No TV Licence

[DCLane]

My parents house has had the full raft of these. The problem being that whilst he has a licence for the house name, the TV licensing people seem to think the house number is a completely different property. That's despite them being one and the same - which they won't accept - so they've been invited to visit and look at the house sign. Which has the number on it as well.

 

[DaveReading]

My parents house has had the full raft of these. The problem being that whilst he has a licence for the house name, the TV licensing people seem to think the house number is a completely different property. That's despite them being one and the same - which they won't accept - so they've been invited to visit and look at the house sign. Which has the number on it as well.

Invite the idiots to submit two photos: one of the named house and one of the numbered one. That should be fun,

 

[DaveReading]

Apparently even watching live streams on YouTube now requires a TV licence.

Live streams of what?

I'm not aware of anything that has changed recently.

 

[AndyRM]

Live streams of what?

I'm not aware of anything that has changed recently.

News, football, boxing and rugby (amongst others) all have live streaming on YouTube.

If it's content generated by an individual user, you're fine without a license. If it's from a corporation you're meant to have one.

I'm surprised that the TV licensing requests are still so archaic to be honest.

 

[Alex321]

Live streams of what?

I'm not aware of anything that has changed recently.

Nothing has changed in the laws. But Youtube has much more live streaming than it used to.

 

[mjr]

Since it seems that attempting to a) reason with them or b) absolve yourself from their damnation by informing them you have no telly only results in wasting one's own time and continuing to court their accusations and contempt, I'll continue to ignore the letters.

And the really annoying thing is that licence fee payers are funding Capita goons harrassing mostly innocent non-viewers - interesting to see that letter basically admitting 13 out of 14 recipients of it are innocent - instead of the public service broadcasting that most probably want.

BBC - it's truly a unique way of funding: threats of court sent by outsourced thugs.

 

[spen666]

My parents house has had the full raft of these. The problem being that whilst he has a licence for the house name, the TV licensing people seem to think the house number is a completely different property. That's despite them being one and the same - which they won't accept - so they've been invited to visit and look at the house sign. Which has the number on it as well.

I had this 30+ years ago. My house bizarrely had 2 postcodes. The TV licence people came to the door and were rather nasty to my then girlfriend ( later wife) who was heavily pregnant at the time. She suggested they comeback later in day when I would be home and could explain situation. [ At time she had just moved into house]. They were horrid to her and never came back.

They subsequently prosecuted her for no TV licence at the address. As I was then regularly defending in court, I entered a NG plea on her behalf, and had case listed for a trial.

TV licence bloke gave all his evidence. In cross examination I handed up a document and asked him to tell the court what it was, and the address on the document. It was a TV licence for the property . I then got him to confirm the address the summons was issued to......whereupon he rapidly decided to withdraw the case and I was awarded costs against the TV Licence office ( as it was a private prosecution, the costs came from them not "central funds".

Strangely enough my costs meant I had them pay for that years TV Licence and the next couple of year

It was rather satisfying to see them squirm in court and trying to avoid the costs order being made

 

[wafter]

And the really annoying thing is that licence fee payers are funding Capita goons harrassing mostly innocent non-viewers - interesting to see that letter basically admitting 13 out of 14 recipients of it are innocent - instead of the public service broadcasting that most probably want.

BBC - it's truly a unique way of funding: threats of court sent by outsourced thugs.

Yeah, that really puts it into perspective doesn't it? A 93% honesty rate despite the appalling, accusatory behaviour these people have likely been subject to.

Again, I won't waste my time playing their stupid games. If they deem necessary they can come round to be told to f*ck off in person..

 

[DRM]

It all begs the question, just how much is it costing the BBC to employ Crapita to send all these letters out, and pay the T.V Licensing Gestapo to do visits, surely they would be better off not bothering, I'd bet the costs far outweigh the extra income generated

 

[Alex321]

It all begs the question, just how much is it costing the BBC to employ Crapita to send all these letters out, and pay the T.V Licensing Gestapo to do visits, surely they would be better off not bothering, I'd bet the costs far outweigh the extra income generated

If it did, then I rather doubt they would do it.