to watch live TV? Why should I have to provide a utility bill or council tax bill to Capita? Why can't the process be carried out through the website? It takes you through a long online form, then tells you you have to print it out and send it - with a photocopy of the 'evidence' - by post to them.

What a stupid, stupid system. How do you prove a negative? I've half a mind to just stop the DD, as I'm sure I'll get the threatening letters with big red writing either way.

Should I just send the printed form back with the licence enclosed? I don't see why I should a) have to explain myself to them or b) give them other personal information.

Edited by Funk on Saturday 10th December 15:49

[Funk]

Thanks chaps. I'll ring them Monday.

On a side note, do they have the right to send someone round to 'inspect' your property to see whether you have anything connected? I won't, but I'd consider it a bit 'off' for a private company to insist on access to my home in order to 'prove the negative' (ie. I don't have an aerial connected to my TV etc).

[Funk]

I'd be happy to prove that I've cancelled my Sky subs. But no other company has ever requested access to my home for anything and I just feel it's a bit heavy-handed and 'guilty until proven innocent'.

[Funk]

Out of all the BBC's output, the only things I'd make a point of watching on iPlayer would be Top Gear and Prime Minister's Questions. I've said it before on PH, but it's a point worth making again; I really don't feel that the BBC produces anything for 'me' as it were. I used to watch The Apprentice, but even that's become pretty boring and formulaic over the years. Would you suggest that I pay £145 a year to watch 6 episodes of Top Gear?

As for making online TV chargeable, no, I wouldn't agree with that. I think the BBC should be broken up into segments, with a core, unbiased news and public information service - perhaps one single channel. The rest should be left to fend for itself like all the other commercial channels do through advertising. Actually, with all broadcasts going digital in the next year or so, it'd be easy enough to turn off BBC output to those who don't want it.

Given that none of the other broadcasters benefit from the licence fee, I don't see why one should be branded 'criminal' and fined for watching commercial output. The current system serves the BBC best, forcing everyone to pay for stuff even if they don't want to watch what they're paying for. It's antiquated and out-dated, but the turkey will never vote for Christmas.

Edited by Funk on Saturday 10th December 23:21

[Funk]

Timbuk2 said:

I agree, £18.188 an episode is a bit steep - it depends how much you like the show.

Would you go out and buy each one individually on BluRay at that price? I'd rather not. However, as it stands it's fine to watch it a couple of hours later online for free, and I'm not that desperate to watch it when it airs.

Does that make me a bad person?

[Funk]

I'm going to disagree I'm afraid. I don't feel that the BBC produces anything that I really want to watch any more. I don't listen to the radio, I have my own choice of music in the car. I don't agree with the BBC having an agenda when it should be impartial. I don't feel my licence fee is value for money and I don't want to support their biased views.

If, as it stands, it is legal to watch something on iPlayer and not require a licence fee then I have no issue with that. As I mentioned earlier, there really isn't very much I'll watch anyway.

Phoned today and my licence is now cancelled.

[Funk]

I'll have a word with my postman about TV licence mail if it gets silly, he's pretty good about it already and doesn't deliver junk at my request.

Re. watching iPlayer, no you don't needed a licence; you only need one if you're watching or recording live broadcasts.

Edit: Oh, and despite cancelling over the phone, I still have to send in the form and 'evidence' (whatever that may be) in order to claim back credit I'm owed. They can't process that directly, she said. I'm sure they make that part deliberately awkward. Why can't they just refund me there and then to the account details they have been taking payment from?

I'll keep you posted on whether I get lots of threatening letters. Any suggestions as to what to do with any I do get?

Edited by Funk on Monday 12th December 19:41

[Funk]

It's pretty shocking that an organisation that represents a state-owned entity can behave in such a manner. Wouldn't it be classed as harassment?

[Funk]

jurbie said:

Start a website like this bloke?

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/

Bloody hell, that's unbelievable. Surely that constitutes harassment?

Ah well, I guess I have all those to look forward to. All because I don't want to watch TV.

[Funk]

peterbredde said:

surfymark said:

silverthorn2151 said:

As a matter of interest, what exactly do you make a point of watching on iplayer?

Would you consider it appropriate for BBC output to be pay to view on line?

I think I am with you on this. What the BBC produce is pretty good for £12/month (especially if you include the radio).

I feel it is morally wrong to watch anything produced by the BBC on iPlayer or any other means if you are not paying the licence.

It is operating on a trust basis and the more people cancelling their licence, the more rubbish our TV and Radio will become. The BBC is internationally renowned for their standards and I for one am proud of this. They are not exactly awash with cash generally and it is not exactly a huge amount IMO.

Having said that the Capita waste needs to be got rid of but perhaps this is exactly why it is needed. Who would bother having a licence if no-one came to check at all.

Sorry if I come across all high and mighty but as I get older I am getting more and more fed up of a society that seems to be driven by what can we get away with as opposed to what is actually right.

M

Agreed. I live abroad at present where all TV is subscription. And it's all crap, regardless of what package you choose. And I was in the states for some time this year where TV is shockingly crap. My time away from the UK has made me realise just how good value the licence fee in the UK is.

That's all well and good, but I'm not watching any of it, so why should I pay for it? As stated earlier, the BBC makes so little that interests me, I'm happy to go without (or catch up on the odd thing here and there legally via iPlayer later on).

[Funk]

sinizter said:

surfymark said:

So basically you are now using the iPlayer while I am paying for it. Is that ok? So when the other hundreds, maybe thousands of people do the same as you, my licence fee goes up. Is that fair?

You say that you are not watching anything the BBC makes, yet you freely admit to using the iPlayer. Obviously, you do like some of the stuff made by the BBC. I believe you should contribute to the cost of making it.

I like the River Cottage series on Channel 4.
I like many other American series aired on other channels.
I like movies on Film 4.
I do not contribute to the cost of making any of them.

Why should I be forced to pay for the production costs of one channel ?

Don't roll out the ad-supported argument - I don't actually watch any ads on any of these programs. And couldn't care less if BBC opted to begin showing ads and not forcing people to pay, in effect, a subscription fee.

I agree. Would surfymark willingly pay £12 a month to subsidise Sky if he didn't watch it? No, of course not. I made the point earlier that I watch so little of the BBC's output that I don't believe I get VFM from it, nor would I miss it if I didn't have it. They can turn iPlayer off for me if they wish, it wouldn't cause me to suddenly decide to pay the licence fee to receive it. I'm not desperate to watch the handful of programmes such as TG and PMQs. I'll quite happily do without.

In a digital world, there's no reason why they can't prevent people from watching certain channels or having access to particular websites. Want to make the BBC only available to licence payers? Fine, I have no problem with that - turn off the channels digitally like Sky did with my Sky box. Don't want me to have access to the iPlayer service because I don't have a licence? No problem, issue a PIN with the licence fee that you must input into iPlayer in order to access it. However, why should the other channels suffer because I choose not to pay the BBC (which is what TVL is)? I would now be illegally watching ITV, Channel 4 etc because I've chosen not to pay a TV tax. I can watch them online, and they make me watch adverts in order to cover their costs.

The TV tax is out-dated and unnecessary; the only reason it hasn't been overhauled is because the BBC knows that the £3.5bn it receives each year would tumble as people - if given the option - would choose to decline to receive those channels.

[Funk]

surfymark said:

Personally I don't want ads on the BBC and happy to pay the licence fee for this. If you don't want to pay the licence fee then don't, but don't expect to watch stuff completely for free with a clear conscience. It all has to be paid for somehow.

M

Surely a conscience should only be 'un-clear' if there is any wrong-doing; at present - whether you agree or not - it is fine to watch any 'catch-up' service including iPlayer even if you choose not to have a TV licence. Would you say that I should not listen to BBC radio if I don't have a TV licence? After all, it costs to produce, yet I'm allowed to listen to it not just after it's broadcast, but live (unlike TV). Is listening to BBC radio also 'morally wrong' in your eyes? Remember that the BBC also broadcasts its radio output around the world online too, and those listeners aren't paying a licence fee.

I refer you back to my earlier point; there is little I wish to watch, and if it were removed (ie. iPlayer made illegal to view without a licence) then I would not watch it.

surfymark said:

The thing is that the BBC is a public nationalised service that happens to be paid for by a tax. At which point do you stop. Why do I pay tax that goes towards putting people in Council Houses? Why do people with no children pay tax that goes towards schools etc? Because that is what our representatives have voted for.

A TV licence is not - yet - a mandatory requirement. Income tax etc are. If you had the choice not to support layabout chavs who were simply milking the system, would you do so? I know I would.

surfymark said:

If your argument for not paying a tax is that you don't use the service that this tax is used for then you cannot then, with a clear conscience, use that service at all. Yes it is legal but really that is a loophole. The argument that you can save some money by changing your viewing habits but not actually stopping using the service is pretty ridiculous really.

See my point in my first paragraph re. radio.. Does your accountant encourage you to maximise or minimise your taxes by using legal procedures? Would you say that someone who practices tax avoidance should not be allowed to use a hospital or send their children to school? If by changing a habit I can legally save money, why should that be wrong? I keep returning to this fact, but there really is only about 40 hours of BBC output annually that I really like to watch - TG and PMQs. I already watch PMQs on catch-up as I'm at work in the day, so it's really only TG that I would watch live. Can you not see why I'm a little perplexed as to why I'm paying the same as someone who watches thousands of hours of BBC output annually? The quality of content has declined so severely over the years, perhaps people 'switching off' their payments and their viewing will send a message that they're not making anything a lot of us want to watch.

surfymark said:

Sky is a completely different thing as it is a commercial venture and is designed to make money. The BBC is really just covering costs, there is no profit here. I do in fact have Sky (although am thinking of cancelling it) and it is costing me a lot lot more than £12/month and is nowhere near the quality of the BBC (plus it has adverts).

If you want the BBC to turn commercial then start a campaign or something. Personally I am very happy with the way it is and I imagine a lot of other people are too (otherwise I think things would have changed by now).

M

I would have no issue with 95% of the BBC being commercialised (indeed, a large chunk of it already is as it sells and buys TV programmes around the world). I would advocate the retention of one, single ad-free channel for public service broadcasting and news. This should be paid from general taxes, rather than the costly process that collects money at present. As long as it were genuinely impartial, I would have no issue with it. The rest can fend for itself on merit; if enough people want to watch it, then it will succeed standing on its own two feet.

The BBC and powers-that-be know that it would not be able to do so, and as such they plough ahead with the outdated 'blanket' licence fee system through Capita. I am glad that it is still optional.

Edited by Funk on Tuesday 13th December 16:22

[Funk]

Or the 'other' alternative - which is to watch none of it. And the route I'm happy to take.

Using the political debates as an example, I don't see how they offered any real 'substance' to any of the positions; arguably it's what lost CMD the election as it gave disproportionate airtime and visibility to a party that was very much a minority up to then. Without those televised debates, it's entirely possible the Tories might have won an outright victory.

Certainly I don't think the debates were useful or informative; it was just a sequence of soundbites and mild snarkiness.