TV licensing (Capita) impersonating police officers?

[surveyor_101]

jondude said:

If no matter what I say they will refuse to believe me and keep threatening to knock at my door and 'speak to me under caution' it is clear to see the pressure being put on people just to pay up so they can relax - even if they do not need a licence.

Why in a civilised society the bbc and capita goons are allowed to bully you for not having one its crazy.


Its not usual for now for some people to only use streaming services so why the hell should you be bullied!

I stopped paying for my licence and did the declaration that I use netflix etc, told my now ex partner but it turned out a few months down the line she took one out in her name as she was scared.

So i never got hassled by anyone after doing the declaration.

[Salmonofdoubt]

surveyor_101 said:

I stopped paying for my licence and did the declaration that I use netflix etc, told my now ex partner but it turned out a few months down the line she took one out in her name as she was scared.

Same here, did a declaration, no hassle by them. I don't mind a letter in a couple of years asking me to declare again. The Capita people can show me a warrant and bring a police officer to enforce it if they want to check what I watch.

Sadly many people I know who never watch live TV or iPlayer still bend and pay for the licence because they still wrongly believe that it's illegal to not have one as their parents have drummed it into them.

It would be interesting to know just how many households needlessly have a licence. It probably more than covers the ones that should but don't.

[Red Devil]

jondude said:

If no matter what I say they will refuse to believe me and keep threatening to knock at my door and 'speak to me under caution' it is clear to see the pressure being put on people just to pay up so they can relax - even if they do not need a licence.

I don't know of any other circumstances in which a private company is permitted to send out correspondence inferring that the recipient is a scofflaw.
I'm not committing any offence and I see no reason whatsoever that I need to 'prove' that to anyone.
Still less that, even if I chose to, I would have to go through the same tiresome pantomime every two years.
Thanks, but no thanks.

What next? I have to fill in a stupid form to tell the police that I haven't committed any burglaries?

I'm more fortunate than most because I've been off the radar for so long they don't know who I am. No name. No contact.
If they insist on wasting their time sending monthly reminders that I'm not in fact doing anything I shouldn't be, why should I be worried?
The problem is that others either through their ignorance or vulnerability are easily cowed and exploited.
To be clear, I don't condone evasion. If you should have a licence and don't, then get one.

I have had a lifelong loathing and contempt for bullies. All of them without exception are cowards who rely on fear as a tactic.
There was one particularly obnoxious individual at my school. Taller and heavier than me, he started picking on me almost as soon as I arrived.
Basically because I was short for my age and didn't look like a 'tough guy'. He obviously thought I would be easily intimidated. Big mistake.
What he didn't know was at my previous one I been taught to box. Despite my slight frame I was very fit and had been the school champion at my weight.
I caught him with a right hook and laid him spark out. Got into a bit of bother for that, but it was so worth it. I never got any hassle for the rest of my time there.

Edited by Red Devil on Thursday 22 August 14:18

[pavarotti1980]

How do they actually manage to secure a warrant in the first place? They have zero evidence apart from the fact a license is not in operation at a house.

When did that become enough for magistrates to sign it off?

[psi310398]

pavarotti1980 said:

How do they actually manage to secure a warrant in the first place? They have zero evidence apart from the fact a license is not in operation at a house.

When did that become enough for magistrates to sign it off?

TV licensing issues form a very large part of Mag Court business and the Mags like to deal with this stuff quickly. There is some evidence that warrants are issued in a matter of seconds and that mags do not seriously interrogate Capita court people.

There are also concerns that mags get too close to Capita which provides them with “training”.

There are also allegations that Capita investigators have often simply told barefaced lies under oath.

[PF62]

pavarotti1980 said:

How do they actually manage to secure a warrant in the first place? They have zero evidence apart from the fact a license is not in operation at a house.

When did that become enough for magistrates to sign it off?

Take list of properties with no licence. Knock on door. Door opens. EastEnders (or whatever) playing in the background. "Do you have a licence". "fk off". Door slammed. Noted down that observed live TV being watched.

That would be sufficient for most magistrates.

[Funk]

psi310398 said:

pavarotti1980 said:

How do they actually manage to secure a warrant in the first place? They have zero evidence apart from the fact a license is not in operation at a house.

When did that become enough for magistrates to sign it off?

TV licensing issues form a very large part of Mag Court business and the Mags like to deal with this stuff quickly. There is some evidence that warrants are issued in a matter of seconds and that mags do not seriously interrogate Capita court people.

There are also concerns that mags get too close to Capita which provides them with “training”.

There are also allegations that Capita investigators have often simply told barefaced lies under oath.

I've also read that this is often the case. There is evidence that the mags trust Capita's assertions by default, allowing them to pull some shady st. Even IF they get a warrant (and it's very uncommon that they do) it's utterly pointless anyway as you would have to be actually watching live TV when the warrant was carried out for it to result in a prosecution.

Having a TV (or even having one plugged into an aerial) are not grounds for prosecution. For example, a TV connected to an aerial can legitimately be used for digital radio. More often than not what Capita try and do is to try to get you to obstruct the warrant - they don't care what they get you for, only that they get you for something (even if it involves lying).

[Kuji]

PF62 said:

Take list of properties with no licence. Knock on door. Door opens. EastEnders (or whatever) playing in the background. "Do you have a licence". "fk off". Door slammed. Noted down that observed live TV being watched.

That would be sufficient for most magistrates.

I thought that was what all they actually did??

[Red Devil]

Funk said:

psi310398 said:

pavarotti1980 said:

How do they actually manage to secure a warrant in the first place? They have zero evidence apart from the fact a license is not in operation at a house.

When did that become enough for magistrates to sign it off?

TV licensing issues form a very large part of Mag Court business and the Mags like to deal with this stuff quickly. There is some evidence that warrants are issued in a matter of seconds and that mags do not seriously interrogate Capita court people.

There are also concerns that mags get too close to Capita which provides them with “training”.

There are also allegations that Capita investigators have often simply told barefaced lies under oath.

I've also read that this is often the case. There is evidence that the mags trust Capita's assertions by default, allowing them to pull some shady st. Even IF they get a warrant (and it's very uncommon that they do) it's utterly pointless anyway as you would have to be actually watching live TV when the warrant was carried out for it to result in a prosecution.

Want to bet? Google Michael Shakespeare and (the odious) Ian Doyle.

C*apita is an utter disgrace: how it manages to get government and local authority contracts is beyond me.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/capita-carill...

Unfortunately for me they are also the administrators of the pension scheme of a company I used to work for.
I have been waiting for two and a half months now for some basic information which they are contractually obliged to provide me with.
The lack of it is causing me severe prejudice and I'm totally fed up with their standard boiler plate excuses every time I contact them.
They are on their last chance now. If they don't get their finger out, I'm poised to initiate a complaint with the Pensions Ombudsman.

Funk said:

Having a TV (or even having one plugged into an aerial) are not grounds for prosecution. For example, a TV connected to an aerial can legitimately be used for digital radio. More often than not what Capita try and do is to try to get you to obstruct the warrant - they don't care what they get you for, only that they get you for something (even if it involves lying).

Indeed.

[Flibble]

PF62 said:

Take list of properties with no licence. Knock on door. Door opens. EastEnders (or whatever) playing in the background. "Do you have a licence". "fk off". Door slammed. Noted down that observed live TV being watched.

That would be sufficient for most magistrates.

Or they just straight up ask the householder if they watch TV and hope they self incriminate.

[pavarotti1980]

PF62 said:

Take list of properties with no licence. Knock on door. Door opens. EastEnders (or whatever) playing in the background. "Do you have a licence". "fk off". Door slammed. Noted down that observed live TV being watched.

That would be sufficient for most magistrates.

It could have been a repeat of Dirty Den on VHS

[Herr Schnell]

psi310398 said:

pavarotti1980 said:

How do they actually manage to secure a warrant in the first place? They have zero evidence apart from the fact a license is not in operation at a house.

When did that become enough for magistrates to sign it off?

TV licensing issues form a very large part of Mag Court business and the Mags like to deal with this stuff quickly. There is some evidence that warrants are issued in a matter of seconds and that mags do not seriously interrogate Capita court people.

There are also concerns that mags get too close to Capita which provides them with “training”.

There are also allegations that Capita investigators have often simply told barefaced lies under oath.

Which is exactly why no contact is the best option.

Filled in a declaration to say you don't need a licence?

Great, now they have a name to go on the application for a warrant. They lie to say that they visited and heard a live broadcast through your letterbox and then they're away.

Once in they harrass you with the PACE caution and look for anything to show you're capable of receiving live broadcasts, old aerial sockets or an internet connection will do. Once that's done they're set to hit their targets and you have an appointment with the magistrates.

The declarations don't stop the visits at all, if anything they seem to mark you out as a target. I had 3 visits in 12 months after filling in a declaration at a previous address whereas in the 3 years prior to that and 3 years after haven't had a single visit and haven't filled in a declaration in those periods.

They didn't execute a warrant on me at the previous address, I suspect that's because when they turned up and attempted to get me to confirm the name on the declaration was correct by pretending to be utilities or flat out refusing to I.D themselves and becoming aggressive I refused and left them on the doorstep shouting thier nonsense through the letterbox until they got bored and left.

No contact. Seriously.