No TV Licence

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

DRM

Guru
Location
West Yorks
They way they get a prosecution is to engage the "Legal Occupier" in a conversation at the door step, where they hope that person will slip up & drop themselves in it, the recommended course of action is when they tell you they're from T.V Licensing
1. Say no thank you & close the door
2. Don't sign anything
That's all, job done, they have no powers and cannot gain access to your house, give them no information, and they can only go away to try their luck with someone else, they are travelling sales people, nothing more, nothing else.
 

wafter

I like steel bikes and I cannot lie..
Location
Oxford
A few letters is hardly "appalling"

I'd argue that the content is - what reputable institution conducts itself in such a shamelessly condescending, accusatory and alarmist manner?


Which is the express route to another visit, this time complete with warrant and plod.

That doesn't concern me.. if legally compelled I'll happily let them embarrass themselves by confirming what I'd already told them on their first visit.

How dare they dein themselves entitled to enter my property at their convenience becauase I refuse to engage with their tacky, self-important little crusade?


They aren't beyond cooking the evidence. They got one for us after we wrote withdrawing their implied right of access.

Which I suppose would make them look even more silly if said evidence got them legal access to a property that has no telly or need for a license.


It's a lot easier just to spend a few idle moments filling in the form. Just don't tell them your real name.

Perhaps, however I struggle to cover the bare bones of what's necessary to exist as it is, without wasting more time and effort on unnecessary crap like this.

Besides, I don't take kindly to demands, accusations, insinuations, threats... I suspect many would be far more willing to engage were it not for the tone of TVL's letters.
 
Last edited:

DRM

Guru
Location
West Yorks
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

So a quick Google search suggest that in 2017 a freedom of information request stated that 28.6 Million letters were sent out, costing the BBC £6.29 Million pounds, apparently the number of letters sent out is 36 Million for financial year 2022-2023, & 41 Million for 2023-2024, so the cost of postage will have gone up between 2017 & 2024, as well as the amount of threat-o-grams, at the same stated 22p per letter, that's over £9 Million in letters, never mind staff wages & expenses to cover visits etc, it's utterly ridiculous when if you follow the rules, you do not need a TV licence.
 

Gunk

Guru
Location
Oxford
They way they get a prosecution is to engage the "Legal Occupier" in a conversation at the door step, where they hope that person will slip up & drop themselves in it, the recommended course of action is when they tell you they're from T.V Licensing
1. Say no thank you & close the door
2. Don't sign anything
That's all, job done, they have no powers and cannot gain access to your house, give them no information, and they can only go away to try their luck with someone else, they are travelling sales people, nothing more, nothing else.

remember it’s for them to prove that you have been watching live TV without a licence, not for you to have to prove that you haven’t. If they get shitty ask them to show you their evidence, they won’t have any.
 

Electric_Andy

Heavy Metal Fan
Location
Plymouth
That doesn't concern me.. if legally compelled I'll happily let them embarrass themselves by confirming what I'd already told them on their first visit.
Just out of interest - so you are prepared to let them in and search all of your devices for BBC iPlayer or anything that is capable of showing live TV or BBC catch-up? What if they found for example the ITV app on an old tablet - is simply having it installed a crime, or would they have to prove that you have been watching it?
 

Alex321

Guru
Location
South Wales
Just out of interest - so you are prepared to let them in and search all of your devices for BBC iPlayer or anything that is capable of showing live TV or BBC catch-up? What if they found for example the ITV app on an old tablet - is simply having it installed a crime, or would they have to prove that you have been watching it?

They have to prove that you have been watching it.

And if it was an old tablet, or even a current one where tioyu hadn't used the app for a while, the first thing that would happen when they tried to open it would be that it would try to update itself tio the latest version - which is pretty good evidence you haven't been using it in the immediate past.
 

glasgowcyclist

Charming but somewhat feckless
Location
Scotland
Plus, while you are obliged to provide reasonable assistance during a search under warrant, you are not obliged to unlock devices secured by password PIN, or biometrics. That really just leaves the TV.
 

Electric_Andy

Heavy Metal Fan
Location
Plymouth
ITVX you're ok to use without a licence, as long as you don't use it for watching Live TV. I quite like it, the ads aren't as obnoxious as on something like Roku Channel.

But that's my point - if they decide to take things further and bring police to access your property, if they find an app capable of watching live TV, could that be grounds for prosecution? I think the wording is that you need a license if you have a device capable, not "only if you watch it live". How would you prove you don't use the live TV option on the App. And how would they prove that you don't! It seems a bit chicken and egg
 

Alex321

Guru
Location
South Wales
But that's my point - if they decide to take things further and bring police to access your property, if they find an app capable of watching live TV, could that be grounds for prosecution? I think the wording is that you need a license if you have a device capable, not "only if you watch it live". How would you prove you don't use the live TV option on the App. And how would they prove that you don't! It seems a bit chicken and egg

No, the wording is if you "use" it, there is no requirement to have a licence just because you posess a device capable of receiving it.

Para 363 Communications Act 2003
(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.


Must not be installed here means must not carry out the act of installation, not possess one which is installed.

Then at para 388
(3)References in this Part to using a television receiver are references to using it for—
(a)receiving all or any part of any television programme, or
(b)receiving all or any part of a programme included in an on-demand programme service which is provided by the BBC,

and that reference to the provision of an on-demand programme service by the BBC is to be read in accordance with section 368R(5) and (6).
 

wafter

I like steel bikes and I cannot lie..
Location
Oxford
Just out of interest - so you are prepared to let them in and search all of your devices for BBC iPlayer or anything that is capable of showing live TV or BBC catch-up? What if they found for example the ITV app on an old tablet - is simply having it installed a crime, or would they have to prove that you have been watching it?

Interesting question. Re. the first part, assuming they found "all of my devices" - I only have a couple of laptops here, one of which is always stored in a drawer out of sight - then that would come down to reading the terms of the warrant to determine whether I'm compelled to do this. It might also be worth asking the accompanying officer to clarify my legal obligations - ideally as a "yes/no" question - filmed so that they can be held to account later if the information they provide turns out to be wrong.

I suspect it would also be worth clarifying the context here - i.e. requesting that they provide evidence to support these demands. As others have said, while TVL constantly imply that the burden of proof is upon the individual to show that they've not breaching the license conditions, in reality it remains upon TVL to prove that you have broken said conditions - with any demand to access your devices to check presumably being predicated upon that. Presumably if they cannot provide proof then there's no case to answer on my part.

As for your second question (which I appreciate might be aimed at a wider audience than just me) personally there's no danger of this since my home isn't littered with "old" devices, nor have any of the devices present ever been used to download software whose purpose is to view streaming content, or will any evidence be present in my browsing history of having accessed any "licenseable" content.

Again, I have nothing to hide - none of my viewing habits fall under those deemed to require a TV license and - worst case, if TVL muppets were granted absolute free-rein to interrogate every microscopic facet of my living space they'd still find nothing incriminating by the definition of the license requirements.

Had the subject initially been brooched by TVL in a respectful and proportionate manner I'd have been more inclined to comply with their "requests". As it stands I'm disgusted by their conduct and simply refuse to reward their greasy tactics by engaging with them.

While I find their tactic deplorable on a personal level, it's disgusting to think of the effects they might have on more "vulnerable" members of society. On that note I wonder how many people with no need for a license have been terrorised / duped into buying one off the back of this behaviour...?

Tbh it reminds me of an experience I had walking to the bus stop after a night out a while ago... with some random dickhead apparently trying to engage me in conversation by repeatedly shouting "yo" at me. With the absolute lack of respect this conveyed I chose to simply refuse to engage while trying to ready myself for confrontation. Had he instead begun with "excuse me mate" or similar; I'd at least have heard him out...
 
Last edited:

Alex321

Guru
Location
South Wales
I totally agree it's disgusting. But are the terms cleverly worded such that just by having an App capable of receiving live TV, which is any catch-up TV App, are you breaking the law just by having the App even if you don't click the "live tv" button? Anyway, I grudgingly pay the license because we do watch live TV and BBC content. But I hope you continue to stand up for yourself given that you don't need a license

Have you actually READ any of the previous responses to this same question you have asked again?

The answer is still the same - NO you do not need a licence to possess devices capable of receiving live TV.
 

DRM

Guru
Location
West Yorks
But that's my point - if they decide to take things further and bring police to access your property, if they find an app capable of watching live TV, could that be grounds for prosecution? I think the wording is that you need a license if you have a device capable, not "only if you watch it live". How would you prove you don't use the live TV option on the App. And how would they prove that you don't! It seems a bit chicken and egg

They won't bring the Police to your house unless You admit to watching live TV without a licence, or making use of BBC iPlayer, it's as simple as that, as I said previously if they knock on your door, tell them no thank you & close the door, don't speak to them, & never, ever sign anything, they could amend it later, it's as simple as that
 
Top Bottom