Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

To not let TV licence authorities in without a warrant?

82 replies

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 18/08/2012 10:46

Having a discussion on facebook with some friends, I know I don't need a license quite a few of them didnt know the criteria, but we're past that now as I dont watch (or record in any way) LIVE TV

I said that TV licence officials don't have the right to enter a property without a warrant. The police need a warrant (except in some circumstances, I know, but generally), so why do TV licence people think they are above this?

I asked the local police fb page if they have the right to come in, and they said they cannot comment on TV licensing procedures and that i'd have to ask them. If I did, they'd obviously say they have the right to come in, wouldn't they? So are they above the law?!

So back to the original question. Some people think I'm right, some wrong, and some say that it's just easier to let them in !! Shock

What do you think??

OP posts:
TodaysAGoodDay · 18/08/2012 16:37

Yes, I told them when I moved in. Yes I got a letter. Then another. Then a red demanding, threatening on. Then I phoned them again, that was 2 days ago. I wait with baited breath for the next letter to arrive...

chipsandmayonnaise · 18/08/2012 17:33

I think it is the principle also. We had bought, and were doing up a house, that had no tv licence, as there were no people living in it, and no tv. The whole house renovation took years, as it was seriously dereclict and took ages for it to pass planning. We got increasingly threatening letters. Now, I am easily scared so i was very anxious and kept saying to DH 'let's just pay it' This house was unoccupied for about 4 years, and we got the red letters,and threats of bailliffs and threats of court. DH kept writing to them and saying 'okay- you find a tv antenna, then come and talk to us'. There was nothing. The house was derelict for ages because we simply could not afford to do the house up.

What i object to, is the threat. The assumption that everyone without a licence s trying to fiddle them. We were not, and we got red topped letter after red topped letter. And you know what- even if we had a fucking tv- it is not like we had murdered someone.

FutureNannyOgg · 18/08/2012 17:43

A couple of years back, when the analogue signal was turned off, my aerial didn't pick up and digital signal. So after a few weeks I rang TV licensing to tell them that as there was no reception, I didn't need my licence anymore. They were very helpful, they refunded the fee for the remainder of the year, in fact they backdated the refund to the day of the switchover.
About a month later I got the first letter, followed by regular letters and visits.

PenelopePipPop · 18/08/2012 18:27

Hmm. I am not speaking from experience here (I want to make that Extremely Clear) but I expect if I ever do murder anyone and the authorities get wind of it their approach will not be to send me some rather snotty letters warning me not to do it again and then eventually after about 8 years send a friendlyish chap round to check for bodies in the front room.

On the whole not having a TV licence and committing murder are handled rather differently.

What not having a TV licence is a lot like is not having to pay taxes. When I was a student I still had to complete a tax return each year because I had a teeny self-employed business. This never put me over the threshold for paying tax and never meant I actually had to give HMRC any money but I had to laboriously fill in the forms. Not doing so would have been breaking the law. Even once I no longer ran the teeny tiny business and was on PAYE I had to confirm with HMRC that I no longer had to complete a tax return. The onus was on me to inform them that I no longer had self-employed earnings not the other way around.

Frankly I found all this much more intrusive than having someone pop their head in my front room. If HMRC had said we'll send someone round to see if you need to pay any tax I'd have bitten their hand off.

I don't know how TV Licensing works from the inside but as someone who has never lived in a house with a TV I can say they obviously have a a category on their database for people they think are pretty obviously telling their truth (I imagine it is labelled 'Beardy Weirdies') and once you are on there you are golden. In my experience it pays to fill in the form, let them in if they call and leave it at that.

There are a lot of principles I care about. I care a great deal about abuse of state privilege. I don't consider the TVLA sending the odd pompous letter an appalling abuse of state privilege.

BlinkersOn · 18/08/2012 18:33

penelopepippop

Good post,

I am not sure why people are so angry about this. It would probably take less time and effort than posting an outraged post on this thread.

CharlieUniformNovemberTango · 18/08/2012 18:42

We don't use our TV for watching live shows. Just catch up on the iplayer or wii.

But we've been here 3 years now and have never given our name to them. We get monthly 'to the occupier' letters though.

I don't think I am obliged to inform them that I live here without a TV.

I think they have visited once. I answered the intercom but they didn't know my name so I refused to buzz them in. The guy just kept saying ' who is this? can you let me in so I can speak to you?' but he never answered who he was so I just put the phone down.

I do wonder though, we live in a block of flats and have a shared airel at the top. Can they tell who is watching TV in this case?

LibrariansMakeNovelLovers · 18/08/2012 18:53

YANBU. We didn't have a TV or internet for ages so couldn't even watch iplayer. Despite filling out their (very hard to find) online form we still got threatening letters. We then had 'a Visit'. He agreed that we obviously weren't watching television and we still got letters. They've stopped for a while now but if experience is anything to go by it'll start up again at some point.

PenelopePipPop · 18/08/2012 18:58

Charlie no they can't. AFAIK detector vans never really worked (or at least the range they worked in was so narrow they effectively didn't work). Mostly the people who get prosecuted are the absolute open and shut cases i.e. the inspector turns up and there is a 40inch telly on full volume in the front room when the householder opens the door, at which point even if they don't allow entry you've got reasonable grounds for suspicion which is a basis for getting a magistrate's warrant.

The actual enforcement budget for the TVLA must be pretty tight and these kind of regulatory offences are hard to prosecute so whilst I'd hate to overstate the robustness of English justice (I'm a lawyer!) this is not the kind of thing you should worry about a wrongful conviction over. Much more sensible to avoid hanging around rough pubs at closing time.

GhostShip · 18/08/2012 19:57

For gods sake just let them in and be done with it. Much less palarva in a world with too much.

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 18/08/2012 21:21

I dont mind "palava" that involves paperwork, or my time. Thats not the problem.
What I mind is letting some random stranger into my house to prove I am not breaking the law. Again, what happened to innocent until proven guilty? And I may not be breaking this law, but when the random person appears, what am I supposed to do about the meth lab in my living room? Grin

OP posts:
OhDearNigel · 18/08/2012 21:25

The police need a warrant (except in some circumstances, I know, but generally)

Sorry to butt in on the thread but this is a commonly held misconception. Almost every single scenario requiring a power of entry is contained in sections 17 and 18 of the police and criminal evidence act. It's very rare to require a warrant to enter a property.

GhostShip · 18/08/2012 21:30

beyonds we can't use innocent until proven guilty in every scenario. Would the same apply if you were asked to take your driving license into the police station to prove you've got a license? Nope.

There's only one way they can tell if you're not breaking the law and that's by looking for themselves, so I'd just get on with it without the drama.

I don't agree with tv licenses AT ALL by the way.

Catsmamma · 18/08/2012 21:39

we had no end of bother with the tv licence people because our address is 5 xxx house, village name and the cottage at the back is 5xxxcottage village name, and is a rented property

sooooo apparently this is too bizarre a concept for the tv licence folks and as tenants moved in and out we would get letters reminding us of our obligations to have a tv licence,stepping up to threatening and sinister as we failed to reply as we actually do have a tv licence fo 5 xxxHouse. I even asked the postie if he was posting us the letters meant for them, but he said we were both getting threatening letters from the tv licence people.

I was dying for them to come and challenge me, so that I could send them off to get their warrant, but dh phoned them for the one hundredth time and tore them off a strip again and after escalating it to every manager available and threatening them with the local mp and the local rag they seem to have got the message.

purplestripysocks · 18/08/2012 22:06

When they turn up they don't have a warrant and they don't actually ask to come in. They just ask if you have a licence, I say "no" and they say "is that because you haven't got a television"?
The people who come to the door are fine, it is the letters which are really unpleasant.
I once rang them to complain about the letters and was asked if we had a TV. When I said we didn't the woman said they would send someone round to verify what I had said. I asked how they planned to do that and she said "I'm not at liberty to say" very snottily.
Throw away the letters, don't let anyone in!

PenelopePipPop · 18/08/2012 22:07

I don't think the TV people are worried about the meth lab in your living room. Our one didn't mind the general patchouli-ness of everything - I think it merely added to our credibility.

You do have a point. I'm sure I read somewhere (meaning please don't ask for a cite I've no idea where) that a surprising number of child protection referrals come via the RSPCA who go round to child out animal welfare concerns and come away concerned about the welfare of the children at the property. But erm on the whole that is probably a good thing no?

floweryblue · 18/08/2012 22:44

I work in a 30 year old business, we once had CCTV equipment and part of that was stating to the TV Licensing Authority that it was not used for watching broadcast programmes. We don't use the CCTV any more, haven't done for about six years.

This year, for some unknown reason, we keep getting threats from the TV licensing authority under the name of a separate business that we used to operate in a different town. I signed the non-use declaration but I didn't pay for the stamp it should have had, why should I prove I don't do something? My latest letter advised me I would be investigated. Fine, waste your money BBC.

Socknickingpixie · 18/08/2012 22:46

i dont want to let anybody into my house unless i personally wish them to enter. in all fairness if the person from the tv licence comes round and hes extreamly fit then i will let him in i may not let him out.

i got into trouble once for not having a license i was most confused because my bank paid it every month.turned out that a weirdo who was once married to my husband (at the time) had pinched it by phoning them and changing the address saying i had moved she did the same with my club card.

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 18/08/2012 22:53

ghost but them looking for themselves only involves checking the living room, doesnt it? Or are they going to check all the bedrooms for TVs, and search my pc, two ipads, two laptops and two smartphones? stealth techno boast, lol

So surely the "checking" is hugely pointless anyway?

OP posts:
BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 18/08/2012 22:54

If they did have to search browsing history etc, would people still be so keen to just let them do it cause its easier then?

OP posts:
rhondajean · 18/08/2012 22:56

You do all know the actual answer to this is on the tv licensing website?

www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-administering-the-tv-licensing-system-part-2-AB20/

Sorry I can't cut and paste it on my iPad but if you go down to this question:

What law authorises Enquiry officers to request access to my home? Can I refuse to let them in?

They require a warrant to enter your home.

DartsIsFun · 18/08/2012 22:56

Bunbaker Just a note to say HM Customs & Excise no longer exists. It got merged with Inland Revenue to form HM Revenue & Customs.

We've never had any problem, but then we do have tv and pay the licence fee. A neighbour at our old address was having difficulties. He was renting for a 6 month let before moving abroad and decided not to bother with a tv in all the hassle of arranging things. He got a couple of letters because "everybody has a tv these days, don't they" Hmm. Someone actually turned up to check about a week after he moved out and the property was empty. I was just returning home and pointed out there was no-one living there and he simply noted it down and left.

BeyondTheLimitsOfAcceptability · 18/08/2012 23:06

Oo, thank you rhonda !!! :)

OP posts:
MaryonJeane · 25/08/2012 02:46

TV Licensing is a commercial name used by the BBC and the body is used for collection of the licence fee from those people who don't pay up 'voluntarily', i.e. upfront, by Direct Debit, etc. The BBC awards the business to a commercial company (usually Capita plc). So these people have no rights at all as regards rights of entry to your property, rights of interview, rights of inspection, rights of search, etc. If they want to enter your property then they either have to be granted access by you, the householder, or they have to apply to the courts for a warrant and enforce this warrant (usually by asking the police to accompany them). The courts will not grant such a warrant without proper proof that some offence is being committed - and in the case of watching 'live' broadcasts on equipment enabled to receive such broadcasts, this is extremely difficult to prove; warrants are rarely granted.

As other people have said, it is not up to you to prove a negative - i.e. that you do not watch television - but rather it is up to the 'accuser' to prove that you are breaking the law. This is the whole spirit of English Law and is commonly enshrined in the phrase 'innocent until proven guilty'.

The way TV Licensing works is, in a nutshell, to harass people until they either give in and pay for a licence (which, as you can see from some posts here, are actually sometimes paid for when they are not required) or admit that they need a licence and have not got one - and sometimes this 'admission' is not kosher because people say something like 'Well yes, I do have a television' and this is put down by the TV Licensing caller as an 'admission' - whereas of course the mere possession of a television (or any other receiving equipment) does not in itself necessitate holding a licence.

TV Licensing people are not officials, they are like any other cold caller to your home. To let them into your home is pointless because there is no way of proving a negative in this case: whether or not you have a television (or other receiving equipment) is irrelevant and whether or not that equipment is capable of receiving a signal is irrelevant - so how can anyone hope to prove that you are or are not watching 'live' broadcasts by gaining entry to your home?

Unfortunately employees of Capita etc. are not properly vetted (see the various media accounts in this respect) and so you would be very unwise to let them into your home. Some of them may be pleasant enough people - but some are not and there are no guarantees, so err on the side of caution and do not let them in. Given that they are also earning commission on each sale of a television licence, they have a vested interest in getting you to say something which can be held against you in your claim not to need a licence - and some of the less scrupulous employees do twist words and even state that householders have made admissions where they haven't. As there is no point in allowing a TV Licensing employee into your home, be wise and don't do it.

Letting a TV Licensing employee into your home may or may not stop the harassing letters - it's the luck of the draw (but the odds are against it).

As for the principle behind all this, even if you are not bothered about the spirit of English Law being broken down (innocent until proven guilty), then it might be worth considering that setting a precedent whereby any private company can demand access to your home and demand that you prove a negative might be a very dangerous thing indeed...

If I sound hard-edged about this, it's because I have been harassed by these people for decades. I have let them in - and been treated very rudely in my own home as a consequence (I did finally get compensation, but it took a lot of fighting) - and I have telephoned them, and I have written letters. It seems not to matter, the letters keep on coming, and so - periodically - do the Capita employees; I'm afraid they get very short shrift these days.

Yes, I have a television; no, I do not watch live broadcasts. I need a television to watch DVDs. However as I do not expect Sainsbury's to come to my house and enquire why I don't shop in their stores, or the dog licensing body to ask why I don't have a dog licence, or HMRC to enquire why I don't have a distiller's licence, so I don't expect Capita or any other BBC employee to come round and enquire why I don't have a TV licence.

Currently I am saving up the harassing letters which come to my house every month - and which make the postman think that I am a licence evader, which is slightly embarrassing in a very rural area - and, if I receive just one more visit from a Capita employee I am going to take them and the BBC to court under the Protection from Harassment Act. I, for one, have had enough.