TV license/iplayer letter

[Shoe465]

I don't have a TV license as I don't watch TV.

I have netflix and Disney. And youtube.

All the arial wires in my home are cut at the wall and I don't watch any live TV or any catch up etc on Iplayer or any other terrestrial streaming account.

I've just got a letter saying they've detected someone using iplayer several times at my address and I have to buy a license now.

But we don't??

Can I ring them and ask for more information about when this happened and what was watched?

But that’s not iPlayer. The letter specifically says iPlayer.

Oh sorry I missed that bit. They're chatting shit then, how can they possibly detect that?

The ISP insist on a court order before they give up the details on people's online activity especially if it involves a physical address, they don't know the OPs password so are not logged onto her WiFi or devices and there is no publically accessable database linking people's physical address to their email address so how would they detect its use?

I think they're fishing.

@Balloonhearts if you actually have a log in I imagine they could detect that but if you don’t then I suspect it’s a fishing expedition directed at people who have the proper declaration. It’s disgraceful.

I agree. They’re definitely trying it on but I stupidly thought at first that it was some sort of mistake or something. I’m shocked that they’re actually allowed to outright lie just to try and scare people into paying for a service they don’t want or need.

Well yeah exactly, they can track the apps usage if its on a GPS enabled device with permissions but on a TV? How would they know where that TV was? Your email doesn't have your address linked to it so unless Iplayer asks your address when you sign up (does it?) then I just can't see how it's possible.

More likely they're chancing their arm. Some people must fall for it and get flustered into buying one.

It is shocking

i have a tendency to worry so I’d be thinking “has someone hacked my email”!

I don’t suppose it’s worth asking your MP?

they shouldn’t be allowed to do anything like this.

On what evidence?

Much more likely that someone at @Shoe465 's IP address used iplayer without her knowledge. All she needs to do is ask for more info, like this person did: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6465154/tv-licensing-email-we-notice-youve-been-using-iplayer

This info may be helpful too: https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ310

@wineandine then they should be able to tell her from what log in it was accessed.

the example you link clearly says she has a log in and watched something.

They said to me my email had been used to watch iPlayer and that email is the same one that I used to declare that I don’t need a tv licence so that’s their proof apparently. But I can’t access iplayer because no account exists with my email address (I checked).

Did you get a chance to call the helpline?

or there’s a customer service email address

I’d be saying I’m genuinely worried about my email being hacked

but no one should have to resort to this. They think someone did that, they should produce evidence.

The BBC, or Capita on behalf of the BBC, is renowned for using all sorts of underhand tactics to scare people into buying a licence when they don’t need one. They regularly send out threatening letters to households based merely on the fact they don’t have a licence, with no evidence at all that live tv is being watched. So I am sure they also send out letters saying they’ve identified iPlayer use, based on no evidence at all. To anyone who gets one and who knows they don’t use iPlayer then please just ignore them.

I received one of those emails a couple of months ago. I checked all our TVs and devices, and none had Iplayer installed. However I had a BBC sounds account on my phone, which I used (free without a licence) to listen to the radio at my desk in the office. I guessed it must have been that linking my email, so I closed the account.
I received a chase email last week, so be prepared for that OP. Just delete them and forget about them. It's scare tactics as the BBC coffers are dwindling by the day!

It's 100% this

For the avoidance of doubt - the BBC has absolutely no means to detect you watching iplayer at a physical address. The reason people receive warnings of a detection is because they have previously supplied email details to BBC, usually in the "no licence needed at this address" declaration, which obviously declares the actual postal address, and then somebody later attempts an iplayer log-in using that same email.

They have absolutely no way of "monitoring" what you are doing using I.P., or detecting where precisely you are viewing from by monitoring their own iplayer website.

I.P. addresses are not specific to specific postal addresses in any case, so even if the BBC did know your I.P. that still gives them nothing of any substance to go on. In order to be certain they would have to convince a court to force your ISP to disclose which I.P. is issued to which address, and even then, a single I.P. is often issued to an entire block of flats, so that still would not constitute sufficient "evidence" for a prosecution.

The BBC is emphatically NOT CAPABLE of catching you watching iplayer without a licence. This only appears to be the case when you have supplied them with several parts of the jigsaw puzzle beforehand, and even then, what they are actually doing is speculatively suggesting they suspect it, not that they have "evidence" of it happening.

Ignore these letters. They are speculative, and purely a fishing attempt to frighten people into buying a licence, just the same as their postal routine when there is no licence registered at the postal address.

This is precisely what happens, and scares people into thinking they have been "caught" and need to buy a licence.

First of all, email addresses can be recycled, so the BBC can not prove beyond doubt that it was any specific individual who used a specific email, and secondly, email addresses are in no way linked to physical postal addresses, and as a result, insofar as proving someone watched TV/iplayer at a physical location they are utterly useless.

Again, this is nothing more than the BBC's latest "we think, but can't prove anything" speculative fishing exercise to try and scare people into thinking they have been "caught".

The BBC has no way of discerning anything by way of I.P. without the complicity of your ISP, and that would require court order, which the BBC is not going to attempt simply on the suspicion someone might be watching without a licence. First of all, it's expensive, but more importantly, no court would entertain it because it does not constitute sufficient grounds to issue that order.

When I first moved into my new build, I got harassing letters from the tv licensing company. It wasn’t anything like what you had received referencing specific accounts. Just letters with increasing demands and hostility advising I pay for a tv license or else they’d be visiting over a period of 6 months. I actually complained to them as I’d already declared I don’t need a tv license, yet they were still sending letters threatening visits to “make sure.”

I have a long email exchange where they triple checked I don’t need a tv license. At the time, I fled DV and barely had any furniture let alone electronics. I had no tv, laptop, consoles etc. The only thing capable of watching tv was my iPhone, but even then I didn’t even have WiFi. I probably depressed the adviser looking into my emails by telling them how sad my life was and how broke I was, as I couldn’t afford any of the devices on their list. Years later they haven’t bothered me since!

I thought people were exaggerating when they joke about how rough the tv licensing brigade is, but no - they lived up to their reputation

Depends on the T&C's of your ISP. Have you checked them? e.g. this person found that BT internet do share details: https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/6201498/tv-licensing-spying-on-home-internet-usage

I think they are sending them out to loads of people just now. IMO it’s like sky deciding it’s the law that everyone signs up for sky cinema if they want it or not. They should just make it a subscribed service then people can choose… I’ve zero interest in watching their ridiculous level of biased crap, wish they would just remove it from the standard free channels and do us all a favour 😂

Even still, it's ultimately irrelevant because of the fact I.P.'s are commonly issued to more than one household.

Again, it's nothing more than a part of the jigsaw Capita might use to form a suspicion, but the idea that the BBC are sitting watching which I.P.'s access the iplayer website and use that to determine which addresses to send letters to is false. The letters are issued because they've previously been supplied with email addresses by "customers" declaring they do not need a licence, and subsequently that email address then attempts a log-in, prompting an automated response.

People who are wondering how they've been issued a letter despite not using iplayer need to bear in mind a few things. -

1. You can access iplayer using an email from absolutely anywhere. Just because you sent BBC your email address and told them you live at 123 Smith Street does not mean every single time that email address attempts to log into iplayer that is taking place at 123 Smith Street. You could be sitting in a fully TV licenced property, and that log-in attempt is then perfectly legal. This is one reason why "email log in" is not sufficient evidence for prosecution and simply a fishing exercise on the part of the BBC
2. Email addresses can be recycled and often are, so there is absolutely no way to prove who, i.e. which individual specific person, is using that email address, and since Licences are issued to properties and not individuals, this, again, is no basis for a prosecution, and is purely a speculative effort by the BBC to convince people they have "proof".
3. If you have previously logged in to iplayer with that email, and then decided you no longer need a licence, it's possible your device is still logged in, so any visit to iplayer website might well trigger an automated response. It doesn't have to be a visit where you actually watch something, and it could even be an accidental visit where perhaps you didn't close a browser tab and later reopened that browser and the page refreshed. This won't be common, but it can, and does happen, sometimes with a gap of weeks, months, or even years between visits if the device or browser has been inactive or unused for a while.
4. There are also TV apps which will divert you to BBC, and iplayer content, such as "Freeview Choice" etc, even though the original portal is not BBC. I suspect this will catch a few people out, because it's catch-up and not "live", but also, they don't always prompt a secondary log-in to where they divert you.

People are now waking up to the fact that the entire schtick of "detector vans" and so on has been completely discredited, and as more and more are becoming aware of the fact that simply owning devices capable of receiving live TV broadcasts in no way compels you to purchase a licence the BBC is really struggling to "sell" them. The routine of escalating, seemingly authoritative but actually full of bullshit postal letters is also being exposed for what it is, so their latest con-trick is to prey on typical ignorance of IT and tech, and convince "customers" they are being monitored and detected via internet and wifi. It's every bit as much total nonsense as the detector vans thing was, but it's still the exact same con, i.e. relying on naive ignorance to scare people into coughing up, purely because they lack the knowledge to recognise that what is being purported in the Capita letters is untrue.

There definitely seem to be a lot more of these "iPlayer challenge" emails and letters than there used to be, and there seem to be a larger proportion of them that are unreliable i.e. they relate to people who have not used iPlayer.

The issue is that as discussed above, whatever mechanism they are using to generate a list of targets for these communications, it is fundamentally unreliable.

The key unreliability is that iPlayer could have been watched anywhere (including Licensed premises) because it is fundamentally portable.

BBC/TVL should not be using the accusatory language they are using because of that unreliability. They probably shouldn't be sending the emails/letters at all.

Ultimately, people need to use Subject Access Requests to establish what information is being retained by BBC/TVL about them. They could also require that the information is deleted because it isn't necessary if no TV Licence is held.

This is yet another instance where BBC/TVL communications with the Public are questionable and are probably being economical with the truth.

People are now waking up to the fact that the entire schtick of "detector vans" and so on has been completely discredited, and as more and more are becoming aware of the fact that simply owning devices capable of receiving live TV broadcasts in no way compels you to purchase a licence

This originates from the 60s and 70s when there were vans, they did exist, though as a visual deterrent, I doubt they actually did anything, because in those days years ago the only reason to have a TV would be to watch the 2 or 3 channels on it, you couldn't watch TV any other way or use a TV for anything else. This changed when the video recorder came out and you could rent videos and use your TV to watch them, also gaming on a TV must have followed shortly so you could have a TV without watching live TV

Yes, the vans themselves existed until very recently, but they never at any point contained any equipment capable of catching people watching TV at a specific location, at least, not in the supposedly mystery "tech" way that the BBC always implied.

In cases where they thought they had found an evader, they would sit outside watching a TV tuned to BBC channels, and watch the glow from the evader's set through their window/curtains, and see if this matched the picture on their own set. This was just one more way of firming up a suspicion, and doesn't in itself constitute "evidence".