TV licensing (Capita) impersonating police officers?
Discussion
Mojooo said:
The BBC has 'public backing' though doesn't it as it is protected in law and soem may argue licence fee payers want non payers caught the same way we want train fare dodger caught...
Yes, but as in the example above we also want car insurance dodgers to be caught but we wouldn't accept that level of harassment from insurance companies, or transport police coming to your house and making you prove how you completed a recent journey without getting on a train.Had numerous run ins with the licensing goons over the years, don't simply blame the BBC there are numerous reasons why this law exists.
Quite ow they managed to convince the legal system that watching Iplayer is different to Prime, Netflix etc I don;t know, just goes to show what power the BBC have. I am also convinced by the way that HS2 has BBC links, remember when they moved to Salford...anyway
My team were based in Luton (so you know what type of people they are) and came out with a beauty after several letters and failed house visits.
They created a transaction out of thin air. Sent me a letter telling me I had bough a TV from this company (it did exist) so I just sent a bank statement to the licensing company in London and told them what was going on, received a full apology and was never bothered again.
Another thing they do is this: Lived in a house with 4 others, one guy was an Aussie, bought a telly from john Lewis cash, bought an HDMI cable from Maplin with a card, met him on the stairs about to go out weeks later and he gives me a cheque for a tv licence, we had already paid one for that year, where was the taking to each other then eh? Shocking that, they didn't know we had already, fancy that, imagine trying to get it refunded? Most would say f*** it.
They don't give a s
t how they get your money, they are corrupt, the Capita guys are jumped up bailiffs on commission for every licence sold, there are no detector vans, you don't have to let them in, they can't tell if you are watching Iplayer, and can't do anything anyway as it is a breach of data laws.
Whole licence is the BBC wool that has been pulled over your eyes for decades. Stop it.
Quite ow they managed to convince the legal system that watching Iplayer is different to Prime, Netflix etc I don;t know, just goes to show what power the BBC have. I am also convinced by the way that HS2 has BBC links, remember when they moved to Salford...anyway
My team were based in Luton (so you know what type of people they are) and came out with a beauty after several letters and failed house visits.
They created a transaction out of thin air. Sent me a letter telling me I had bough a TV from this company (it did exist) so I just sent a bank statement to the licensing company in London and told them what was going on, received a full apology and was never bothered again.
Another thing they do is this: Lived in a house with 4 others, one guy was an Aussie, bought a telly from john Lewis cash, bought an HDMI cable from Maplin with a card, met him on the stairs about to go out weeks later and he gives me a cheque for a tv licence, we had already paid one for that year, where was the taking to each other then eh? Shocking that, they didn't know we had already, fancy that, imagine trying to get it refunded? Most would say f*** it.
They don't give a s
t how they get your money, they are corrupt, the Capita guys are jumped up bailiffs on commission for every licence sold, there are no detector vans, you don't have to let them in, they can't tell if you are watching Iplayer, and can't do anything anyway as it is a breach of data laws.Whole licence is the BBC wool that has been pulled over your eyes for decades. Stop it.
chunder27 said:
They created a transaction out of thin air. Sent me a letter telling me I had bough a TV from this company (it did exist) so I just sent a bank statement to the licensing company in London and told them what was going on, received a full apology and was never bothered again.
Two things with this - Firstly retailers are no longer required to ask your address details to send on to TVL when you purchase a TV (although Tesco continued to do this for some time after the law was changed! Not sure if they still do...). Secondly I'm sure most here are aware that owning a TV doesn't require one to have a licence, although Crapita are happy enough to let people think that's the case. It's not even illegal to have a TV plugged in to an aerial - there is a legitimate use for digital radio for example.This is why the law and - as we were talking about earlier, warrants - are stupid because unless TVL catch you actually watching or recording a live broadcast they have no evidence whatsoever on which to attempt to bring a prosecution. It's why they try and trick people into 'confessing' or getting them to sign a 178 (which they leave no copy of with the homeowner and then subsequently falsify in order to gain a prosecution).
Just to reiterate: if you're legally licence-free then do not communicate with TVL at all. If someone shows up at your door, ask who they are and where they're from. Once you know they're TVL say NOTHING and close the door - zero contact policy is the best solution.
I've always wondered what happens when people are taken to court over this?
As it is a criminal issue the judge must consider evidence to suit criminal prosecutions. This evidence can therefore not be based up on "the balance of probability" as is the situation with civil cases.
(PH resident legal bods agree with that?)
So therefore hard evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) must be presented to the judge, which must be in the form of a signed confession or other criminal level acceptable evidence.
I would hope that the simple say so from a Crapita goon would not be enough to satisfy a judge on a criminal case. Nor the fact that many people do actually watch live broadcast without a license meaning that statistics stack up against the individual in court.
Internet says 180,000 people in the UK were charged with TV license offences in 2017..... thats just the numbers either going in to court or simply accepting guilt by letter.
However over 21,000 were found not guilty. Which means still means 159,000 or so people were found guilty.
I am really interested to find out the level of evidence used to criminally convict somebody of this offence.
As it is a criminal issue the judge must consider evidence to suit criminal prosecutions. This evidence can therefore not be based up on "the balance of probability" as is the situation with civil cases.
(PH resident legal bods agree with that?)
So therefore hard evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) must be presented to the judge, which must be in the form of a signed confession or other criminal level acceptable evidence.
I would hope that the simple say so from a Crapita goon would not be enough to satisfy a judge on a criminal case. Nor the fact that many people do actually watch live broadcast without a license meaning that statistics stack up against the individual in court.
Internet says 180,000 people in the UK were charged with TV license offences in 2017..... thats just the numbers either going in to court or simply accepting guilt by letter.
However over 21,000 were found not guilty. Which means still means 159,000 or so people were found guilty.
I am really interested to find out the level of evidence used to criminally convict somebody of this offence.
Atomic12C said:
I've always wondered what happens when people are taken to court over this?
As it is a criminal issue the judge must consider evidence to suit criminal prosecutions. This evidence can therefore not be based up on "the balance of probability" as is the situation with civil cases.
(PH resident legal bods agree with that?)
So therefore hard evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) must be presented to the judge, which must be in the form of a signed confession or other criminal level acceptable evidence.
I would hope that the simple say so from a Crapita goon would not be enough to satisfy a judge on a criminal case. Nor the fact that many people do actually watch live broadcast without a license meaning that statistics stack up against the individual in court.
If you're facing a TV licence evasion charge it is highly unlikely that a judge will be involved.As it is a criminal issue the judge must consider evidence to suit criminal prosecutions. This evidence can therefore not be based up on "the balance of probability" as is the situation with civil cases.
(PH resident legal bods agree with that?)
So therefore hard evidence (beyond reasonable doubt) must be presented to the judge, which must be in the form of a signed confession or other criminal level acceptable evidence.
I would hope that the simple say so from a Crapita goon would not be enough to satisfy a judge on a criminal case. Nor the fact that many people do actually watch live broadcast without a license meaning that statistics stack up against the individual in court.
Such cases are heard in a magistrates court. They have little, if any, legal training/expertise.
They rely on the court clerk for legal advice.
Atomic12C said:
Internet says 180,000 people in the UK were charged with TV license offences in 2017..... thats just the numbers either going in to court or simply accepting guilt by letter.
However over 21,000 were found not guilty. Which means still means 159,000 or so people were found guilty.
I am really interested to find out the level of evidence used to criminally convict somebody of this offence.
The vast majority of convictions are secured by an admission. Usually on the basis of a TVL178 Record of Interview form.*However over 21,000 were found not guilty. Which means still means 159,000 or so people were found guilty.
I am really interested to find out the level of evidence used to criminally convict somebody of this offence.
Mere possession of a TV set does not require a licence.
Yet if you answer the first two question Yes and No respectively the next step is a Caution using the same wording as PACE.
Just like the threatograms, guilt is assumed from the very outset.
* The TVL178 is a deeply flawed document. No licence is required to watch catch-up services other than i-Player.
Funk said:
Just to reiterate: if you're legally licence-free then do not communicate with TVL at all. If someone shows up at your door, ask who they are and where they're from. Once you know they're TVL say NOTHING and close the door - zero contact policy is the best solution.
^^This^^https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmh...
I don't even let them get that far. I simply don't answer the door to unannounced callers.
The only such person I occasionally need to interact with from time to time is the postman and I know him by sight.
I have not needed a TV licence for over 40 years. That isn't going to change in the foreseeable future.
There is no way I am going to engage with anyone I don't need to. Especially not with a C*apita salesman on commission.
They can FRO.
Additional question:
Ive seen the videos of the Capita guys turning up with a couple of plod in tow. The Warrant usually says something about allowing them to inspect TV equipment.
Can you refuse entry to the police in tow and ask that they leave the private property?
Could the police in tow then use any laws to insist entry with Capita guys? Can an officer insist on coming in with Captia guy to "prevent a breach of the peace"
Not had any run-ins myself - legally license free for 4 years now. They visited once - i was polite, said i didnt want or need a license, refused to go into why, and refused to give a name when they asked. That was 3 years ago - nothing since.
Ive seen the videos of the Capita guys turning up with a couple of plod in tow. The Warrant usually says something about allowing them to inspect TV equipment.
Can you refuse entry to the police in tow and ask that they leave the private property?
Could the police in tow then use any laws to insist entry with Capita guys? Can an officer insist on coming in with Captia guy to "prevent a breach of the peace"
Not had any run-ins myself - legally license free for 4 years now. They visited once - i was polite, said i didnt want or need a license, refused to go into why, and refused to give a name when they asked. That was 3 years ago - nothing since.
oyster said:
A whole year’s access to the widest range of multi-channel programming for the price of a nice meal out.
It’s the best bargain in most peoples’ lives.
I guess if you look at the best part of a couple of hundred quid being the cost of a meal then you might as well just have a license whether you need one or not!It’s the best bargain in most peoples’ lives.
mbcx4jrh said:
Additional question:
Ive seen the videos of the Capita guys turning up with a couple of plod in tow. The Warrant usually says something about allowing them to inspect TV equipment.
Can you refuse entry to the police in tow and ask that they leave the private property?
Could the police in tow then use any laws to insist entry with Capita guys? Can an officer insist on coming in with Captia guy to "prevent a breach of the peace"
.
The warrant will specify who can enter. Normal warrants are for constables and can name others. Looking around I think the TV licence onesIve seen the videos of the Capita guys turning up with a couple of plod in tow. The Warrant usually says something about allowing them to inspect TV equipment.
Can you refuse entry to the police in tow and ask that they leave the private property?
Could the police in tow then use any laws to insist entry with Capita guys? Can an officer insist on coming in with Captia guy to "prevent a breach of the peace"
.
seem to say any employee of Capita with or without constables. In which case plod can come in.
One of the other peculiarities of this warrant are the duties it places on occupants. Looking at the YouTube video I think this was close to falling foul of those provisions :
Where a person has the power by virtue of a warrant under this section to examine or test any television receiver found on any premises, or in any vehicle, it shall be the duty—
(a)of a person who is on the premises or in the vehicle, and
(b)in the case of a vehicle, of a person who has charge of it or is present when it is searched,to give the person carrying out the examination or test all such assistance as that person may reasonably require for carrying it out.
(8)A person is guilty of an offence if he—
(a)intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of any power conferred on that person by virtue of a warrant under this section; or
(b)without reasonable excuse, fails to give any assistance that he is under a duty to give by virtue of subsection (7).
Edited by Graveworm on Thursday 7th February 23:59
The excerpt from Hansard I linked to is crystal clear.
If you're LLF, don't engage: stay off their radar.
However, I certainly wouldn't recommend refusing entry if a warrant has been obtained.
They are very rare though (around 100 a year max across E&W), so not something to disturb your equanimity.
A more relevant question is what evidence will they have put in front of a magistrate to obtain one?
If you're LLF, don't engage: stay off their radar.
However, I certainly wouldn't recommend refusing entry if a warrant has been obtained.
They are very rare though (around 100 a year max across E&W), so not something to disturb your equanimity.
A more relevant question is what evidence will they have put in front of a magistrate to obtain one?
I didn't have a TV for quite a few years before leaving the UK.
Had a letter or two - returned them with the bit filled in declaring I didn't watch TV, live or otherwise.
Had one visit - invited the guy in showed him that there was no TV. In fact as I recall I offered to show him the rooms upstairs - but he didn't want to see....maybe he was worried I was enticing him to a bedroom!!
Asked if I watched TV on a laptop, I told him no but I probably stream three box sets a year and some films.
He was happy with that and off he went. That was the last I ever heard of it.
What was that in total; 15 mins of my life in 10 years? Can't see what the fuss is about....
If they do turn up why not just show them? If you make a fuss then inevitably you'll hear from them again and again.
Had a letter or two - returned them with the bit filled in declaring I didn't watch TV, live or otherwise.
Had one visit - invited the guy in showed him that there was no TV. In fact as I recall I offered to show him the rooms upstairs - but he didn't want to see....maybe he was worried I was enticing him to a bedroom!!
Asked if I watched TV on a laptop, I told him no but I probably stream three box sets a year and some films.
He was happy with that and off he went. That was the last I ever heard of it.
What was that in total; 15 mins of my life in 10 years? Can't see what the fuss is about....
If they do turn up why not just show them? If you make a fuss then inevitably you'll hear from them again and again.
oyster said:
A whole year’s access to the widest range of multi-channel programming for the price of a nice meal out.
It’s the best bargain in most peoples’ lives.
Except it's a tax levied not on what you watch or now much you watch, but on the fact you have equipment capable of receiving a broadcast. It's like being fined for speeding becuase you own a car capable of breaking the speed limit.It’s the best bargain in most peoples’ lives.
It also funds the BBC, one of the most corrupt and biased organisations in the world.
Aside from that it's a bargain
cb1965 said:
Except it's a tax levied not on what you watch or now much you watch,
It also funds the BBC, one of the most corrupt and biased organisations in the world.
If it was based on what you watch or how much it would defeat a key purpose. Every commercial broadcasters income is related to the number of viewers. The "Unique way the BBC is funded" does mean (for better or worse depending on your viewpoint) it is able to make some higher quality programs for minority interests and all the radio channels which are completely free to all. However it does mean they may not always look for best value for money and cannot afford to compete with the commercial companies at all levels. The alternative is straight taxpayer funding which makes it state television, which makes it almost impossible to even attempt impartiality. It also funds the BBC, one of the most corrupt and biased organisations in the world.
As for the second line did they win a prize for being one of the most corrupt and biased? Have you ever watched CNN or Fox news? Have you ever watched TV in China, Russia?
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff