TV Licence Investigation

[Wannabe2017]

Apologies if this has be raised before.

I have received a letter today stated that we're under investigation and to expect a visit from the TV Licence people, I think this is due to us declaring we didn't need a licence. Which we don't.

What are my rights here? Can I refuse entry? Can I record them if I answer the door. I don't have anything to hide but don't feel comfortable letting in a stranger, I've also read/seen videos of how intimidating they can be. I'm usually alone here with DD during the day and feel quite vulnerable.

I've looked at some of those youtube videos, and the behaviour of the TV licence people is shocking. Going to people's doors and refusing to show ID for example, behaving as if they're the police when they're not, reading people their rights and then attempting to interview people at home with no access to their solicitor.

I had a letter back in January that they were going to visit in march, they did but I didn't answer cos I was out. They haven't been back but have been chasing me for a year.

We have a TV but only use netflix or amazon prime on it. Surely this is what a lot of people do and so owning a TV is irrelevant. Is it the presence of an aerial that's the problem? I don't think ours has ever been plugged in. I have watched channel 4 live via the Internet on my tablet, is this permitted if I don't but a licence? I also don't understand why you can't watch live TV that isn't the BBC. Is it because you then have the power to watch the BBC if your TV is tuned in? But surely everyone can do this on an Internet device. Bit confused, had just always thought we didn't need a licence as we don't watch the BBC (live or via iplayer).

I have watched channel 4 live via the Internet on my tablet, is this permitted if I don't but a licence?
nope you can't watch any live tv without a license. You can watch whatever channel4s on demand service is called (4od?) without it though

One of these was a line-output transformer (LOPT) The LOPT required a voltage of around 25,000 volts (could be as high as 29,000 volts) for a colour screen, or around 8,000 volts for monochrome (Black & White) These transformers would in turn generate their own radio frequency (RF) signals ('cos that's what high-voltage stuff does) and the detector vans' aerials, could supposedly pick up these RF signals and determine from where they came, by using triangulation, therefore even in a block of 100 flats, no problem to say it was dear old Ethel in Flat 89 on the 22nd floor. There was also - supposedly - a way of detecting the signals emitted from the Local Oscillator Crystal (which operated at ~4.33Mhz) and would therefore confirm that you had a colour telly, even though you'd bought a B&W licence.

All true, but expensive. Much more cost-efficient to send a dummy van or two around with some men (it was the 50s) with clipboards to scare the masses into paying up.

There was an extra twist in that the local TV set would emit the frequency of the tuned signal - hence the trope they could "tell what channel you were watching"

With the governments stated desire to be able to watch peoples internet feeds in real time upon us, in theory they could do the same. again ...

There are quite a few FB pages that give advice!

Norland

What's the rationale for not being able to watch non bbc channels live without a licence?

Norland you probably mean me! I think 'twas the Murican in me coming out for a play!

Well, surely if people can't afford the £147 - and I totally get that some people can't - then they just don't watch the programmes? Or are they expecting to watch for free? Am I missing something? Nobody makes you own a TV.

My point was that some people complain it's bad value (which it demonstrably isn't), not that people on low incomes can't afford it. I can't afford Sky. And there is nothing on it I want to watch. Therefore I don't have it.

Then they just don't watch the programmes? Or are they expecting to watch for free? Am I missing something? Nobody makes you own a TV

You definitely are missing something. The whole point is that the BBC licensing enforcers harass people simply for owning a TV, even if they don't use it to watch BBC channels.

A person can't even choose to watch ITV and channel 4 only without being forced to pay for BBC1 and BBC2

Well, surely if people can't afford the £147 - and I totally get that some people can't - then they just don't watch the programmes? Or are they expecting to watch for free? Am I missing something? Nobody makes you own a TV.

Maybe the have a hard saved for laptop. A gifted TV. The login to a mate's Netflix.

Why should they have to prove to Capita that they don't use that to watch live TV? Which is what people object to the most.

Also why is it fair that someone who cannot afford £147 but could afford to spend £40 of their birthday money on a second hand TV and freeview box not be able to do that?

Why should a single parent pay £147 per year to the BBC for their kids to have the right to watch Cartoon Network on a gifted TV?

It's an inherently unfair tax.

If you watch live TV, 40p per day is great value.
If you don't, let enforcers confirm you don't by letting them in
Don't get the drama tbh

Another variable to ponder, You are allowed to listen to the Radio via IPlayer without a TV license (as I do). But what I don’t understand is, once we have to sign in, the BBC will be using our details (email address and postcode) to check against the information the TV licensing authority have, yet there won’t be a match & the assumption will be that the IPlayer is being illegally used to watch TV.

I suppose it's never really bothered me. The TV licence just seems part of life and has done since my childhood. It's just the way TV works. If we didn't have it, there would be more adverts.

I bet there are an awful lot of licence-dodgers around. Which is why it is all the more important that people who are being legitimate in their non-licence-owning - just using it as a DVD monitor or just watching Neflix or whatever - of whom I am sure there are equally a great many, should be open and easy-going about this and let the investigators see that's what they are doing, rather than being all stroppy and arms folded and "I know my rights" etc., just so they can put a clever-clever little video up on YouTube to show they have Stuck It To The Man.

But when you do that, DadOncle, some of them start quizzing your kids on which cartoon channels they do or don't watch through the internet in order to gather evidence against you to take you to court.

Which is why I will continue exercising my right to not allow them in and would advise others to do the same.

Any house with an internet connection is capable of receiving live TV so regardless of whether your TV is plugged in to an aerial, they can and ime do still try to frighten you into buying a licence or threaten you with criminal proceedings.

Or the local butcher made you pay an annual fee on account of humans being omnivores, even if you were a devout vegan?
I don't pay. Nor will I ever.

God I've had similar letters for years
I file each & everyone I get - in the bin

I think some people are rather dramatically using analogies which don't compare like with like. A TV is a luxury, not a right. And in this day and age, there are plenty of free sources of non-live TV for which you don't need a TV and don't need a licence.

Ultimately the licence is how the BBC is funded. It makes lots of stuff I don't like and never watch - I'd rather pull my own teeth out without anaesthetic than ever watch a single second of "Mrs Brown's Boys", for example. But I appreciate that there are people who - however inexplicably - love that their licence fee pays for "Mrs Brown's Boys" and would probably hate the stuff I enjoy.

Anyone saying we should not have a the TV licence is perfectly welcome to make that argument, but they will need to have an alternative suggestion as to how the BBC could be funded and with no appreciable dropoff in quality or diversity of provision.

shred the letter (there will be many identical letters that follow) and don't let them in. I even refuse to give my name (I don't need a TV licence hence I have no business with them and they do not need to know who I am). I have been playing this silly game for 12 years so far.

Several times a year I receive one of two letters from them. They are either preparing to take the homeowner to court as they have gathered enough evidence for prosecution. Or they will be visiting the homeowner on x date.
A few times over the years have waited in, interested in finding out about this bs evidence. Stood up, also want to ask them what's the point in letting the area know when they are around.

I think some people are rather dramatically using analogies which don't compare like with like. A TV is a luxury, not a right. And in this day and age, there are plenty of free sources of non-live TV for which you don't need a TV and don't need a licence.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

Many posters have explained that they use these non live free methods and are objecting to being harassed by the BBC for using legal alternatives to live TV.

No-one has said they believe they should get the BBC for free just that harassing people who do not watch live TV is wrong. Asking people who do not watch nor want to watch the BBC to pay the BBC in order to access other live channels is wrong.

Would you be happy for Netflix to turn up on your doorstep demanding proof that you do not watch Netflix and threatening you with a criminal record if you don't/can't prove it?

I personally believe that the BBC should adopt a subscription model like Netflix/Amazon Instant/Now TV etc.

They'd probably receive more money. People who want access to all BBC media could pay the £147 per year, those like me who'd happily pay a reasonable fee for the one programme they do watch, would do so.

It's just the way TV works not any more it isnt, things have changed