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

[militantmandy]

Perhaps it's different when cancelling, but when I moved into my new house I just phoned them and said "I don't watch live tv and I as such I won't be wanting a tv licence." She said "that's fine, but we may send an officer to make sure at some point." Done and dusted, never heard anything since. Perhaps just give them a ring?

[davepoth]

The website is coming from the point of view that you are moving - and then one of those would be available. What you want to do is a bit different, you'll probably want to ring them.

[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).

[randlemarcus]

Funk said:

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).

They have the right to send someone round. You do not have to let them in, and indeed, should not.

There's a line between lapdog compliance and Fluffnik, but this lot push me towards the latter. I should point out that I watch TV, and am fully licenced up.

[militantmandy]

^^ What he said. They have absolutely no legal right to get into your property unless you let them.

[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'.

[Animal]

Impossible for any sane, reasonable man to cancel via their website!

However, very easy to cancel by calling. Spoke to a nice young man and got it sorted in 2-3 minutes.

[randlemarcus]

PW said:

I'm in the same position as the OP - haven't watched TV live for 3 years, and haven't missed it.

I don't understand how they get away with it.

Which other service demands that you spend your time proving you do not need to pay for it, under threat of court, fines and "inspections" and demands your name, address, phone number and email address in order to make them stop harassing you?

Again, they can demand. You can equally cease correspondence with them, and that's an end to it. They are then welcome to make use of our justice system, but they won't.

[silverthorn2151]

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?

[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

[Timbuk2]

Funk said:

Would you suggest that I pay £145 a year to watch 6 episodes of Top Gear?

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

[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?

[Timbuk2]

Funk said:

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?

Not as bad as me, I download them illegally.

[AndyACB]

I think the BBC should do the same as Sky, force people to login to their account to watch on demand tv.

Will stop Funk the freeloader from watching Top Gear for free

To be fair, I don't mind paying the TV licence as they do show quite a lot of stuff over the course of a year that I like to watch + Radio which has saved me on many a mind numbing motorway slog.

[PaulG40]

I understand people's affliction with paying for something that they dont tend to use but it's pretty much a bit of old school institution, no one has ever gone against them.

It is annoying though, tht the licence fee continues to rise yet we are getting a slimmed down bbc, more repeats etx!

[smack]

There is a simple solution to the whole silly situation - fund 3.5b that the BBC receives from the Licence Fee from central government, which is about 55 pounds for every man, woman and child in the UK. A sly tax increase somewhere will cover that. And then you don't have to pay (ie. waste) Capita 70m per to run the system of collecting money, and giving posties a bad back having to cart the mail threats to those who don't pay.

I know it is a bit of a wild idea, but apparently it has worked in other countries with government broadcasters....

[diablodavs]

dont waste your time sending evidence - just cancel direct debit - the worst they can do is send someone around and if you dont watch tv you have nothing to worry about! due to they incompetence you will get red letter what ever you do!!

[Silver Smudger]

PW said:

Which other service demands that you spend your time proving you do not need to pay for it, under threat of court, fines and "inspections" and demands your name, address, phone number and email address in order to make them stop harassing you?

If you no longer wished to have gas or electricity at home, not using it would show as no movement on your meter - I suspect the company would then either visit to physically disconnect or would wish to see the reading on your meter from time to time.

[The Count]

smack said:

There is a simple solution to the whole silly situation - fund 3.5b that the BBC receives from the Licence Fee from central government, which is about 55 pounds for every man, woman and child in the UK. A sly tax increase somewhere will cover that. And then you don't have to pay (ie. waste) Capita 70m per to run the system of collecting money, and giving posties a bad back having to cart the mail threats to those who don't pay.

I know it is a bit of a wild idea, but apparently it has worked in other countries with government broadcasters....

...or we put up with adverts and pay nothing?

As a side note, the Swiss pay €360 for their TV + radio licence.