TV licensing (Capita) impersonating police officers?

[BertBert]

I agree, there are some really tough challenges in life.

creampuff said:

I find BBC radio fking annoying, even when not listening to it. If I'm driving around between FM reception areas and I do a channel search, I get multiple frequencies with the same boring, pointless BBC radio channel which I have to scan through. The commercial stations, who actually have to find their own cash instead of extorting it off the public under threat of criminal prosecution, don't rave anywhere near as many frequencies.

Must get DAB in next car to make it easier to identify BBC stations and ignore them.

fk the BBC.

[hyphen]

dro said:

Cooperman said:

There are some wonderful clips of the C*apita goons calling on people.

This one is short sweet and straight to the point https://youtu.be/Sr6QrJjYOxo

The vids with the search warrants are the most worrying- they bring along the police who themselves claim that the warrants are genuine and allow them to enter, then the legally clued up video-er successfully points out that it does not and then the guys sheepishly admit that they are not entitled to search after all and march off with tail between their legs,

Very eye-opening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vH1y5_9NZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cWGzwZ8Xyw

[Funk]

hyphen said:

dro said:

Cooperman said:

There are some wonderful clips of the C*apita goons calling on people.

This one is short sweet and straight to the point https://youtu.be/Sr6QrJjYOxo

The vids with the search warrants are the most worrying- they bring along the police who themselves claim that the warrants are genuine and allow them to enter, then the legally clued up video-er successfully points out that it does not and then the guys sheepishly admit that they are not entitled to search after all and march off with tail between their legs,

Very eye-opening.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vH1y5_9NZo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6cWGzwZ8Xyw

Ok; where to start with those videos....there's a lot wrong (and not on the part of the Police/TVL really). The problem is where people such as those in video 1 use 'freeman on the land' wibble - it's meaningless and it will get them into trouble. The guy in the second video seemed to think he could challenge the validity of the warrant (asking for it to be signed by a judge etc) - again, a surefire way to get yourself in a fix.

It struck me how utterly pointless a visit or even a forced entry by warrant is as the crime is 'receiving a live broadcast', not 'having a TV which could receive iPlayer as it's on the wifi' for example. They have to actually catch you watching it live or failing that, have you admit to doing so on one of their forms. Don't ever sign a TVL form by the way; you don't have to and they've been known to edit them later to create an admission of wrong-doing.

I've read up a lot on this and in essence I've understood the following to be broadly true:

1) TVL can only get a warrant to enter an address if they are able to prove to a court that they have strong evidence that live TV is being received at an address without a licence. There appears to be a lot of disagreement as to how robust the system is and the courts aren't always above board with signing off on a warrant; TVL have been known to lie and fabricate in order to get a warrant and it seems many courts don't view TVL with enough suspicion. Often it seems that TVL are 'trusted' by default and this is bolstered by the Police - witness the copper in the first video talking about "....our colleagues from TV Licensing..." They're not colleagues; not even close!

2) The Police aren't actually needed to be there to carry out a warrant, however TVL will nearly always have them there for two reasons. Firstly, it's intimidating for the person the warrant is being served on. Secondly TVL will get the Police to do the dirty work of actually gaining entry (as in the first video). The Police are NOT involved in the warrant itself - they should, at most, be there to keep the peace.

3) Often people who have a warrant issued for TV licence reasons don't actually fall foul of being incorrectly licensed, they fall foul of obstructing the execution of the warrant. This is also why TVL like to have the Police present as obstruction of a warrant is something they can and will do you for.

It takes a lot to get to the point where TVL have applied for (and successfully gained) a warrant. Invading someone's home by force should be the very last resort (especially for something as trivial as a TV licence). Often anti-TVL people will recommend 'withdrawing the implied right of access' (WOIRA) or they will spout stupid FotL wibble. Quite often just by engaging a TVL goon they'll say something that the goon will try and use to convince a court to issue a warrant.

In the event that you are unlucky enough to find yourself in a situation where you have the Police and TVL at your door saying they have a warrant, invite them in straight away, start recording on your phone and say absolutely nothing - you have the right to remain silent; fking use it.

Quite often TVL will ask you to 'bring the the equipment into use' - you're under no obligation to DO anything to assist them, you're only obligated not to obstruct them in the execution of the warrant. Tell them they're welcome to turn on the screen and have a look (note that currently, they are not allowed to touch or look at a computer or tablet etc). They are also not allowed to do anything like connect an aerial or tune in any channels. The key is that you do not prevent them gaining access and you make the equipment available to them for inspection. If you're legally licence-free then once the kit's inspected they should be satisfied and leave. They'll be unhappy that the warrant proved your innocence so don't risk giving them grounds to do you for obstruction or getting shirty/aggressive.

That we live in time where a private company such as Capita can fudge the truth to gain access to an individual's home is, in my view, terrible. However that's the way the law is at present, wrong as it is.

The golden rules for being legally licence-free and avoid winding up with a warrant in your face are:

1) Ignore the letters.
2) Do not talk to anyone from TVL, ever.
3) If you get a visit, ask who they are and if it's TVL then just close your door gently. Do not tell them your name, you're under no obligation to talk to them.
4) Do NOT 'withdraw the implied right of access'. This is like a red rag to a bull.
5) If you make the mistake of ignoring 3) and stupidly invite them in then do NOT, under any circumstances sign anything. Ask them to leave and they must do so.

Finally if you DO need a licence then blinking buy one!

Edit: watching for longer on video two, the guy got himself slapped with a warrant for.....talking to TVL and spouting FoTL crap! That's how they convinced the court to sign off the warrant...

Edited by Funk on Tuesday 30th January 23:52

[Cherrybusa]

Runes said:

I think it is, but that doesn't get us very far does it? Do you think the researchers' finding are wrong? If so, why?

Increased population - increase in ageing population entitled to free licences, increased residential care discounted licences issued?

[Cherrybusa]

psi310398 said:

ChevronB19 said:

The BBC, after the NHS, is one of the few things we have left to be proud of. It is internationally renowned as a source of accurate information. I think it’s a bargain. (I don’t work for the bbc by the way, or any other media organisation)

So the BBC keeps telling us.

It might have been true in the 60s but it has been resting on its laurels for decades and really is nothing special any more (at least the TV arm).

As for the news, in its own Guardianista way, it seems to me as biased as Fox News.

For many there really is no viable alternative to the NHS - and presumably Healthcare would be seen as a 'need' - watching television or listening to the radio is hardly necessary and is/or should be a matter of choice free from tax!

[Atomic12C]

Funk said:

Quite often TVL will ask you to 'bring the the equipment into use' - you're under no obligation to DO anything to assist them, you're only obligated not to obstruct them in the execution of the warrant. Tell them they're welcome to turn on the screen and have a look (note that currently, they are not allowed to touch or look at a computer or tablet etc). They are also not allowed to do anything like connect an aerial or tune in any channels. The key is that you do not prevent them gaining access and you make the equipment available to them for inspection. If you're legally licence-free then once the kit's inspected they should be satisfied and leave. They'll be unhappy that the warrant proved your innocence so don't risk giving them grounds to do you for obstruction or getting shirty/aggressive.

On this point about the "inspection" process. As this is the point whereby the evidence for court prosecution comes in to play......
A point that I will try to keep a focus on in this thread......the legislation ( https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/secti... ), mentions that simply having a TV "INSTALLED" is also an offense.
Even just intending to install a TV is an offense, so that can mean a TV not connected to aerial nor tuned in, and simply owning a TV at the property.

I am finding the wording of the legislation confusing - because although it may seem simply having a TV at a property falls foul of an offense, this surely isn't the case as thousands of people use TVs not for watching live broadcast, and general consensus is that this is not an offense. (or is that wrong?)

But in terms of crapita goons collecting their evidence for court, how is the property owner supposed to defend his position in front of a judge - given what is written in the legislation ?


Another link provided earlier is that crapita's guidence also mentions that simply having a TV at the property (installed or not) is within their "scope of offence" to be recorded.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ss/Satellite?blobcol=...

[Red Devil]

Atomic12C said:

Red Devil said:

.....

Thanks for the links in that reply.

There is still one term that intrigues me as such from the legislation.....
"installed or used"

The word "used" is clear enough, but the word "installed" leaves the door open to possibly mean simply having a TV plugged in. Whether connected to an aerial or not, whether the TV has been tuned to receive channels or not.

You need to have another look at Section 9 of the 2004 Regs. The key words are 'for the purpose of'. If you're not using the receiver for the stated purpose you're good to go.
It is for TVL/BBC to prove otherwise to the criminal standard.

Atomic12C said:

When presented in front of a judge, as this is a criminal matter, how is the individual suppose to defend himself if he simply owns a TV but does not require a license ?

Only FoTL wibblists and agressively confrontational people will end up having a warrant applied for. The actual numbers are vanishingly small.
The vast majority of prosecutions are as a result of a 'confession' obtained by completion of a TVL 178 form. which is specifically designed to entrap people..
There is no law that says that mere ownership of a TV requires the purchase of a TV licence. The automatic assumption on that form is that you must be guilty.

By far the best approach is non-engagement. Don't respond to letters and don't answer the door to TVL salespersons.
I have been legally without a licence for many years . The above tactics have worked work fine for me. YMMV

[pavarotti1980]

Red Devil said:

Only FoTL wibblists and agressively confrontational people will end up having a warrant applied for. The actual numbers are vanishingly small.
The vast majority of prosecutions are as a result of a 'confession' obtained by completion of a TVL 178 form. which is specifically designed to entrap people..
There is no law that says that mere ownership of a TV requires the purchase of a TV licence. The automatic assumption on that form is that you must be guilty.

By far the best approach is non-engagement. Don't respond to letters and don't answer the door to TVL salespersons.
I have been legally without a licence for many years . The above tactics have worked work fine for me. YMMV

Seeing the youtube videos of their "interviews under caution" made me laugh. Awful

[McGraw]

When I was in my mid 20's (and lived in a big house that was converted to flats with a shared entrance) I never had a TV Licence. Was paying for NTL and never watched BBC so I didn't care.

I never answered the buzzer unless I was expecting anyone anyway.

A year or two after I moved out I was at my best mate's dad's funeral and I found out the stepdad (sorry, no funny stories of his mum getting a new bloke in between the death and the funeral, they met years before) was a TV Licensing guy...turns out he covered my area and must have been after me for ages! I was constantly written to.

I didn't admit it to him, despite having had a fair few pints.

[Atomic12C]

Red Devil said:

You need to have another look at Section 9 of the 2004 Regs. The key words are 'for the purpose of'. If you're not using the receiver for the stated purpose you're good to go.
It is for TVL/BBC to prove otherwise to the criminal standard.

Thanks for that.

Reason I am interested in this is because I used to have a TV licence about 5 years ago but then filled out the form to say I no longer wished to "renew" and declared I no longer will watch live broadcasts.
When I did have the license I tuned the TV in to the freeview channels.

After declaring no more live TV and not renewing the license I now use the TV for listening to radio channels (aerial still plugged in), also for watching youtube and other streaming services (not BBC iplayer though), also use it as a 2nd screen for the laptop, watching USB video.

So in order for me to be 'comfortable' when the goons eventually arrive for the inspection (likely after a warrant, as they'll not be invited in), I just need know that they can't fabricate or manipulate the inspection so that during the inspection they turn the TV to a live broadcast and use that to convict in court.

As the TV will likely still turn on to one of the tuned in TV channels from the existing radio channels.

All I would be relying on is a word of trust from me towards the judge that I do not watch live broadcast. There would be no evidence other than "my word" to cover that. Whereas the crapita goon would have their own evidence which will likely state that the TV was turned on by them during the inspection and also turned on to a live broadcast channel.
(In effect during the inspection process my property would be illegal - if the TV is showing a live broadcast)

[Funk]

Atomic12C said:

Red Devil said:

You need to have another look at Section 9 of the 2004 Regs. The key words are 'for the purpose of'. If you're not using the receiver for the stated purpose you're good to go.
It is for TVL/BBC to prove otherwise to the criminal standard.

Thanks for that.

Reason I am interested in this is because I used to have a TV licence about 5 years ago but then filled out the form to say I no longer wished to "renew" and declared I no longer will watch live broadcasts.
When I did have the license I tuned the TV in to the freeview channels.

After declaring no more live TV and not renewing the license I now use the TV for listening to radio channels (aerial still plugged in), also for watching youtube and other streaming services (not BBC iplayer though), also use it as a 2nd screen for the laptop, watching USB video.

So in order for me to be 'comfortable' when the goons eventually arrive for the inspection (likely after a warrant, as they'll not be invited in), I just need know that they can't fabricate or manipulate the inspection so that during the inspection they turn the TV to a live broadcast and use that to convict in court.

As the TV will likely still turn on to one of the tuned in TV channels from the existing radio channels.

All I would be relying on is a word of trust from me towards the judge that I do not watch live broadcast. There would be no evidence other than "my word" to cover that. Whereas the crapita goon would have their own evidence which will likely state that the TV was turned on by them during the inspection and also turned on to a live broadcast channel.
(In effect during the inspection process my property would be illegal - if the TV is showing a live broadcast)

Owing a TV and having it 'installed' isn't the issue - it is purely down to whether or not you're receiving a live signal.

Arguably even if you had a TV installed and tuned but OFF there would be no evidence you were watching live TV. However I'd imagine that TVL would be able to sway a court to convict on the fact that it's more likely than not that you were, even if they never saw you or caught you doing it.

It's a ridiculous system and a stupid archaic law from long ago which is no longer fit for purpose. As an aside, the BBC deliberately made it so that Freeview/Freesat can't support subscriptions when it was originally devised - the sole reason being that they wanted to prevent a scenario where the BBC could easily be made subscriber-only. They're terrified of that as revenues WILL decline and people switch off if it were ever to come to pass.

The laws need overhauling and the licence needs abolishing.

[creampuff]

^ Oh dear. Imagine if the BBC was subscriber only and we didn't have fkers sending threatening letters about obtaining a search warrant. I would so take out a BBC subscription even if I had to cancel my Wheelie Bins of Scandinavia monthly magazine subscription to find the cash.

[Atomic12C]

Funk said:

Owing a TV and having it 'installed' isn't the issue - it is purely down to whether or not you're receiving a live signal.

Sorry to dissect your wording.... but the interpretation of the offense is simply receiving a live signal - and not watching it ?
Asking as I currently receive a live signal but only watch the radio channels (in terms of the aerial use plugged in to the TV).

[creampuff]

Just read that Capita's share price has gone down 40%.

I wish the BBC's share price would go down 40% as well. Only they don't issue shares, because they aren't a public company and can get their funding by extorting the general population who have not choice but to pay for the BBC even if they don't watch it.

[Funk]

Atomic12C said:

Funk said:

Owing a TV and having it 'installed' isn't the issue - it is purely down to whether or not you're receiving a live signal.

Sorry to dissect your wording.... but the interpretation of the offense is simply receiving a live signal - and not watching it ?
Asking as I currently receive a live signal but only watch the radio channels (in terms of the aerial use plugged in to the TV).

Live TV signal. Don't use my wording though, here's TVL's own wording:

"A TV Licence is a legal permission to install or use television receiving equipment to watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV or live on an online TV service, and to download or watch BBC programmes on demand, including catch up TV, on BBC iPlayer. This could be on any device, including TVs, desktop computers, laptops, mobile phones, tablets, games consoles, digital boxes, DVD, Blu-ray and VHS recorders. This applies regardless of which television channels a person receives or how those channels are received."

I've bolded the relevant bit - installing, owning or using a TV is fine, as long as it is not for watching or recording TV as it's broadcast or using iPlayer (such as via an app on a smart TV).

Having a TV plugged in with an aerial and using it for digital radio is fine as it's not 'broadcast TV'.

[RTB]

I got interviewed under caution when I was at University many years ago.

The TV license people were doing the rounds of the post-grad student accommodation. Somebody let them in and they went round each room asking if we had a TV. I had the TV on when I answered the door.....

The lady explained it was a criminal offence not to have a license and gave me the full "you do not have to say anything but it may harm your defence etc etc" I apologised profusely, explained how I'd only that weekend brought the TV from home and offered to pay the years fee up front. They were quite happy to let me pay and I heard nothing more about it.

I heard of one other student in our block who told them to fk off despite having the TV on when the license person called, I'm pretty sure she ended up with a court summons, a big fine and still had to pay the license fee.

[Atomic12C]

Funk said:

Having a TV plugged in with an aerial and using it for digital radio is fine as it's not 'broadcast TV'.

Cheers Funk.
Sometimes when one reads legal jargon in legislation it gets the mind a bit confused. Especially when the crapita guidance scope document was picking up on certain terms making it look like a conviction was likely by simply having a TV at the property.

This now puts my mind at rest, at least to satisfy myself that I'm not outside the law - but would still have a concern on how to defend myself if I end up in front of a judge.

Given that criminal level satisfaction should be required for a conviction, I'd hope it would be such that the evidence provided would show undeniable proof of me watching live TV. (ie. video of me sat in front of a TV watching live content)

[BertBert]

Well I don't watch it and happily don't pay. You seem easily extorted!
You need to give me £100 or I'll, I'll, I'll send you some letters

creampuff said:

Just read that Capita's share price has gone down 40%.

I wish the BBC's share price would go down 40% as well. Only they don't issue shares, because they aren't a public company and can get their funding by extorting the general population who have not choice but to pay for the BBC even if they don't watch it.

[Red Devil]

Atomic12C said:

Red Devil said:

You need to have another look at Section 9 of the 2004 Regs. The key words are 'for the purpose of'. If you're not using the receiver for the stated purpose you're good to go.
It is for TVL/BBC to prove otherwise to the criminal standard.

Thanks for that.

Reason I am interested in this is because I used to have a TV licence about 5 years ago but then filled out the form to say I no longer wished to "renew" and declared I no longer will watch live broadcasts.
When I did have the license I tuned the TV in to the freeview channels.

After declaring no more live TV and not renewing the license I now use the TV for listening to radio channels (aerial still plugged in), also for watching youtube and other streaming services (not BBC iplayer though), also use it as a 2nd screen for the laptop, watching USB video.

So in order for me to be 'comfortable' when the goons eventually arrive for the inspection (likely after a warrant, as they'll not be invited in), I just need know that they can't fabricate or manipulate the inspection so that during the inspection they turn the TV to a live broadcast and use that to convict in court.

As the TV will likely still turn on to one of the tuned in TV channels from the existing radio channels.

All I would be relying on is a word of trust from me towards the judge that I do not watch live broadcast. There would be no evidence other than "my word" to cover that. Whereas the crapita goon would have their own evidence which will likely state that the TV was turned on by them during the inspection and also turned on to a live broadcast channel.
(In effect during the inspection process my property would be illegal - if the TV is showing a live broadcast)

The task is to ensure that if they do manage to gain entry there is nothing for them to find.
Make sure you have a complete video recording of the visit so that they can't lie about it afterwards.

You need to configure your set up so that it is imposssible to tune in to a live channel.
If you have a fixed aerial, hide the lead, disconnect the co-ax and fit a blank front plate to the wall socket.
Personally I wouldn't channel radio through the TV. Use a separate radio only receiver.
No possible argument then.

Your situation is different from mine. I'm anonymous but you're not having already declared NLN.
The normal block is for 2 years - http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ss/Satellite?blobcol=...
Simply redeclare when the paper blizzard begins again.
If you do get visited the best tactic is just don't answer the door.

I never do to unannounced callers. The only exception is the postie if he has a 'signed for' to give me.
If I order anything online which won't fit in a letter box I know to expect a courier.
TVL doorknockers don't carry parcels: it's far too cumbersome.

Newbie tutorial here.

[surveyor_101]

My wife won't have any of it so we have to pay for a TV licence as she won't live in fear of a call! Even though we are using web-based on-demand services so in effect their fear campaign is working. They could quite easily get passed her. We don't use the TV aerial/freeview and there not connected but our web based boxes can get iplayer!

Plus they have been a nightmare about my cancel and refund request its taken 5 emails to get it cancelled and now they state I will have to call and make a separate refund request as I am paid 6 months in advance!