I'm sure I've read about cases of inspectors considering working roof aerials to be "television receiving equipment" and demand they be removed or properly disabled.
I suppose it depends on whether you're visited by a clipboard waving jobsworth.
Personally, I'd be happy to let them in after getting rid of the TV and then again in 1 or 2 years when they next come back. But, for me, that would be enough proof that I really have got rid of the thing and wasn't hiding it in the garden etc.
After that I would simply explain to them that I understand the requirements for a licence and would immediately buy one if ever I get another TV or other relevant equipment. And not let them in again.
It's a bit like randomly being pulled over by the police. If you have an attitude from the outset, you're only going to create friction and make your own life more awkward. Unlike the police, I think it's reasonable to ignore subsequent and unreasonable 'pulls' by the TV licence man after the first two, where you invited him as a guest into your home and showed him around.
And make sure you do lead any inspector around rather than allow them to barge into rooms in front of you. Remind them they're your guests in your home.
I'm sure I've read about cases of inspectors considering working roof aerials to be "television receiving equipment" and demand they be removed or properly disabled.
I suppose it depends on whether you're visited by a clipboard waving jobsworth.
Personally, I'd be happy to let them in after getting rid of the TV and then again in 1 or 2 years when they next come back. But, for me, that would be enough proof that I really have got rid of the thing and wasn't hiding it in the garden etc.
After that I would simply explain to them that I understand the requirements for a licence and would immediately buy one if ever I get another TV or other relevant equipment. And not let them in again.
It's a bit like randomly being pulled over by the police. If you have an attitude from the outset, you're only going to create friction and make your own life more awkward. Unlike the police, I think it's reasonable to ignore subsequent and unreasonable 'pulls' by the TV licence man after the first two, where you invited him as a guest into your home and showed him around.
And make sure you do lead any inspector around rather than allow them to barge into rooms in front of you. Remind them they're your guests in your home.
I did wonder about the aerial, but its not an item listed on TV Licensing website what you need to have a licence for, so they needn't try and say it is. If they even do come
As I said in my first post, I have an aerial coming into the property due to me not owning the property. If I said to them "I have removed your implied rights of access", "I can not confirm nor deny I have a TV" etc. it is raising a red flag. Far simpler surely to say, come in and see I have no TV set nor any other type of equipment which can connect to the aerial!
You are still behaving as if they have authority. They don't. Removing their implied right of access is not raising a red flag. It is enforcing your right not to have a complete stranger who has no right to have access to your home, have access to your home if you know what I mean. It doesn't even matter if you DO have equipment that can connect to an aerial socket. As long as you do not watch television AS LIVE, or recorded on a Sky box, etc., then it doesn't matter. You could own 500 television sets and not require a licence. As long as you don't watch television as long as it is being broadcast. If you watch iPlayer, ITVPlayer, 4oD, Netflix, DVDs, You Tube. You do not need a licence.
You are still behaving as if they have authority. They don't. Removing their implied right of access is not raising a red flag. It is enforcing your right not to have a complete stranger who has no right to have access to your home, have access to your home if you know what I mean. It doesn't even matter if you DO have equipment that can connect to an aerial socket. As long as you do not watch television AS LIVE, or recorded on a Sky box, etc., then it doesn't matter. You could own 500 television sets and not require a licence. As long as you don't watch television as long as it is being broadcast. If you watch iPlayer, ITVPlayer, 4oD, Netflix, DVDs, You Tube. You do not need a licence.
I'm not annoyed at the posters. I get annoyed with the lies Capita spread about what rights they want you to believe they have (not what rights they actually have, i.e. none )
I'm sure I've read about cases of inspectors considering working roof aerials to be "television receiving equipment" and demand they be removed or properly disabled.
I suppose it depends on whether you're visited by a clipboard waving jobsworth.
Personally, I'd be happy to let them in after getting rid of the TV and then again in 1 or 2 years when they next come back. But, for me, that would be enough proof that I really have got rid of the thing and wasn't hiding it in the garden etc.
.
Just to say, we haven't had a licence in maybe 7/8 years... And bar the visit they made back then, we've never had any follow up, no issues at all
I'm not annoyed at the posters. I get annoyed with the lies Capita spread about what rights they want you to believe they have (not what rights they actually have, i.e. none )
And that's fine, I know my rights but I've far more important things to be worrying about than waging a war on such an issue. Perhaps if I didn't I'd do it. It's just a few phone calls as far as I'm concerned.
Also -edit- I'm not a fan of the TV licence as it's purely for the BBC. But that's my own view on the BBC and how they do actually make A LOT more money than they claim.
They've never sent out an inspector but even if they did, as has already been mentioned they have no rights of entry or inspection.
None.
Zilch.
Zero.
You just tell them to have a nice day and be on their way. If they want to be difficult you just take out your phone and start filming them, reminding them of their lack of powers. They'll soon be off.
Just to say, we haven't had a licence in maybe 7/8 years... And bar the visit they made back then, we've never had any follow up, no issues at all
I'm guessing you didn't open the door with a hard frown and start ranting and raving like a Dalek about "freemen of the land", common law, acts of trespass, authority, warrants, totalitarianism, "Cameron's fascist Tory state" and repeating the phrase "I know my rights" like a stuck record, etc?
It's amazing how the experience can be as simple and calm as you describe, when you leave out all of the above ;-)
I always wonder why these same 'warriors' don't make the same fuss over Sky users who find it equally difficult to cancel their subscription and then get regular unwanted phone calls and a flood of junk mail harassing them to go back forever more.
I'm guessing you didn't open the door with a hard frown and start ranting and raving like a Dalek about "freemen of the land", common law, acts of trespass, authority, warrants, totalitarianism, "Cameron's fascist Tory state" and repeating the phrase "I know my rights" like a stuck record, etc?
It's amazing how the experience can be as simple and calm as you describe, when you leave out all of the above ;-)
I always wonder why these same 'warriors' don't make the same fuss over Sky users who find it equally difficult to cancel their subscription and then get regular unwanted phone calls and a flood of junk mail harassing them to go back forever more.
Well as far as I know sky junk mail, is not threating letter like you get off tv licence. And you can deal with tv licence salemen the same way as sky salesmen who come to your door. Open door say no thankyou shut door end of. You dont have to give them any details at all like your name or anthing else. They are the ones trying to get information from you, but you dont have to give any informtion out. You dont break any laws or rules by not giving any salemen information wheather they work for sky tv, or tv licence.
It's the letters that also annoy me. I did end up having an argument with one in the street. I had been out walking my Mother's dogs, when I got back he was banging on the door. I asked him who he was and he told me. I politely told him I would not discuss the matter further with him. He ended up getting quite nasty. That day the police were just around the corner as a cash machine had been taken out with a digger. Really, that happened and he said that he was going to come back with the police to let him in. I already knew full well that he would need a court order. I just looked at him and told him "you do that." He walked off and we have never been bothered since.
Mum was paying for a licence by dd but had not changed the address from her former address to her current address. These people seem to do their research and target single women/older people. They don't necessarily waste their time. They will go after what they consider weak targets.
What people might not realise is that the 'inspectors' are actually on quotas and given incentives to get people prosecuted, which is why some of them are sneaky.
This is why you do have to defend your corner. Not all of them, but some of them WILL be underhand. There is something in it for them if they can get you into court and prosecuted. However the only way they can do that is if you willingly hand over your information. I suggest you be polite with them but don't do it.
You have the upper hand to start with. Don't give away your power. Don't give them your name and don't for God's sake, sign ANYTHING. Don't let them into your home. You don't need to tell them you have or haven't a TV. I recommend you don't discuss anything with them, or allow them to trick you into talking. Use the broken record technique of. "I have nothing to discuss with you. Good Day" and close the door.
BTW. I do believe that you should remain firm but polite. I don't agree with giving verbal abuse/name calling/threats.
Unfortunately my experience was not a pleasant one. I suppose it didn't help that I was under a number of misapprehensions at the time.
I just let my licence lapse and got shut of the TV which was my first mistake. Apparently this sets off alarm bells at Bristol (as it was at the time).
I also didn't know, back then, that the letters were computer generated so when I got a letter asking me why I hadn't got a licence I didn't think too much of it and wrote back explaining that I no longer had a TV. Which turned out to be another mistake.
When I got a second letter asking why I hadn't got a licence I was a bit puzzled but, nevertheless, wrote back explaining that I no longer had a TV.
When the third letter came I didn't bother replying. I'd already done so twice and I saw little point in repeatedly telling them the same thing.
As I'm sure you're aware the letters become more accusatory in tone and that really started to get my back up >:(
To add insult to injury I received a telephone call:
"Is that [Hieronymous]?"
"Who's speaking, please?"
"This is Television Licensing™. YOU HAVEN'T GOT A TELEVISION LICENCE!"
This took me by surprise - which was the whole idea - and I just replied "I haven't got a television" and slammed the receiver down. I was furious.
Then I got a hand delivered letter from Capita's offices at Darwen - about which I'm still curious. I still don't see the point of that.
I wrote to Darwen explaining, yet again, that I didn't have a TV.
I eventually got a visit where the guy pointed his finger in my face and said "YOU HAVEN'T GOT A TELEVISION LICENCE!". His reaction when I quite readily agreed with him was quite amusing. I'd heard the expression 'stands back in amazement' quite a few times but this was the first time I'd actually seen it.
Then the guy asked "Er, have you got a television?" AT LAST!! This was the first time anybody had actually asked anything along the lines of did I need a licence.
So I said "No" and he said "Do you mind if I check?". I wasn't too happy about it but I thought if he sees for himself that I don't have a TV it'll put an end to this nonsense.
IT DIDN'T!
I'm a lot more clued up these days than I was then but that experience has opened my eyes to the BBC and their agents and contractors.
After all, if you offer someone a financial icentive to find people guilty of a crime (a crime for God's sake!!) you don't need to be Einstein to figure out what's going to happen.
Unfortunately my experience was not a pleasant one. I suppose it didn't help that I was under a number of misapprehensions at the time.
I just let my licence lapse and got shut of the TV which was my first mistake. Apparently this sets off alarm bells at Bristol (as it was at the time).
I also didn't know, back then, that the letters were computer generated so when I got a letter asking me why I hadn't got a licence I didn't think too much of it and wrote back explaining that I no longer had a TV. Which turned out to be another mistake.
When I got a second letter asking why I hadn't got a licence I was a bit puzzled but, nevertheless, wrote back explaining that I no longer had a TV.
When the third letter came I didn't bother replying. I'd already done so twice and I saw little point in repeatedly telling them the same thing.
As I'm sure you're aware the letters become more accusatory in tone and that really started to get my back up >:(
To add insult to injury I received a telephone call:
"Is that [Hieronymous]?"
"Who's speaking, please?"
"This is Television Licensing™. YOU HAVEN'T GOT A TELEVISION LICENCE!"
This took me by surprise - which was the whole idea - and I just replied "I haven't got a television" and slammed the receiver down. I was furious.
Then I got a hand delivered letter from Capita's offices at Darwen - about which I'm still curious. I still don't see the point of that.
I wrote to Darwen explaining, yet again, that I didn't have a TV.
I eventually got a visit where the guy pointed his finger in my face and said YOU HAVEN'T GOT A TELEVISION LICENCE!". His reaction when I quite readily agreed with him was quite amusing. I'd heard the expression 'stands back in amazement' quite a few times but this was the first time I'd actually seen it.
Then the guy asked "Er, have you got a television?" AT LAST!! This was the first time anybody had actually asked anything along the lines of did I need a licence.
So I said "No" and he said "Do you mind if I check?". I wasn't too happy about it but I thought if he sees for himself that I don't have a TV it'll put an end to this nonsense.
IT DIDN'T!
I'm a lot more clued up these days than I was then but that experience has opened my eyes to the BBC and their agents and contractors.
After all, if you offer someone a financial icentive to find people guilty of a crime (a crime for God's sake!!) you don't need to be Einstein to figure out what's going to happen.
I suppose that reads as though that happened immediately. It didn't. I should have said that it was after he'd established my identity and I, his, but I thought the post was quite long enough.
I absolutely hate the buggers after that experience though.
When my old TV went to CRT heaven at my previous house, I considered not replacing it and giving up on TV altogether. The satellite dish was on the roof and I wouldn't have gone to the expense of having it removed. Simply having a dish or an aerial is not proof of watching live tv.
I would have notified TV Licensing of course but would never have let a stranger into my house to 'inspect'. Forget all the scare stories on youtube - for me it would just have been a matter of principle.
But in any case the current licensing system is no longer fit for purpose.
For example you can watch live tV on your computer. I used to do that if a storm took out my satellite signal. What are they going to do - take away your computer for examination?
When my old TV went to CRT heaven at my previous house, I considered not replacing it and giving up on TV altogether. The satellite dish was on the roof and I wouldn't have gone to the expense of having it removed. Simply having a dish or an aerial is not proof of watching live tv.
I would have notified TV Licensing of course but would never have let a stranger into my house to 'inspect'. Forget all the scare stories on youtube - for me it would just have been a matter of principle.
But in any case the current licensing system is no longer fit for purpose.
For example you can watch live tV on your computer. I used to do that if a storm took out my satellite signal. What are they going to do - take away your computer for examination?
In these days of so many ways to watch TV, including catchup, the system is beyond antiquated. They either need to fund the BBC through general taxation or scrap funding altogether.
It is stupid that without a licence I no longer watch live TV nor have any way of recording it, but could watch a programme later on iPlayer.
In these days of so many ways to watch TV, including catchup, the system is beyond antiquated. They either need to fund the BBC through general taxation or scrap funding altogether.
It is stupid that without a licence I no longer watch live TV nor have any way of recording it, but could watch a programme later on iPlayer.
And nothing stopping you connecting your laptop, up to a tv if you like the idea of seeing things on a bigger screen
In other countries, such as Germany I believe, they take the money out at source. You pay for it through your ISP subscription. I believe that we will go this way eventually but then you will be left with no choice.
Apparently half of 16-24 year olds no longer watch 'as live' television. So in future years, if the current system remains in place, they will lose a lot of revenue. The model of television broadcast as we know it will change eventually and I believe we will all move to purely Internet-based services eventually. I can see everything becoming subscription-orientated eventually.
For a long time I had no TV, eventually I got fed up with arguing with TV licencing idiots and let one look inside, when he started demanding to be allowed to poke about upstairs, I ejected him from my property as he wouldn't leave when requested.
You can be as civil as you like to TV licence people, but inevitably they try to play the Judge Dredd act, not nice people at all in my experience.
Some people getting very hot under the collar in here today.
Much simpler if Govt. just do away with the TV licence and fund the Beeb by a direct household tax. That'd sort out the present mess and would allow the fee to be reduced for those who currently admit to watching TV. Live or On Demand shouldn't matter, it's all TV really.
Enough of this "capable of receiving" (or whatever it now is) legalistic nonsense, I say. We could do away with the Capita jobsworths as well, that'd save a few quid.
For a long time I had no TV, eventually I got fed up with arguing with TV licencing idiots and let one look inside, when he started demanding to be allowed to poke about upstairs, I ejected him from my property as he wouldn't leave when requested.
You can be as civil as you like to TV licence people, but inevitably they try to play the Judge Dredd act, not nice people at all in my experience.
But owning a tv does not mean you need a licence, same as not owning a tv does not mean you dont need a licence, the whole system is a complete mess. And why tv licence seem to think they have a right to come inside peoples homes is amazing as the law says they dont have a right. So i dont see how anyone can be in the wrong for not letting strangers who have no right to come into your home.
Comments
I suppose it depends on whether you're visited by a clipboard waving jobsworth.
Personally, I'd be happy to let them in after getting rid of the TV and then again in 1 or 2 years when they next come back. But, for me, that would be enough proof that I really have got rid of the thing and wasn't hiding it in the garden etc.
After that I would simply explain to them that I understand the requirements for a licence and would immediately buy one if ever I get another TV or other relevant equipment. And not let them in again.
It's a bit like randomly being pulled over by the police. If you have an attitude from the outset, you're only going to create friction and make your own life more awkward. Unlike the police, I think it's reasonable to ignore subsequent and unreasonable 'pulls' by the TV licence man after the first two, where you invited him as a guest into your home and showed him around.
And make sure you do lead any inspector around rather than allow them to barge into rooms in front of you. Remind them they're your guests in your home.
I did wonder about the aerial, but its not an item listed on TV Licensing website what you need to have a licence for, so they needn't try and say it is. If they even do come
You are still behaving as if they have authority. They don't. Removing their implied right of access is not raising a red flag. It is enforcing your right not to have a complete stranger who has no right to have access to your home, have access to your home if you know what I mean. It doesn't even matter if you DO have equipment that can connect to an aerial socket. As long as you do not watch television AS LIVE, or recorded on a Sky box, etc., then it doesn't matter. You could own 500 television sets and not require a licence. As long as you don't watch television as long as it is being broadcast. If you watch iPlayer, ITVPlayer, 4oD, Netflix, DVDs, You Tube. You do not need a licence.
Calm down.
I'm not annoyed at the posters. I get annoyed with the lies Capita spread about what rights they want you to believe they have (not what rights they actually have, i.e. none
Just to say, we haven't had a licence in maybe 7/8 years... And bar the visit they made back then, we've never had any follow up, no issues at all
Also -edit- I'm not a fan of the TV licence as it's purely for the BBC. But that's my own view on the BBC and how they do actually make A LOT more money than they claim.
They've never sent out an inspector but even if they did, as has already been mentioned they have no rights of entry or inspection.
None.
Zilch.
Zero.
You just tell them to have a nice day and be on their way. If they want to be difficult you just take out your phone and start filming them, reminding them of their lack of powers. They'll soon be off.
I'm guessing you didn't open the door with a hard frown and start ranting and raving like a Dalek about "freemen of the land", common law, acts of trespass, authority, warrants, totalitarianism, "Cameron's fascist Tory state" and repeating the phrase "I know my rights" like a stuck record, etc?
It's amazing how the experience can be as simple and calm as you describe, when you leave out all of the above ;-)
I always wonder why these same 'warriors' don't make the same fuss over Sky users who find it equally difficult to cancel their subscription and then get regular unwanted phone calls and a flood of junk mail harassing them to go back forever more.
Well as far as I know sky junk mail, is not threating letter like you get off tv licence. And you can deal with tv licence salemen the same way as sky salesmen who come to your door. Open door say no thankyou shut door end of. You dont have to give them any details at all like your name or anthing else. They are the ones trying to get information from you, but you dont have to give any informtion out. You dont break any laws or rules by not giving any salemen information wheather they work for sky tv, or tv licence.
Mum was paying for a licence by dd but had not changed the address from her former address to her current address. These people seem to do their research and target single women/older people. They don't necessarily waste their time. They will go after what they consider weak targets.
What people might not realise is that the 'inspectors' are actually on quotas and given incentives to get people prosecuted, which is why some of them are sneaky.
This is why you do have to defend your corner. Not all of them, but some of them WILL be underhand. There is something in it for them if they can get you into court and prosecuted. However the only way they can do that is if you willingly hand over your information. I suggest you be polite with them but don't do it.
You have the upper hand to start with. Don't give away your power. Don't give them your name and don't for God's sake, sign ANYTHING. Don't let them into your home. You don't need to tell them you have or haven't a TV. I recommend you don't discuss anything with them, or allow them to trick you into talking. Use the broken record technique of. "I have nothing to discuss with you. Good Day" and close the door.
BTW. I do believe that you should remain firm but polite. I don't agree with giving verbal abuse/name calling/threats.
I just let my licence lapse and got shut of the TV which was my first mistake. Apparently this sets off alarm bells at Bristol (as it was at the time).
I also didn't know, back then, that the letters were computer generated so when I got a letter asking me why I hadn't got a licence I didn't think too much of it and wrote back explaining that I no longer had a TV. Which turned out to be another mistake.
When I got a second letter asking why I hadn't got a licence I was a bit puzzled but, nevertheless, wrote back explaining that I no longer had a TV.
When the third letter came I didn't bother replying. I'd already done so twice and I saw little point in repeatedly telling them the same thing.
As I'm sure you're aware the letters become more accusatory in tone and that really started to get my back up >:(
To add insult to injury I received a telephone call:
"Is that [Hieronymous]?"
"Who's speaking, please?"
"This is Television Licensing™. YOU HAVEN'T GOT A TELEVISION LICENCE!"
This took me by surprise - which was the whole idea - and I just replied "I haven't got a television" and slammed the receiver down. I was furious.
Then I got a hand delivered letter from Capita's offices at Darwen - about which I'm still curious. I still don't see the point of that.
I wrote to Darwen explaining, yet again, that I didn't have a TV.
I eventually got a visit where the guy pointed his finger in my face and said "YOU HAVEN'T GOT A TELEVISION LICENCE!". His reaction when I quite readily agreed with him was quite amusing. I'd heard the expression 'stands back in amazement' quite a few times but this was the first time I'd actually seen it.
Then the guy asked "Er, have you got a television?" AT LAST!! This was the first time anybody had actually asked anything along the lines of did I need a licence.
So I said "No" and he said "Do you mind if I check?". I wasn't too happy about it but I thought if he sees for himself that I don't have a TV it'll put an end to this nonsense.
IT DIDN'T!
I'm a lot more clued up these days than I was then but that experience has opened my eyes to the BBC and their agents and contractors.
After all, if you offer someone a financial icentive to find people guilty of a crime (a crime for God's sake!!) you don't need to be Einstein to figure out what's going to happen.
Richard John Llewellyn
There was also a guy from Maidstone guilty of something similar.
There is, also, this.
Really.......
I suppose that reads as though that happened immediately. It didn't. I should have said that it was after he'd established my identity and I, his, but I thought the post was quite long enough.
I absolutely hate the buggers after that experience though.
I would have notified TV Licensing of course but would never have let a stranger into my house to 'inspect'. Forget all the scare stories on youtube - for me it would just have been a matter of principle.
But in any case the current licensing system is no longer fit for purpose.
For example you can watch live tV on your computer. I used to do that if a storm took out my satellite signal. What are they going to do - take away your computer for examination?
In these days of so many ways to watch TV, including catchup, the system is beyond antiquated. They either need to fund the BBC through general taxation or scrap funding altogether.
It is stupid that without a licence I no longer watch live TV nor have any way of recording it, but could watch a programme later on iPlayer.
And nothing stopping you connecting your laptop, up to a tv if you like the idea of seeing things on a bigger screen
Apparently half of 16-24 year olds no longer watch 'as live' television. So in future years, if the current system remains in place, they will lose a lot of revenue. The model of television broadcast as we know it will change eventually and I believe we will all move to purely Internet-based services eventually. I can see everything becoming subscription-orientated eventually.
You can be as civil as you like to TV licence people, but inevitably they try to play the Judge Dredd act, not nice people at all in my experience.
It's a valid question especially in a family home
Much simpler if Govt. just do away with the TV licence and fund the Beeb by a direct household tax. That'd sort out the present mess and would allow the fee to be reduced for those who currently admit to watching TV. Live or On Demand shouldn't matter, it's all TV really.
Enough of this "capable of receiving" (or whatever it now is) legalistic nonsense, I say. We could do away with the Capita jobsworths as well, that'd save a few quid.
But owning a tv does not mean you need a licence, same as not owning a tv does not mean you dont need a licence, the whole system is a complete mess. And why tv licence seem to think they have a right to come inside peoples homes is amazing as the law says they dont have a right. So i dont see how anyone can be in the wrong for not letting strangers who have no right to come into your home.
But you dont need a licence just because you own a tv.
Me. I decided most of the scheduling is mind-,numbing dross and get far more mental stimulation from reading a book or listening to the radio.