Woman prosecuted for unpaid TV licence - Single Justice Process

[RethinkingLife]

I post one case here but it’s worth a look at court reporter Tristan Kirk’s timeline for more examples. I am concerned that the Single Justice Process is disproportionately affecting women and already vulnerable people.

"Please don't send me to prison" Plea from single mother with spiralling mental health problems, PTSD, using foodbanks, heavily in debt Prosecuted over unpaid TV Licence She needed help She got a conviction & a £106 bill #SingleJusticeProcedure Constituent of MattBishopMP

[Text of letter]

I am a adhd Autistic struggling single mother. When the tv agent came to my home to set up my liecense he said he would send me a payment card. I never received it, I called up twice to ask for a replacement and still nothing. I am in serious debt, I don't have a smartphone anymore or devices due to multiple bailiff's visits the last 6 months.

My mental health is spiralling I just keep getting hit I have no money no csa off my daughters dad. I'm getting by on food banks as all my money goes on debts and fines.

I'm sorry my brain doesn't allow me function properly and sort things out, I also suffer with PTSD from having cancer 3 times and am so anxious right now as I am feeling unwell again I am scared I'm going to die soon. I recieved this letter late without enough time to write and post my reply I've just ran next door to my neighbour in tears to use her laptop. I am petrified after this letter please know that I have tried to get a payment card twice it's the tv liecensing that haven't held up their end.

Please take into account my already extreme debts, please don't send me to prison I couldn't cope and neither could my daughter. I am a good person, just a struggling person. Thank you for your time.

https://x.com/kirkkorner/status/1909130267270533200

I mean it seems very much like a get rich quick scheme for quite a lot of people to exploit those grieving or in trouble to impose large fines completely unrelated to the cost of the TV license itself and punish people for lack of organisation.

Why it's not criminal I don't know, it's so shocking. The most anyone should have to EVER pay is the TV license cost.

Interesting video about prison and alternatives embedded in this story.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/mar/19/climate-activist-experience-jail-prison-uk

By making it 6 months upfront payment it becomes impossible for those on a low income. £78 if my sums are correct .

You can pay by weekly, fortnightly or monthly instalments using your debit or credit card if you are using a TV Licensing payment card.

Why anyone would watch the BBC these days when you can see as much content online on youtube is beyond me.

The licence fee isn't about watching the BBC. The licence fee goes back to the days when there were only radios, and without totally understanding it, is something about live broadcasting over the airwaves (technically). That's why on demand is okay.

Also worth remembering that partly why the Licence Fee is as high as it is, as the Government used to cover the cost of the World service, but still expected the BBC to pay for the cost of UK "soft" power.

ie the Government has made licence payers, pay for something that the Government thinks is useful.

There is a pilot project of community healthcare workers who visit everyone in a defined area, so that people can get to know them.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/04/06/health-workers-sent-door-to-door-to-tackle-sicknes-crisis/

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2025/apr/08/health-workers-sent-door-to-door-in-deprived-areas-to-detect-illnesses

There are some hints in the articles that they also look for non-health problems additionally, which could interfere with healthcare - a person couldn't read the clock and thus did not get the medications timed correctly, for example.

As some paths to access healthcare might not be known to everyone or too complex to navigate, this is a good step to make information more accessible and to catch stuff like high blood pressure and other problems early on.

This then in turn can avoid much higher costs of healthcare later, when people did not access early check-ups or suddenly turn up to A&E with diseases that have nothing to do with A&E or they got so bad because no-one checked earlier.

This probably does not cover the problem that some GP practices are over capacity and people cannot even phone in, but it might help in other ways.

People like the one portrayed in the tweet with complex medical, psychological and organizational challenges could have easier access to help and if something is outside of the work description of the health workers, they can direct them to the right places.

Sometimes I read negative feedback to these concepts like the typical "we're living in a nanny state", mostly by libertarians & Co, but they might not be the kind of people who would benefit from such projects. Others, though, might and not everyone has the same chances.

As long as people are free to refuse the visits it is ok, but in the article the refusal of some residents was rather linked to that they did not trust the people yet, as they didn't know them, which is understandable, but it wasn't linked to "I'm a liberal and I don't want this kind of care from the state", which is a different kind of bandwagon.

As some paths to access healthcare might not be known to everyone or too complex to navigate, this is a good step to make information more accessible and to catch stuff like high blood pressure and other problems early on.

In the early days of the welfare state there were any number of services that were provided by visits. eg GP visits, health workers and so on.

I appriciate how the demand on the NHS is now much greater, but by providing services that are more accessible to different people in the end I am sure there is a long term saving.

And helps people who for whatever reason find the system hard to navigate.

It isn't about being a nanny state but recognising that people need different ways of accessing services.

I am sure that within my life time there used to be talk about making health provision more community based, but in fact the trend has been to centralised, and (which is a negative for many) assume that everyone has access to and is confident to use virtual services.

Forest- thanks for those helpful links.

I like the sound of these. The Westminster CHWWs were mentioned in the Fuller stocktake report. It highlighted the potential of Brazil’s CHWWs as a model for UK primary care.

iirc, however, a major difference is that the visitors in the Brazilian version were all established, well-respected community leaders.

https://www.england.nhs.uk/publication/next-steps-for-integrating-primary-care-fuller-stocktake-report/

@RethinkingLife Yeah, the trust in them will of course vary and that is a barrier. For those who don't want anyone in their home, they could set up consultation days in a nearby community center or similar, but those might not exist everywhere, especially not near sparsely populated areas.
And one of the points of the visits is to see whether there might be health problems from living conditions, like mould or energy poverty.

In the report linked on page 29, it says for example that the access to care is not distributed by need but by age and gender - at least in the area they researched there. I think there could be a crossover with the schedule of public bus or train services and mobility problems, even if you had a free bus pass.

In that sense, it is positive that the health workers visit the people and not the other way round.

I was wondering at first whether these news fit with the topic, but I think it is relevant as some problems have several defining characteristics, as was described in the Evening Standard article, so that poor health and mental problems or grief can then lead to issues with paperwork and bills and there is a clear connection how one thing led to the next.