Cancelling TV license

If your household is planning on canceling the TV Licence then everyone needs to agree, really. And everyone needs to know the no Licence rules.

If the Licence is in the OH's name, then he will receive the letters in his name initially before they revert to "The Legal Occupier". The letters can be ignored or returned.

One thing to be aware of is that 75% of TVL defendants are women (quite unlike any other offence), and this is probably because of a collection of factors that make women more likely than men to comply and to be coerced by TV Licensing. If TVL call at your door you do not have to speak to them, and it's recommended not to.

It's a total scandal that this is allowed to continue. How can it be justified?

It must cost a fortune to be constantly sending letters to people. And it's had the effect on me that even if there was something on TV that I would want to watch, they've pissed me off so much that there is no chance that they would get any money from me.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/explainers-51376255
'In the 12 months to March 2023, officers visited 1,075,240 addresses and found just under 73,000 people watching live TV without a licence.'

'The review said £137m had been spent collecting the licence fee.'

I pay annually online. Still occasionally get a threatening letter. 🤷

You're sadly wrong about that. I've filled in the declaration twice, and I still get threatening letters every few weeks. Addressed to the "legal occupier", and warning that they would be making a visit soon.

It must cost a fortune to be constantly sending letters to people. And it's had the effect on me that even if there was something on TV that I would want to watch, they've pissed me off so much that there is no chance that they would get any money from me.

The government already has to renew it's charter every few years. What is the difference?

I think paying it out of tax would put it too close to government which would make impartiality questionable (even more than people question it now), it would essentially make it kind of part of the civil service? I don’t think it would be workable.

Paying it out of tax would be cheaper than all the palaver currently used to collect the license and enforce non-payment.

I would rather they just shut the BBC down. There's no need for it today's media landscape.

Why? It's not an essential service and much better to give people choice than force them into paying even more money for a useless service they don't want or need.

If you want it, pay for it!

Maybe read my 2 updates 🙄

There were detector vans in the 60s and 70s, they had a big aerial type thing on top, they didn't detect anything, they were similar to the old speed cameras in our county that have been left up but don't work, used as visible deterrent.

The BBC is and always has been a scam. There were never any "detector vans". But they showed them in their adverts to scare people.

Great points and I completely agree. I often wonder how much they spend with regular letters. As a student (without a tv) I received them biweekly and they were incredibly threatening in nature. I called them terrified they would take me to court as the letters stated and she still accused me down the phone. They never mentioned opting out but it was before the internet was so widespread. I think it was even modem days. They shouldn't be allowed to do it.

Just stop paying and ignore any letters or “enforcement visits” it’s all run by a private company on behalf of the BBC.
You wouldn’t let random strangers into your home so they can’t collect evidence/fit you up

They don't make things like they used to.

I'd love to cancel but we have Sky so legally obligated to pay

Regardless, I wonder how many of those 7,000 B&W licences were indeed genuinely for a B&W TV?

Even if you genuinely did prefer to watch everything in B&W (not a snooker fan!), or were blind and so it made no difference, the last B&W-only TV must have been made a very long time ago now; I'm amazed that so many would still be working now - at all, let alone just with limited functions, after what must be 35 or (probably) more years now.

But I always understood that it was based on the ability to receive the colour TV - i.e. what the digibox could get - and it was irrelevant if you didn't have a TV set that could display what it received?

Obviously, in the old days when it was all baked in to a single television set (as it is becoming again now, but that's beside the point!), you would obviously only be able to watch what the TV set itself could receive.

I very well may be wrong; but if this isn't the case and it only goes on the display you actually see, surely people could just record everything they wanted to watch with the telly turned off and then watch it back later, when it is no longer live TV?

I don't have a TV so I don't have a license.

It's been a good 15 odd years. I declare it every few years.

They did come out once, the first year after the TV broke. I let them in to check (this was ages ago tho, they just looked for TVs). They asked when I got rid of the TV.

I rather surprisingly got a refund as a cheque a few weeks later for the expired license!

We have prime and Disney at the moment, both on deals, £8 a month for the two. I can't honestly see me ever bothering with live TV again. Both kids are adults and I don't have a TV, I just watch occasionally. But I do like it when I do watch!

Do black & white licences still exist? I thought it was based on whether you could receive colour - and as every old B&W TV would now need to be connected to some kind of digital box, which have only ever been made to receive colour, who can legitimately claim that they only receive B&W?

It was 7000 b&w licences in 2018. The tv would only show b&w with a digital box surely?

I could fill in the declaration but honestly I can't be arsed and it's a non issue

As much as the BBC like to believe that they are special and nobody could possibly live without them, they are just another product that people can choose whether or not to buy.

We personally do choose to buy it and use their services, but it is absolutely outrageous that they consider everybody one of their customers by default and accuse them of stealing if they don't have a licence - and are allowed to send nasty letters, threatening people with court, if they have chosen not to be their customer. It's breath-taking arrogance. Why on earth should you be expected to take the trouble to tell them that you aren't their customer? Imagine if every service provider and shop out there that you don't use expected you to do the same!

I presume they must pay Crapita a huge amount for all of their many concerted and persistent efforts in doing the BBC's dirty work for them; so I wonder how much of the money that they manage to get in - a great amount of which comes from deliberately terrifying and bullying elderly and otherwise vulnerable people who very well may not need one (otherwise known as extortion) - goes straight into their own back pockets?

To be honest, the BBC now has so many adverts - for their own programmes, their own content (like BiteSize), government propaganda information and - ironically - for their licence fee, that I sometimes wonder if it might not jus be better to swap the adverts for ones for cornflakes or toothpaste, make it free for everybody and stop harassing people who don't want/need or can't afford a TV licence.

Do black & white licences still exist? I thought it was based on whether you could receive colour - and as every old B&W TV would now need to be connected to some kind of digital box, which have only ever been made to receive colour, who can legitimately claim that they only receive B&W?

I know some people used to buy B&W licences to use with their B&W tellies to save money each year, and blind or partially-sighted people might as well have done so (do they still have the half-price licence for people registered blind, though?).

There were (maybe still are) plenty of people who were/are indeed watching colour but figured that, with no licence, they would be hounded and caught; but if they bought one at a third of the price, they would be safely on the 'licensed' list and thus get away with it.

In my whole life, I only know personally of two people getting a knock on the door. One is DP in the early 2000s who was watching but didn't have a licence and paid at the door with no issues and my dad in the 80s/90s who said he had a black and white licence but a colour tv and I think he just paid the difference too.

I just leave them there and don't use them. I would have no issues arguing with them to say I'm not using it so I'm not paying. I think you're right that it's worded in a way that makes it look a grey area.

We may find as more people cancel that we do get people coming round but I wouldn't let them in and I don't watch it so am confident they would act on the facts as I present them.

You don't have to disable anything ,if someone turns up ( and it rarely happens) just dont engage with them ,don't allow them in your house ,they have no right of way they have zero powers.

I never watch live TV and can easily live without iPlayer content. I want to cancel my licence. I have a Firestick and some of the catch up apps on that have a section to select channels of live TV. I never watch this but can't seem to disable it to make sure it isn't even available in case 'they' check. I would also hate to have a visitor who unknowingly turns that on. Any ideas how to disable those options? There are some guides on Youtube but having followed them the Live channels are still showing as available. I seem to remember that TV licencing used to say that if you even had the capability to watch Live TV you had to have a licence - not sure if that has changed.