TV licensing (Capita) impersonating police officers?

[jondude]

I have just received a perplexing letter from TV Licensing.

It says how upset they are that I have not responded to their more and more aggressive threats but then also:

'Our officers may interview you under caution of national criminal law, which could lead to prosecution'.


I am more than happy to answer the door and say I will report the Capita salesman for impersonating a police officer......but maybe they actually can do this???

Anyone know? Do they really have the powers to caution and tell me if I'm silent it might still go against me etc etc

[jondude]

I do not and have no concerns about them visiting - just wanting to know if they are spinning things or if they do now have the same powers as the police/customs officers.

[jondude]

Thanks all.

I'm still a bit bemused by it. So let's say the Capita guy reads my rights on my doorstep and I say 'I do not respect your position here, so no comment at all'.

Then what? They pass this to whom, exactly?

[jondude]

paintman said:

Interviewing under caution is not the sole territory of the Police.

There are many organisations that do so. This includes council workers/local authority investigating fraud such as false benefit & housing claims, Trading Standards officers, Customs & Excise, the HSE etc.

So your 'impersonating a police officer' claim purely on those grounds is without foundation.

ETA Enter 'interview under caution' into Google & you'll find any number of examples.

Edited by paintman on Sunday 28th January 13:30

Think I said this in the OP - that yes, there are others who can do this (customs officers).

The question is can a salesman from Capita do this? They do not seem to be mentioned in a quick net surf.

[jondude]

surveyor_101 said:

So there not going to send someone to check after I fill out my no licence needed declaration. My wife isn’t going to get some goon trying to bluff his way into my house, go to my tv which is not even cited the right side of the room to reach the aerial port, then turn on my tv and load my internet based tv load iplayer an make a case.

I have watched videos were they attempt to turn the tv on and find this system capable!

This is where letting them know you are in the property serves no purpose - as they clearly say 'when you let us know you do not need a licence, we may come around to check'.

The threatening letters also say ' we are on the way'.

If you let them in and they see you are telling the truth, they still 'may come back'. (And will harass again after two years)

So essentially, why bother? If anything they now will know their visit won't be wasted - you have let them know the house is occupied.

My view is as has been said, just wait for them to come and gently and quietly close the door in the salesman's face.


Quick thanks to all as the original poster - some good reading here

[jondude]

Some very interesting posts there to read.

I have since received 3 more letters. One pretty much saying as I had not responded they were now authorizing an investigation.

Then one saying their officer was on the way on a certain date.....maybe.


Yesterday I received a comical but also creepy letter entitled 'WE KNOW. YOU KNOW' and then off again with the same 'everyone knows there is no licence registered at this address. We are on the way'.

I think as has been made a point by many, it is quite incredible they are allowed to get away with this ever increasing aggressive and patronizing tone and treating your property as somewhere they can just turn up and inspect at will.

This was not far off a 'We know what you did last summer' threat!

[jondude]

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'.

So if they are threatening to visit whether you contact them or not, why bother?

[jondude]

PF62 said:

Anyway, you are not forced to pay for it - just don't watch live TV and don't buy a licence.

But you are forced to prove you do not need a licence. No-one asks for the BBC to send its signal to us, it chooses to do so and then comes after you because it did so.

Meaning you have to pay to the BBC for the right not to watch it when you did not ask for or want it anyhow.

This cannot be right in these days of hundreds of channels out there, all of which know for them to survive we all must pay the BBC too.

[jondude]

PF62 said:

jondude said:

No-one asks for the BBC to send its signal to us.

The government did.

The government believes the UK needs a public service broadcaster.

Don't like it, then pick another government.
.

Fair point.

However, if the receiver of the signal (the citizen) does not want the very kind signal the government asks the BBC to send us, why should the citizen have to put up with such harassment?

I do not object to a check but that has to be it. As it is, no matter what you do Capita will come after you like nutters - it starts up again even if you let them in and they can clearly see no television.

It should be Capita write and if I sign a letter back that I do not need a licence that they then leave it.

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.

[jondude]

Red Devil said:

You are not compelled to do any such thing. The applicable legislation contains no such provision.
There is no obligation whatsoever for anyone to contact the BBC/TVL/C*apita.
Confirmed in a Parliamentary Written Answer. Difficult to get more authoritative than that.
..

Good post