It used to be the POST OFFICE - but Parliament pointed out that this was not being very efficient
...and the BBC was more than a bit annoyed that what the public saw as being the LF income was having a lot taken off for collection
(I think it was about 10+%)
so it said we can do better! and it has done it is now under 5%...
If you were employing someone to collect money for you would you want them to "maximize your revenue....."
Exactly. It is obvious to me there's at least one poster on this thread who has a specific agenda against the BBC whatever.
The OP said 'I have today received a letter saying they are sending around the heavy mob (this is not an exaggeration)'
I've yet to see a letter from them using those words, have you? and for your information I had plenty of dealings with them in the past when I was licence dodging and I never experienced any rudeness, inconsideration or whatever so don't tell me I have zero idea of what they're like.
I'm willing to bet that your attitude towards them, as is evident here, got their backs up.
Not so sure this is true, do you have any official source to back it up?
I have several letters stating that my postcode cannot receive U.K terrestrial transmissions due to location and a lack of a transmitter so I will not be paying the BBC for a service they have admitted they cannot provide, if by chance I can receive transmissions from another country not funded by the BBC then I will not be paying the BBC for that either. Would you pay someone for offering a service they admit they cannot provide?
Legal advice is simple, ignore them and bin there letters,you have do legal duty to deal with tv license, they are just like any other salespoeople, who have no legal right to come into your home. Do do not have to talk to them, if they come onto your property the law is on your side and tell them to leave. You do not have to give your name or any other informtion to them. Never sign any paper work. They have no more legal powers then you do, if they refuse to leave when told to then phone the police.
I know all this thanks tim59...the OP is the one flustered by the sounds of. Either a) let them inspect the property to shut them up b) ignore their letters c) get legal advice to see what action to take for the letters to stop IF the letters are bothersome.
I have thought of freesat but living on the coast the actual dish has a life of between a day and a month, I was just lucky to pick up Irish channels from a rooftop mounted antenna and amp which the wind and salt air has little effect on compared to a dish which would get knocked about a fair bit.
You would have thought someone would have made a dish that can stand up to the elements.
I have several letters stating that my postcode cannot receive U.K terrestrial transmissions due to location and a lack of a transmitter so I will not be paying the BBC for a service they have admitted they cannot provide, if by chance I can receive transmissions from another country not funded by the BBC then I will not be paying the BBC for that either. Would you pay someone for offering a service they admit they cannot provide?
Well since you are not paying the BBC anything, you are wrong.
You are actually paying the government, or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to be exact.
Once again, a TV Licence is required to watch ANY LIVE TV BROADCAST, be it a BBC channel, a UKTV channel, a Sky channel or a foreign channel.
It is not just exclusively for the BBC channels.
I feel the OP's pain, to a degree. I work in a small office, all on my own, in a converted barn. I don't have a TV in there - It's my office...
When you go to a trade show, or similar, someone obviously sells lists of 'addresses' to TVL collections, and they send out a trawl of those addresses, just sending a quick letter warning the circumstances in which you need a license. Quick call and it is all sorted.
However, 6 months later, the same thing happens, then 6 months later again, and repeat. So, now, I just ignore them. If they want to phone up or send someone round every so often then fine - I'm not doing anything wrong - but they always seem surprised that I didn't just let them know.
Same thing happens with the Performing Rights Society too....
I feel the OP's pain, to a degree. I work in a small office, all on my own, in a converted barn. I don't have a TV in there - It's my office...
When you go to a trade show, or similar, someone obviously sells lists of 'addresses' to TVL collections, and they send out a trawl of those addresses, just sending a quick letter warning the circumstances in which you need a license. Quick call and it is all sorted.
However, 6 months later, the same thing happens, then 6 months later again, and repeat. So, now, I just ignore them. If they want to phone up or send someone round every so often then fine - I'm not doing anything wrong - but they always seem surprised that I didn't just let them know.
Same thing happens with the Performing Rights Society too....
There could have been a change in use though. That's why they have to keep going back to houses which have been notified as unoccupied - in the majority of cases, houses don't stay unoccupied forever, especially if the reason for this status in the first place is given as empty pending a sale or improvements being carried out.
I appreciate that this isn't quite your situation, but in all honesty, you have to admit that they won't know whether you might have acquired a TV set for the premises in the period since they were last in touch.
If they didn't do this, there would be many people getting away without paying for a licence - either becuase they had genuinely overlooked it or because they knew they should have one but thought they could get away without bothering.
To be fair to the TVL (and I really don't want to be) I bought a TV from Amazon and had it delivered to work. A few weeks later I got a letter, telling me there was no license at my works address, I rang them up and explained that it was just a delivery address, and they said "sorry, we'll update our records" never heard from them again. Agree about the PRS though, we had to sign up to them because the guys use the radio in the factory, now we get a letter from some other organisation saying we need a license for the writers of the songs too! they all went in the bin.
If you are going to give advice at least make sure what you say is actually correct.
It is not a BBC TV Licence. It is a TV Licence, covering ALL TV in the UK, and controlled by the Government. The BBC are just the company responsible for the collection of the licence fee.
To be fair you didn't say you couldn't receive any UK channels, you only said that you couldn't receive the BBC channels.
It used to be the POST OFFICE - but Parliament pointed out that this was not being very efficient
...and the BBC was more than a bit annoyed that what the public saw as being the LF income was having a lot taken off for collection
(I think it was about 10+%)
so it said we can do better! and it has done it is now under 5%...
If you were employing someone to collect money for you would you want them to "maximize your revenue....."
Why, then, is the BBC responsible for licence fee collection and why is Capita's remit "to maximise revenue for the BBC"?
And how come, for example, ITV isn't responsible for licence fee collection? Or a consortium of broadcasters?
Why, then, is the BBC responsible for licence fee collection and why is Capita's remit "to maximise revenue for the BBC"?
And how come, for example, ITV isn't responsible for licence fee collection? Or a consortium of broadcasters?
Getting more than onr company would to collect it would cost a lot more money as more companies would have be paid for collecting it. As would getting ITV (or any other company for that matter) as they would want paying to do it. Getting the BBC to do it just takes money out of the licence fee and costs less because they are not paying a.commercial company to do it who would want paying more than it currently costs to do it.
Given the post quoted it's fairly obvious that this is aimed at me.
Perhaps you'd like to explain what this alleged "specific agenda against the BBC" is.
I seek nothing more than the abolition of the BBC TV licence.
Although, from what I've learned since becoming LLF, the BBC hasn't exactly endeared itself to me.
THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE
IS NO SUCH THING AS A BBC TV LICENCE.
There is however a TV Licence comtrolles by our government. This will always exist, in one form or another.
Completely free TV is a fantasy that people have made up.
Scrap the TV Licence and all TV will become pay TV.
You would have thought someone would have made a dish that can stand up to the elements.
Well since you are not paying the BBC anything, you are wrong.
You are actually paying the government, or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to be exact.
Once again, a TV Licence is required to watch ANY LIVE TV BROADCAST, be it a BBC channel, a UKTV channel, a Sky channel or a foreign channel.
It is not just exclusively for the BBC channels.
But the vast majority of the money paid in a licence goes to the BBC so I am in fact paying the BBC and since they provide me with no service I am not paying them anything. From Wiki...
"
Income from the licence is primarily used to fund the television, radio and online services of the BBC. Total levies from the licence fee were £3.681 billion in 2011–12[4] of which £588.4 million or 16.0% was provided by the Government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk of the BBC's total income of £5.086 billion in 2011-2012.[4] "
THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE
IS NO SUCH THING AS A BBC TV LICENCE.
There is however a TV Licence comtrolles by our government. This will always exist, in one form or another.
Completely free TV is a fantasy that people have made up.
Scrap the TV Licence and all TV will become pay TV.
I understand what you're saying. However, I call it a BBC TV licence because that's, fundamentally, what it is.
It funds the BBC, the BBC are the Licensing Authority, and the BBC are responsible for collection and enforcement.
I disagree that all TV will become pay TV. The likes of ITV and Channel 4 are funded by income from advertising are they not? As opposed to subscription which is what you appear to be suggesting.
Getting more than onr company would to collect it would cost a lot more money as more companies would have be paid for collecting it. As would getting ITV (or any other company for that matter) as they would want paying to do it. Getting the BBC to do it just takes money out of the licence fee and costs less because they are not paying a.commercial company to do it who would want paying more than it currently costs to do it.
My point is that you're making a big deal out of it being a TV licence rather than a BBC TV licence. Consequently it would be logical to think that all broadcasters would be involved in the collection/enforcement operation. As we know, they aren't, hence BBC TV licence.
As for getting one or more companies involved I wonder how much the BBC pay for the services of
THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN BECAUSE THERE
IS NO SUCH THING AS A BBC TV LICENCE.
There is however a TV Licence comtrolles by our government. This will always exist, in one form or another.
Completely free TV is a fantasy that people have made up.
Scrap the TV Licence and all TV will become pay TV.
Not the case in the USA, subscription or adverts is the way they have had their Colour TV long before we even had Colour sets here.
In Fact both the BBC & the TV licence payers are subject to a huge CON - because more & more of the TVL is being diverted from the BBC into paying for Broadband expansion each year - the Goverment says "Thank you very much" to the BBC for collecting it's Tax for it & for paying Capita for trying to chase those that do not wish to be CONNED - that is the true picture.
The Legal way to improve broadband services, would be to add a bit to the ISP charges of those that want high speed internet. I for one am quite happy with my 8mb connection.
No, I am correct. If I only receive BBC channels and no other u.k channels I still have to pay my licence as that is all the licence is legally obliged to supply, any other channels are a bonus. Since I receive no U.K channels at all I am not obliged to pay anything.
Your licence isn't legally obliged to supply anything. TVL make is quite clear that it doesn't guarantee reception of anything.
However, the law is that if a property contains equipment which is capable of decoding and displaying any live television broadcast stream (and it doesn't specify where the signal originates from or how it is transmitted, JUST that you can recieve it), then you are obliged to possess a valid licence to receive it.
Your licence isn't legally obliged to supply anything. TVL make is quite clear that it doesn't guarantee reception of anything.
However, the law is that if a property contains equipment which is capable of decoding and displaying any live television broadcast stream (and it doesn't specify where the signal originates from or how it is transmitted, JUST that you can recieve it), then you are obliged to possess a valid licence to receive it.
You dont need a license just because you own these things,TV. You only need license to watch live broadcasts
I have several letters stating that my postcode cannot receive U.K terrestrial transmissions due to location and a lack of a transmitter so I will not be paying the BBC for a service they have admitted they cannot provide, if by chance I can receive transmissions from another country not funded by the BBC then I will not be paying the BBC for that either. Would you pay someone for offering a service they admit they cannot provide?
The thing is, you say you get RTE, but seeing as the Irish TV License costs €160, is it that much cheaper for you anyway? Or do you refuse to pay for a service you *do* receive?
So do ITV ,C4 ,C5 etc get a cut of the license proceeds from the license?
Channel 4 used to. Not sure if they still do. None of the commercial broadcasters get a direct grant, but the PSB (old analog terrestrial channels) do get subsidised access to broadcast networks and facilities funded via the licence fee (though even that is likely to move to a purely commercial footing since broadcast services have been split up and largely privatised), But there's a lot of licence fee money sitting in the terrestrial broadcast network (alongside commercial capital, of course).
Comments
Exactly. It is obvious to me there's at least one poster on this thread who has a specific agenda against the BBC whatever.
Ah yes, of course it would be!
I have several letters stating that my postcode cannot receive U.K terrestrial transmissions due to location and a lack of a transmitter so I will not be paying the BBC for a service they have admitted they cannot provide, if by chance I can receive transmissions from another country not funded by the BBC then I will not be paying the BBC for that either. Would you pay someone for offering a service they admit they cannot provide?
I know all this thanks tim59...the OP is the one flustered by the sounds of. Either a) let them inspect the property to shut them up b) ignore their letters c) get legal advice to see what action to take for the letters to stop IF the letters are bothersome.
Well since you are not paying the BBC anything, you are wrong.
You are actually paying the government, or the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to be exact.
Once again, a TV Licence is required to watch ANY LIVE TV BROADCAST, be it a BBC channel, a UKTV channel, a Sky channel or a foreign channel.
It is not just exclusively for the BBC channels.
When you go to a trade show, or similar, someone obviously sells lists of 'addresses' to TVL collections, and they send out a trawl of those addresses, just sending a quick letter warning the circumstances in which you need a license. Quick call and it is all sorted.
However, 6 months later, the same thing happens, then 6 months later again, and repeat. So, now, I just ignore them. If they want to phone up or send someone round every so often then fine - I'm not doing anything wrong - but they always seem surprised that I didn't just let them know.
Same thing happens with the Performing Rights Society too....
There could have been a change in use though. That's why they have to keep going back to houses which have been notified as unoccupied - in the majority of cases, houses don't stay unoccupied forever, especially if the reason for this status in the first place is given as empty pending a sale or improvements being carried out.
I appreciate that this isn't quite your situation, but in all honesty, you have to admit that they won't know whether you might have acquired a TV set for the premises in the period since they were last in touch.
If they didn't do this, there would be many people getting away without paying for a licence - either becuase they had genuinely overlooked it or because they knew they should have one but thought they could get away without bothering.
In one letter I received they threatened to break into the house if necessary.
Why, then, is the BBC responsible for licence fee collection and why is Capita's remit "to maximise revenue for the BBC"?
And how come, for example, ITV isn't responsible for licence fee collection? Or a consortium of broadcasters?
Given the post quoted it's fairly obvious that this is aimed at me.
Perhaps you'd like to explain what this alleged "specific agenda against the BBC" is.
I seek nothing more than the abolition of the BBC TV licence.
Although, from what I've learned since becoming LLF, the BBC hasn't exactly endeared itself to me.
Getting more than onr company would to collect it would cost a lot more money as more companies would have be paid for collecting it. As would getting ITV (or any other company for that matter) as they would want paying to do it. Getting the BBC to do it just takes money out of the licence fee and costs less because they are not paying a.commercial company to do it who would want paying more than it currently costs to do it.
IS NO SUCH THING AS A BBC TV LICENCE.
There is however a TV Licence comtrolles by our government. This will always exist, in one form or another.
Completely free TV is a fantasy that people have made up.
Scrap the TV Licence and all TV will become pay TV.
"
Income from the licence is primarily used to fund the television, radio and online services of the BBC. Total levies from the licence fee were £3.681 billion in 2011–12[4] of which £588.4 million or 16.0% was provided by the Government through concessions for those over the age of 75. Thus, the licence fee made up the bulk of the BBC's total income of £5.086 billion in 2011-2012.[4] "
...well there's always the advertising business model for broadcasting
So do ITV ,C4 ,C5 etc get a cut of the license proceeds from the license?
I understand what you're saying. However, I call it a BBC TV licence because that's, fundamentally, what it is.
It funds the BBC, the BBC are the Licensing Authority, and the BBC are responsible for collection and enforcement.
I disagree that all TV will become pay TV. The likes of ITV and Channel 4 are funded by income from advertising are they not? As opposed to subscription which is what you appear to be suggesting.
My point is that you're making a big deal out of it being a TV licence rather than a BBC TV licence. Consequently it would be logical to think that all broadcasters would be involved in the collection/enforcement operation. As we know, they aren't, hence BBC TV licence.
As for getting one or more companies involved I wonder how much the BBC pay for the services of
Proximity London
Post Office
Paypoint
Fishburn Hedges
Quadrant
Clarke Associates
Brass
Smart
Stakeholder Group
Capita Business Services plc
....or is that too obvious ?.....
Not the case in the USA, subscription or adverts is the way they have had their Colour TV long before we even had Colour sets here.
In Fact both the BBC & the TV licence payers are subject to a huge CON - because more & more of the TVL is being diverted from the BBC into paying for Broadband expansion each year - the Goverment says "Thank you very much" to the BBC for collecting it's Tax for it & for paying Capita for trying to chase those that do not wish to be CONNED - that is the true picture.
The Legal way to improve broadband services, would be to add a bit to the ISP charges of those that want high speed internet. I for one am quite happy with my 8mb connection.
And there are even more on here with an AGENDA (they like that word) to protect the BBC & the TVL at all costs, from all justified critisisum.
It is a free country with free speech, so they tell me:D
Your licence isn't legally obliged to supply anything. TVL make is quite clear that it doesn't guarantee reception of anything.
However, the law is that if a property contains equipment which is capable of decoding and displaying any live television broadcast stream (and it doesn't specify where the signal originates from or how it is transmitted, JUST that you can recieve it), then you are obliged to possess a valid licence to receive it.
You dont need a license just because you own these things,TV. You only need license to watch live broadcasts
The thing is, you say you get RTE, but seeing as the Irish TV License costs €160, is it that much cheaper for you anyway? Or do you refuse to pay for a service you *do* receive?
Channel 4 used to. Not sure if they still do. None of the commercial broadcasters get a direct grant, but the PSB (old analog terrestrial channels) do get subsidised access to broadcast networks and facilities funded via the licence fee (though even that is likely to move to a purely commercial footing since broadcast services have been split up and largely privatised), But there's a lot of licence fee money sitting in the terrestrial broadcast network (alongside commercial capital, of course).
How awful