TV licensing (Capita) impersonating police officers?
Discussion
Red Devil said:
Russian Troll Bot said:
Had a couple of letters through but they are thoughtful enough to put their logo on the envelope, which means they can go straight in the recycling.
Really? That's highly unusual. I can't remember the last one I received with the TVL logo on the envelope.Certainly not within the last 3 years, quite likely longer. If you get one without it, the giveaway is on the back.
Return address
Darlington
DL98 1AT
Russian Troll Bot said:
Maybe it's because I already filled out the no licence needed form. But whilst at my sister's house babysitting I, quite legally, logged into iPlayer so started getting emails from them saying I was no longer covered. However it's not my responsibility to prove my innocence, so I ceased all communication and will ignore anything/anyone else they send.
Quite possibly, because when you register an account to be able to use iPlayer it asks you for a postcode.If that is the one attached to your home address and the BBC/TVL is matching the log in to the database of licensed addresses, the fact that you have gone NLN will give it indigestion.
If so, like most things to do with the BBC/TVL it's a total clusterf
k because it completely fails to account for the fact that you might be visiting a correctly licensed address.If your sister's house is in that category then any visitor can lawfully be watching live broadcasts/iPlayer/etc. - https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ108
A single licence also covers multiple receivers at that address.
.
The sooner the government accepts that this archaic method needs to be replaced by something more suited to the 21st century the better.
Either a subscription model (don't pay, can't watch) or do away with the licence altogether (like Australia did 45 years ago).
Red Devil said:
Russian Troll Bot said:
Had a couple of letters through but they are thoughtful enough to put their logo on the envelope, which means they can go straight in the recycling.
Really? That's highly unusual. I can't remember the last one I received with the TVL logo on the envelope.Certainly not within the last 3 years, quite likely longer. If you get one without it, the giveaway is on the back.
Return address
Darlington
DL98 1AT
Red Devil said:
Russian Troll Bot said:
Maybe it's because I already filled out the no licence needed form. But whilst at my sister's house babysitting I, quite legally, logged into iPlayer so started getting emails from them saying I was no longer covered. However it's not my responsibility to prove my innocence, so I ceased all communication and will ignore anything/anyone else they send.
Quite possibly, because when you register an account to be able to use iPlayer it asks you for a postcode.If that is the one attached to your home address and the BBC/TVL is matching the log in to the database of licensed addresses, the fact that you have gone NLN will give it indigestion.
If so, like most things to do with the BBC/TVL it's a total clusterf
k because it completely fails to account for the fact that you might be visiting a correctly licensed address.If your sister's house is in that category then any visitor can lawfully be watching live broadcasts/iPlayer/etc. - https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ108
A single licence also covers multiple receivers at that address.
.
The sooner the government accepts that this archaic method needs to be replaced by something more suited to the 21st century the better.
Either a subscription model (don't pay, can't watch) or do away with the licence altogether (like Australia did 45 years ago).
Red Devil said:
Really? That's highly unusual. I can't remember the last one I received with the TVL logo on the envelope.
Certainly not within the last 3 years, quite likely longer. If you get one without it, the giveaway is on the back.
It's almost like they know it will go straight in the bin as soon as you see the logo..Certainly not within the last 3 years, quite likely longer. If you get one without it, the giveaway is on the back.
They once (20yrs ago) sent me a registered letter but I wasn't in so the postman put a card through the door. I went to the post office to sign for it and when the guy produced it I saw the logo and decided I really didn't want it badly enough to sign for it! Nice try though I thought..
I was working at my unoccupied property this weekend. I'd previously notified them by post that it was unoccupied, as their threatening letters were stressing out Mrs P and I just couldn't be bothered to have the discussion a further time.
This stopped the letters for a while but they had sent through a "reminder" letter that the property wasn't licensed. This has really annoyed me as I thought that informing them was supposed to give us 2 years without the harassment.
This stopped the letters for a while but they had sent through a "reminder" letter that the property wasn't licensed. This has really annoyed me as I thought that informing them was supposed to give us 2 years without the harassment.
PhilboSE said:
I was working at my unoccupied property this weekend. I'd previously notified them by post that it was unoccupied, as their threatening letters were stressing out Mrs P and I just couldn't be bothered to have the discussion a further time.
Do women get disproportionately get affected by this?The letters are deliberately designed to intimidate. It's only when you read the wording carefully that you notice the caveats.
If you don't (legally) need a licence it's just a lot of hot air. There is no compulsion on anyone to communicate with TVL (which is the BBC wearing a mask).
The BBC also has a unique definition of customer. It includes everyone, including those who are not within it ambit.
PhilboSE said:
This stopped the letters for a while but they had sent through a "reminder" letter that the property wasn't licensed. This has really annoyed me as I thought that informing them was supposed to give us 2 years without the harassment.
Correct. You may find this of interest.Shuvi McTupya said:
I would love to see their budget for sending out this constant stream of harassment letters free toilet paper, it must be bloody massive!
FTFY. 
I'm perfectly well aware of the law (TheCommunications Act 2003 and The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004).
I don't need reminding every month. The BBC can make whatever assumptions it wants, that's it's choice.
The letters are just noise and one more item of junk mail as far as I am concerned. No need whatsoever to get stressed about them.
I haven't had a TV Licence for over 40 years. I'm totally anonymous and choose to remain that way.
In contrast, I have a D/L but even the DVLA doesn't constantly pester me about whether I might own and use a vehicle.
Red Devil said:
In contrast, I have a D/L but even the DVLA doesn't constantly pester me about whether I might own and use a vehicle.
I have a license to drive a car but not a motorbike or an HGV. Thankfully the DVLA do not feel the need to constantly remind me of the requirements to update my license should i want to drive a vehicle I am not licensed to drive!
PhilboSE said:
I
This stopped the letters for a while but they had sent through a "reminder" letter that the property wasn't licensed. This has really annoyed me as I thought that informing them was supposed to give us 2 years without the harassment.
This is why I do not see the point of communicating with them. The letter says 'let us know and we can update our records....' but adds 'we may still confirm this (no licence needed) with a visit'.This stopped the letters for a while but they had sent through a "reminder" letter that the property wasn't licensed. This has really annoyed me as I thought that informing them was supposed to give us 2 years without the harassment.
So if they are threatening to visit whether you contact them or not, why bother?
jondude said:
This is why I do not see the point of communicating with them. The letter says 'let us know and we can update our records....' but adds 'we may still confirm this (no licence needed) with a visit'.
So if they are threatening to visit whether you contact them or not, why bother?
If I was designing the system to catch people without a licence then I would schedule far more visits and send far more letters to people who were not responding, than those who had completed a 'not required' declaration.So if they are threatening to visit whether you contact them or not, why bother?
Sure in the second 'not required' group there are likely to be some people who were not telling the truth so of course you would design in some visits to check - if only to provide some comparison statistics and make sure those telling fibs were not increasing.
However in the first group almost everyone in it will be people who need a licence but haven't bought one because can't bothered or can't afford it, plus a small smattering of people like you who don't need one.
So which group do you want to be in - The one which gets a small amount of resource dedicated to letters and visits, or the group which gets almost all the resource?
PF62 said:
So which group do you want to be in - The one which gets a small amount of resource dedicated to letters and visits, or the group which gets almost all the resource?
I want to be in the group who are not hassled and bullied into financially supporting the state broadcaster under threat of imprisonment.Oh, that's not an option, sorry
Shuvi McTupya said:
PF62 said:
So which group do you want to be in - The one which gets a small amount of resource dedicated to letters and visits, or the group which gets almost all the resource?
I want to be in the group who are not hassled and bullied into financially supporting the state broadcaster under threat of imprisonment.Oh, that's not an option, sorry
Don't like it then lobby your MP to do away with the TV licence and fund the BBC from central taxation.
PF62 said:
SNIP
Don't like it then lobby your MP to do away with the TV licence and fund the BBC from central taxation.
Why do taxpayers need to keep a bunch of journos and luvvies in employment? Don't like it then lobby your MP to do away with the TV licence and fund the BBC from central taxation.
What’s wrong with subscription? If people value the BBC’s output, they’ll pay for it. If enough people pay, it will be viable. If enough don’t why on earth should we be forced to pay for it?
psi310398 said:
What’s wrong with subscription? If people value the BBC’s output, they’ll pay for it. If enough people pay, it will be viable. If enough don’t why on earth should we be forced to pay for it?
Same as all public services, many have commercial offset and a commercial side. Everyone pays regardless of use. However they are centrally funded to allow them to deliver services that are not cost effective and to remove commercial influence. The TV Licence is, of course, designed to keep it independent of government as well. it's a government decision what is and isn't a public service and how it's funded. Lot's I disagree with I happen to agree with the BBC, I think the majority do as well. psi310398 said:
PF62 said:
SNIP
Don't like it then lobby your MP to do away with the TV licence and fund the BBC from central taxation.
Why do taxpayers need to keep a bunch of journos and luvvies in employment? Don't like it then lobby your MP to do away with the TV licence and fund the BBC from central taxation.
What’s wrong with subscription? If people value the BBC’s output, they’ll pay for it. If enough people pay, it will be viable. If enough don’t why on earth should we be forced to pay for it?
Anyway, you are not forced to pay for it - just don't watch live TV and don't buy a licence.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff