The BBC Trust

Recently, I came across these delectable articles of interest and without being too greedy, felt it was only fair to share them with you. Now, whilst I would love to take credit for the discovery of this first piece, it was in fact Clare, a lovely friend of mine who pointed me in its direction:

http://www.primarkresponse.com/panorama/

Like me, you probably saw Panorama’s “Primark on the Rack”, a guilt-ridden BBC One production following the manufacturing process of a clothing line for our nation’s favourite budget store, Primark. Whilst we’ve all wondered how they keep their prices so low and believed, in all innocence, that our thrifty buying was a much needed way of tackling the current credit crunch, Panorama point the finger of shame at the penny-pinching public for ignorantly funding child slave labour.

Whilst I’d like to say I wasn’t affected by these claims, I’d be lying and as a result (and not solely due to their impossibly long queues and lack of parking) I boycotted Primark, despite finding information to the contrary on their own website’s ethical trading section (http://www.primark-ethicaltrading.co.uk/). As far as I was concerned, I’d seen the cold hard evidence and it was difficult not to believe it. Well, that was until I saw the above link which prompted me to dig a little deeper before uncovering the BBC Trust’s review of this Panorama special, further supporting the suggestion that their claims may well have been fraudulent:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2011/panorama.pdf

This isn’t the first time I’ve felt Pano-drama have made misleading claims, with another episode entitled “Britain on the Fiddle” claiming to have uncovered the “double-lives” of “benefit claimants with Bentleys, second homes (and) yachts”. However, BBC One’s transparent attempts to storm up the already turbulent seas of a heavily taxed public simply irritated me. Panorama suggest your hard-earned money has been squandered by benefit thieves like this incapacity claimant, with guile enough to make a “trans-Atlantic sailing trip from South Carolina to the Azores on his yacht” whilst restoring his “farmhouse in Normandy”. These statements, however, are simply laughable when you see his ‘yacht’ for the first time (it is more of a ‘boat in disrepair’) and his ‘farmhouse in Normandy’ turns out to be a dilapidated ruin and not quite the idyllic countryside mansion we had in mind. Furthermore, the claimant’s own doctor goes on to uphold his diagnosis, verifying the significant impact it would have on his life. I’m not sure, but I reckon the last thing this guy needed was to be the subject of covert and undercover filming before being accused of benefit fraud in front of a nation wide-eyed in shock. Not to mention he was in fact selling his yacht, perhaps as his bad back or poor finances no longer allowed him that one pleasure in life. A story of a sad man and not quite the millionaire benefit-thief the BBC wanted to portray, throwing wild yacht parties at his South of France moorings in the gyration of bikini-clad super-models, all the whilst tucking your tax money into their diamanté thongs.

It is this kind of brainwashing I find upsetting. Whilst the BBC states that £4bn of tax money is lost to benefit fraud, they cough over the amount lost to processing error and instead, continue to rub this fact in your face, blowing it up with examples of eccentric benefit fraud for an outrageous effect. Perhaps it’s coincidental that this should come at a time when the government are so desperately trying to make cut-backs and of course, having a nation willing to pay towards a benefit system they are reluctant to use will go some way to facilitating this. It therefore bewilders me that some people should have such a harsh view of those rightfully employing the benefits system, a system we pay for should we require it lest we fall into more unfortunate circumstances. The real fraud here, the real waste of tax-payer’s money, is people failing to receive the help they require, the help which they’ve already paid for, for fear of being labelled a ‘fraudsters’, ‘scrounger’ or ‘benefit thief’. It is a fact that many rightful claimants are turned away, inciting a process of lengthy appeals, investigations and undoubtedly, more money down the drain. It might surprise you to know that approximately 60% of DLA appeal tribunals are successful- that means over half of the time, people who were denied Disability Living Allowance were ENTITLED to it. I wonder what juicy viewing that would make.

Phew! Now back to my second point of interest, an archive of TV Licensing appeals findings from the BBC Trust:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/our_work/complaints_appeals/tv_licensing/appeal_findings.shtml

It appears that whilst many people have felt harassed by the way in which TV Licensing go about their business, few appeals have actually been upheld. Although I have yet to hear about my appeal to the trust and hope it will be taken into consideration, I am less than optimistic over the outcome. However, lets not be too downhearted as it does appear that whilst many previous appeals have been made unsuccessfully, they have prompted some reform. In March 2009, The BBC Trust reviewed the manner in which TV Licensing approach the public through their various communications in this report compelling TVL to be more accurate and less accusatory in their communication:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/tvl/tvl_report.pdf

Lets hope then, that some small change can be achieved as it may be the best result we can hope for. As always, comments below please!

TV Licensing Information & Links

Having spent hours laboriously researching TV Licensing, fee collection and individual experiences, I have created this post with the aim of collating all relevant information in one easy to access place. Whether you are confused about your licensing needs, wishing to buy a license, or simply interested in shared experiences, I hope you find this page helpful. I have tried to be unbiased, including links to TVL’s own easy-to-use website, as well as the government website where you can purchase a TV License online. If you would like to share your own thoughts and experiences, or have a useful link to contribute, then please make sure to comment below.

Whilst thedailynag makes every attempt to ensure all information provided is honest and accurate, no legal liability can be accepted for its use.

When do you need a TV License:

TVL’s own website states that you must be covered by a valid TV License “if you watch or record TV as it’s being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.” A colour TV License costs £145.50 per annum, whilst a black and white license is only £49.00.

However, I have been advised that if you have a television set which you use as a monitor, for example, it is best to scramble the TV channels and remove the coaxial cable (plugged into the wall) so that it is more obvious the TV is not use to pick up live signals. The TVL website also mentions that “part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they’re being shown on television without a valid TV Licence”. I am unsure as to whether or not this means having a TV installed for use, having an ariel in the house or having a TV card in your computer and this would need clarification. To be on the safe side, disable as many of these devices as possible if you are not watching live broadcasts.

License Fee Concessions:

You may find that you qualify for a discounted license fee providing you meet certain criteria. TVL’s website states that those aged 75 and over are entitled to a free TV License and refund of any money paid for this period. If you are 74 years of age and your license if up for renewal, you can apply for a short-term license to cover you until your 75th birthday.

If you are registered blind or severely sight impaired, you may qualify for a 50% discount on your license fee. If you live with someone who is blind, simply register or transfer the license to their name to benefit from this discount.

Refunds:

If you’ve paid for more TV Licensing that you need, for instance, a student who has moved home for the summer, you may be entitled to a refund for this period. If you are moving house, you may be allowed to transfer your TV License to your new address. Make sure to contact TV Licensing for more information.

Official Websites and Regulatory Bodies:

TV Licensing Official Website: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/ Check if you need a license, pay for one online, or let TVL know you do not need one to be removed from their mailing list for approximately 2 years.

The BBC Trust: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/index.shtml Making sure the BBC listens to the voice of the public.

Ofcom: http://www.ofcom.org.uk/ Ensuring people in the UK get the best from their communications services.

Direct Gov: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/Diol1/DoItOnline/DG_4017480 Buy your licence online.

No License Needed Policy: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/downloads/what-if-tv-licence-is-not-needed/NoLicenceNeeded.pdf

Relevant Legislation:

The Communications Act 2003: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/contents

Wireless Telegraphy Act 2006: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/36/contents

Broadcasting Act 1996: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1996/55/contents

Fellow Bloggers:

http://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/ Your unofficial guide to television licence rules, regulations, loopholes and enforcement in the UK.

http://www.tvlicensing.biz/ BBC Resistance.

http://youtu.be/xWjAFykk1MQ Encounter with a TVL agent.

http://watchkeeperslog.blogspot.com/ Advice and experiences.

http://www.lime-marmalade.net/ Account from a fellow non-TV user.

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/ Letters from BBC Television Licensing.

http://www.licencefree.co.uk/ Advice and guidance for people without UK TV licenses.

http://www.televisionlicence.info/ Information about TV Licensing.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-eqGipgg3wPo/TedzHM1AEhI/AAAAAAAAAZ0/34nMV3A4n0Y/s1600/WOIRA+Letter+May+2011.png Template letter for withdrawal of rights of access.

Things that annoy me: Bad Landlords

In this current economic climate, everyday stressors are accentuated when put through the mill of lacking finances, poor credit ratings and for me, a shy bi-monthly payslip (having been ravaged at the hands of emergency tax). These are times when “value for money” are words which should define our everyday transactions and where organisations, shops and other providers should be concentrating on providing the highest quality of customer care available. Whilst we may not be queuing at the breadline, these are undoubtedly stressful times and we as consumers should be treated as a rare commodity, prepared to take our custom elsewhere on receipt of sub-standard service.

This is where I get to my gripe- bad landlords. Or estate agents, for that matter. In fact, make that estate agents ‘in particular’. Having been a paying tenant for the last decade or so, living at various properties across the country and experiencing different levels of ‘service’, I can (quite sadly) only report one excellent landlord who seemed capable of doing his job and providing habitable accommodation at a reasonable price. He was even capable of employing a screw driver on occasion and managed to fix any disrepair as and when reported, or failing that, permit us to invoice him for calling out a handy-man, plumber or electrician. Yes, he was a rarity indeed- a breed of landlord who had an invested interest not only in his property, but in the welfare of his fellow citizens; people who deserved accommodation a level higher than ‘squat’.

My current experience is with a private landlord who seems to be absent of the legal knowledge regarding harassment and eviction. In fact, this appears to be a consistent theme amongst landlords and estatae agents who lack the ability (or motivation) to maintain their contractual obligations. It seems the onus is put heavily on our shoulders, as the ‘tenant’, to ensure we do not breach any terms of the lease, primarily, paying the rent in a timely manner. But should we feel so responsible to meet this burden without our contractual counterparts ensuring to meet theirs? It’s understandable that during these times, we may have to dig deep and turn every sofa cushion before counting enough pennies to pay our monthly rent. That is of course, if we are able to pay it at all. It’s more than reasonable to expect that, during these times of financial difficulty (and during one of the worst recessions yet), where jobs are sparse and employees expendable, there may well be months where we are unable to afford the rent altogether. Now I’m not unreasonable and I can completely understand the worry this would cause a landlord or estate agent, so it’s not beyond reason that they should be concerned. However, to threaten eviction or act in a way which is both unlawful and inappropriate is simply unacceptable.

When talking about a home, we are referring to the one place you retreat to every night, your haven, your safe-space void of the every-day worries where you can, quite literally, put your feet up. Living with the threat of losing this one last thing you rely on is a very stressful reality. However, it may not be a reality at all (unless of course, your landlord has actually obtained a court order) and whilst this might initially provide you with some relief, you may later conclude that your well-invested trust has been abused. I mean, in times like these who needs to be on the receiving end of unnecessary and unfounded threats leading you to believe you may be rendered homeless?

So, how does this relate to me? Well, our current landlord has withheld our contract (although we did sign it), initially pretending he required the signatures of the other tenants, but then following this with excuse after excuse. It’s now become obvious why he’s so adamant to keep our contract in his clutches and shamefully, it’s to rob us of any rights. Whilst a contract may entitle your landlord to rights, it also protects the tenant to a degree and without a contract, you can be evicted without notice (I believe). However, since we signed an assured short-hold tenancy agreement (kudos to be noted for my legal-lingo) we are protected against unlawful eviction which means that without a court order, the landlord cannot force us to leave.

This whole situation, I should mention, has come about since my other half lost his job. With the next month’s rent looming in less than two weeks, the landlord (being aware of our financial situation) had decided to opt out of all reasonable course of action and has instead, concluded that he would be financially better off with an (almost) vacant property. We maintain however, like other sane-minded people, that it may be better to provide us with an extension or temporarily reduce our rent until our situation picks up (bearing in mind that the rental market for his property is very low at the moment).

With us barely able to scrape by, paying the rent (whilst high on our agenda) still falls short of the urgency of buying food, which has been our primary focus of late (a well-timed and altogether satisfying operation, involving sniping discount items from other like-minded bargain hunters at the war zone that is our local supermarket). After all, bread bought at 25p is always going to taste better than bread purchased at full price (it’s just that much sweeter).

Another problem to add to the mix is the fact that the landlord feels so welcome at our house that he pops round just about any time he pleases, despite this actually constituting harassment (which the Shelter website so helpfully points out- see link). It’s probably helpful to note we’ve only lived here a very short while yet, in fact, we were still moving in most of our stuff until recently (although I am known for my procrastination). On top of everything, I explicitly informed the landlord that I had a severe mold allergy and since our last property was mold-infested for so many years (for which I even disclosed I would be pursuing a rent-rebate at a small claims court), I wanted to ensure we would not have any problems with this rental. Whilst the landlord looked nervous, in his desperation to let the property he assured me there were no such problems. Lies, all of it! We moved in and almost immediately I noticed things were ‘damp’, but I couldn’t quite figure out if they were just cold or wet. For a couple of weeks, I thought it was my mind playing tricks until we began to find paint work flaking away as it was eaten by our other house-mate, Mr Mold. Yes, there was mold and damp pretty much everywhere and the more I looked, the more obvious it became. It actually comes to the point where I’m almost glad we’ll be forced to look for a new property so I don’t have to see the sad state this one will eventually fall into (it would otherwise be quite a nice house). Such a shame and all because a landlord can’t be bothered to properly maintain his property.

I’m now torn between taking action against the landlord for harassment and illegal eviction, or leaving, as I planned to anyway, with him to pay our bills (which remain in his name) and find tenants to replace the 4 empty rooms in his property. The latter would take a lot less work for me and still have the same effect, whilst the former may educate him that not all tenants are push-overs willing to take a beating from a power-hungry landlord. I think at the moment, the price on my sanity may be too high and this could be one I may leave at a secret victory. After all, nothing is worth your mental health.

Useful Links:

http://england.shelter.org.uk/get_advice/eviction/harassment_and_illegal_eviction_by_landlord/what_counts_as_harassment

TV License Trespass!

For those of you who patiently slaved through my ongoing email saga with TV Licensing (posted under ‘A spoonful of lies helps the brainwashing go down’), it may be of interest to learn that I have since moved home. However, whilst you should be writhing in guilt for failing to hasten me a house-warming basket of muffins or bouquet of flowers, I will actually forgive you on this occasion (although I shall be expecting those muffins).

It turns out that I was in fact welcomed into my new neighbourhood by an old friend. Dear old TVLA not only sent me a card, but came round in person; a fair bit more than I can say for you lot! Anyway, knowing how forward TV Licensing can be in their approach, it’s perhaps no wonder that they over-stepped the mark a little this time in the form of wilful trespass; perhaps the human equivalent of an over-excited puppy urinating on your carpet. Oh well, as they say, mi casa es su casa.

So here we go again, feast your eyes on the new baby that is TVLA, take 2! Of course, these have been written under the assumed pseudonym of “The Legal Occupier”, as I think it sounds sexier, wouldn’t you agree?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Email the first, from moi of course!

Dear TV Licensing,

I am hereby writing to restrict your right of access to my property. We recently received a letter stating one of your representatives might be calling and must inform you that they will be trespassing if they do so, as I have now withdrawn your implied right of access. I would also like to mention that any further communication to the above address will be considered harassment so please remove us from your mailing list as we do not require, neither are we looking to purchase, a TV License.

Thank-you for your co-operation with this matter,

The Legal Occupier.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Email the second, from TVLA

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your email, has been recorded under your complaint reference. Please use this number if you wish to contact us again.

I note your wish to withdraw the implied right of access for TV Licensing’s officers to approach your property. It would be helpful for us to have a record of your name to allow us to confirm that you are the occupier. We want to ensure our database is accurate, up to date and also that if we write to the address in the future, we can confirm that you are still the occupier.

I would be grateful if you’d confirm receipt of this email , quoting the above reference and providing your full name. We won’t visit you, although we reserve the right to use other methods available for the detection of television receiving equipment. TV Licensing don’t permanently stop writing to any address as circumstances change over time, and the occupier may change. We do not require legal permission to make enquiries to an address. But, you are under no legal obligation to respond to those letters.

I hope the above information has clarified the situation.

Yours faithfully,

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Email the third, from moi!

Dear TV Licensing,

Whilst it has been noted that I have withdrawn your implied right of access, I am sorry to report that one of your sales reps still knocked at our door, as a house-mate of mine reported. I would like to know if you have a record of this, please, under the Data Protection Act.

Many thanks,

The Legal Occupier.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Email the fourth, from TVLA

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your email, which has been recorded under your complaint reference. Please use this number if you wish to contact us again.

I was sorry to learn of the concern caused by our recent visit to your address. I can confirm that we have a record of a visit to your address on the 19 October. This was the day before we had received your wish to withdraw the implied right of access for TV Licensing’s officers to approach your property.

I can assure you that we won’t visit you again, although we reserve the right to use other methods available for the detection of television receiving equipment. As explained previously, TV Licensing don’t permanently stop writing to any address as circumstances change over time, and the occupier may change.

I hope the above information has clarified the situation.

Yours faithfully,

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Email the fifth, from moi!

Dear TV Licensing,

Unfortunately I believe the details of your previous email are incorrect. You state that you received my wish to withdraw your implied right of access on 19th October, however, I can confirm this was actually sent via email on Monday 17th October. This means you received it nearly two days before sending someone to visit my property, ignoring the restrictions in place.

I am taking this matter very seriously and hope you will confirm the above details for me.

Sincerely,

The Legal Occupier.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Email the sixth, from TVLA

Dear Sir/Madam

Thank you for your email, which has been recorded under your complaint reference. Please use this number if you wish to contact us again.

I can confirm you are correct that we received by email your request to withdraw the implied right for TV Licensing to visit your address via email on the 17 October. I regret we were not able to process your email request before you received a visit from one of our officers on the 19 October and I hope you will accept my apologies. I should explain that your email request was processed within the three day time scale which we aim to achieve.

I hope the above information is helpful.

Yours faithfully,

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Now, this is where we get interactive. TVLA did say sorry, so I am thinking of leaving it at that. But they also ignored a legal restriction put in place to avoid these sorts of complications and render me harassment-free at my new property. Whilst I may be a battle-axe of an antagonist, I am also in possession of some meagre morality and feel conflicted with how to progress.

Do I become the beast I am trying to tame? Did TVLA really learn their lesson? Should I wait to see if they flaunt my restrictions once again before pursuing my case? I never thought I’d say it, but I’m at a crossroads.

So pipe up and leave your comments below, because I’m on the fence with this one!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

OK, some updates now! I wasn’t sure where to go with this one, but it appears TVL came round again! My house-mate told me someone had popped round, showed their ID and started bantering on about “TV something” as she described, so she slammed the door in their face. I  have emailed TVL again for them to confirm this and if it’s true, this time, I will be taking action. So here is email seven I guess…

Email the seventh, from moi!

Dear TV Licensing,

Unfortunately, my house-mate has reported to me that again, a TVL representative visited our property at about 6pm. I would like you to confirm this for my records please, providing me with his name and ID if possible.

Sincerely,

The Legal Occupier.

A spoonful of lies helps the brainwashing go down…

Here, we have for your viewing pleasure, a collection of letters between myself and TV Licensing. A few years ago, I decided to opt out of the regular brainwashing on offer via live broadcast and since then, I have been lavished with attention from the very forward TVLA. But I won’t be called ‘easy’, I’ve been playing hard-to-get. Resisting the pressure to buy an unnecessary TV license, it seems my efforts have finally paid off with a date; a court date! Although I can’t say I haven’t been left a little confused, with TVLA blowing so hot and cold it’s hard to tell if this date’s for real.

Perhaps they’re just misunderstood, I mean, maybe if I got to know the real TVLA I’d see that they were only acting in our interest, protecting the good, honest, license-paying public (as is their ‘duty’) by weeding out all those nasty license-fee evaders with strongly-worded ‘enquiries’. I mean, it’s not like they’re harassing anyone!

We’ll see if I make a man out of TVLA yet. I’ve copied out their invitation and my ensuing RSVPs, just in case a sexy beast like TVLA asks you out on a date.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 1, from TV Licensing

Dear Sir/ Madam,

You have not responded to our previous letters. We want to ensure you have the information you may need before a hearing is set at your local court.

Please read the information below carefully and keep (sp) for your records. You will be allowed to take it into court with you.

What to expect in court

If you are asked to appear in court, this is what you can expect to happen:

• You can appoint a lawyer to represent you, or you may represent yourself.
• Evidence collected during an enforcement visit to your property is used by the court to decide the penalty for TV license evasion.
• The court has the power to impose a fine of up to £1,000, plus legal costs. The decision is legally binding.
• If you property needs a TV license, you will still need to buy one.

How to avoid a court summons

It is illegal to watch television programmes as they are being shown on TV without a TV License – no matter what device you use. The only way to stop this investigation from going any further is to do one of the following:

• Buy a TV License at www.tvlicensing.co.uk/pay or by calling 0300 790 6097. A colour license costs £145.50.
• Let us know you don’t need one at www.tvlicensing.co.uk/noTV or by calling 0300 790 6097. We may visit to confirm this.

Yours sincerely,

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

 Letter 2, my reply…

Dear TV Licensing,

I wish to make a formal complaint regarding the communications I have received from your organisation. I have previously taken the courtesy of informing you that I do not require a TV license and shall update your records should my circumstances change. Whilst I was told this had been noted, I continued to receive threatening enquiry letters designed to make me believe I may require a TV license and should purchase one from the methods listed. Most recently, you suggested there were intended court proceedings against me, despite failing to provide a formal court date or information to support this. Therefore, I believe this letter is nothing more than a scare tactic designed to persuade me to buy a TV license I do not need, under the imposed threat of legal action. I am aware of my rights and fully aware of the conditions under which you may require a TV license, thanks to your numerous communications and can clarify that I still DO NOT require a license and will not accept this type of harassment from a company or service I in no way wish to pursue.

I would like to clarify that should I receive any further correspondence addressed to myself, ‘The Legal Occupier’, or any other tenant at this property while I am resident here, I shall consider it harassment. I suffer from mental health problems and find your threatening and unfounded enquiries a source of undue stress and anxiety. To consistently target people in their own home where they should be free of this type of harassment is an unacceptable way for a government organisation to be conducting themselves. Therefore, I hope this situation can be resolved swiftly and that my records will be altered accordingly.

Yours sincerely,

Me!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

 Letter 3, from TV Licensing

Thank you for your email letting us know you still do not need a TV Licence. I am sorry you are unhappy about the letter you received from us and I hope you will accept my apologies. We wrote to you to see if your situation is still the same.

We take the views of customers seriously and always welcome feedback. Your comments have been recorded as part of our complaints process and I would like to thank you for taking the time to make your feelings known.

When we send our letters, we do not know whether the recipient has; no need for a licence, simply forgotten to buy one, or is a possible evader. We choose the wording of our letters carefully to reflect all three possibilities.

Experience has shown that a strong message encourages a reply. Since we started using a strong message, the number of evaders has reduced.

Our records have been updated and you will not receive any more letters from us for almost two years, apart from one further acknowledgement of this. After approximately two years we will then get in touch to check whether your circumstances have changed. Many people move home or their circumstances change, so we are unable to put a permanent stop on letters.

It is our duty to ensure that everyone in the UK who needs a licence has one, so we may visit your home to check that one is not required. It is unfortunately necessary for TV Licensing to visit homes to confirm there is no television being used as, when we made contact on these visits, a fifth of people were found to require a licence (based on 09/10 figures).

Once we have visited you and confirmed that you do not need a licence we can stop further contact for up to two years.

There is a chance that another letter has already been prepared for posting. If one arrives in the next few weeks, please ignore it.

Thank you again for the details you have given and for the time you have taken in helping us update our records.

Yours sincerely,

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 4, my reply…

Dear TV Licensing,

Thank-you for your swift reply. Whilst I am glad you have agreed to cease all junk-mail for the next two years, I am looking for a more permanent solution to these communications. Should someone wish to employ your services, I hope they would make it a priority to let you know, however I will not suffer any further harassment on their behalf. I regularly shop at a well known supermarket, for example, but do not expect a security guard to visit my home in case I have stolen something, or to receive regular threats just because I did not make a recent purchase. This would be classed as harassment, hence it is avoided, regardless of its potential use. If you understand my situation, your ‘reminders’ are nothing more than a marketing ploy and I argue that in addition to being ‘strongly-worded’ they are actually very misleading.

You state that you wrote to me to see if my situation was still the same, however, with reference to your most recent letter this was obviously not the case. On the contrary, it directly suggests intended court action which can only be avoided by a) purchasing a TV License or b) informing you that I do not need one (despite having already done so). I would like to suggest a third option c) “alternatively, please ignore this letter”, since I am not actually legally obliged to respond.

I hope some direct quotes can highlight how intentionally misleading this letter was, attempting to make me believe I had been summoned to court and was guilty of licence-fee evasion. It states that “we want to make sure you have the information you may need before a hearing is set at your local court”. This explicitly implies a hearing is going to take place. Some ‘useful’ information is then provided, stating that I would be allowed to take this to court with me- again, implying definite court action. This ‘information’ seems to avoid genuinely useful facts, such as that in order to set a court hearing sufficient evidence would be required and this could only be obtained under a warrant (providing there was sufficient reason to grant one). Simply not having a TV License is not indicative of a crime. Of course, this entire process would rely on a person actually being guilty of fee evasion, which without a doubt this letter is designed to suggest I am. The “what to expect in court” section goes on to state that this evidence (which does/ cannot exist since I am NOT a fee dodger) will be used by the court to set the fine amount. This makes two assumptions, firstly that evidence exists (suggesting I am guilty) and secondly, that it will impose a fine. Both of these assumptions are completely unfounded and rely on me being guilty of license evasion, an accusation which is borderline libellous.

Therefore, I believe it is obvious that these letters are not designed to inform someone under which premises they may require a TV License (information which is already freely available on your website), but are in fact a way of scaring people who do not require a license into buying one.

Please also note that one of your employees will NOT be visiting my property as I hereby restrict their right of access. I have told you that I do not need a TV License and I’m afraid you will just have to believe me, especially since I’ve been so well informed by the ‘strong messages’ in your numerous enquiries.

Yours sincerely,

Me!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 5, from TV Licensing

Thank you for your email. I am sorry that you are unhappy with the tone and wording of our enquiry letters and our visiting policy. We write to addresses without a valid TV Licence on our records. These letters are sent at regular intervals and do become stronger in tone. It is regrettable that this process has proved to be effective in getting a message across to would-be evaders.

We have noted our records with your wish to withdraw the common law right for TV Licensing’s officers to approach your property. We reserve the right to use other methods available for the detection of television receiving equipment.

I hope the above information is helpful.

Yours sincerely,

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 6, my reply…

Dear TV Licensing,

Thanks again for getting back to me so quickly. In your email, you noted that I was unhappy with the tone and wording of your enquiry letters, but this is not the case. Rather than being concerned over ‘sternly’ worded enquiries, I was actually more worried about being taken to court to face a maximum fine of £1,000. I hope you can clarify the intentions of this letter for me, in order to avoid any further confusion as whilst it may have been an honest enquiry, I was misled by the section entitled ‘What to expect in court’. I would however agree that this is an undoubtedly effective way of securing someone’s attention, as it has done so with mine in the form of this complaint.

I was hoping to explain myself a bit better. My situation, as it stands, is that I previously held a TV license and regretted that it had not been money well spent; a feeling that was relived almost every time I tuned into a live broadcast to be met with the disappointment that there was nothing better to watch. I am not sure if this is still the case, but nonetheless, decided to withdraw from your services altogether, including any further marketing or communication. I was wondering if you could therefore advise me on how I could be free of the attention TV license has decided to bestow upon me, without having to make an unnecessary purchase or endure a visit from an ‘enforcement officer’ like a member of Britain’s most wanted. At the moment, I believe that since deciding to pursue alternative entertainment I have invited an onslaught of threats from your organisation.

I would also like to mention my concern over the ‘alternative methods available for the detection of television receiving equipment’. I openly admit to being in possession of a TV, which in itself, is not a crime. Therefore, I believe you may be referring to the act of watching a live broadcast, in which case, I would be concerned that the only way of ‘detecting’ equipment kept in my own home (providing you have been denied the right of access), is highly suggestive of espionage. This makes me anxious as someone who has previously informed you that I suffer from mental health problems. Therefore, I must request that you do not pursue these alternative methods as the notion of impending covert surveillance causes me much anxiety, which I will be looking to have compensated under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

I look forward to your response and hope we can meet a mutual agreement whereby it is accepted that I do not require a TV license and am therefore liberated of all further enquiries. It seems highly uneconomical that TV Licensing should pursue such unnecessary enquiries, which must be considerably more expensive than the actual cost of a TV license (a mere £145.50 if I remember correctly from your previous enquiries). I might suggest that this money would be better spent on improving the quality of the TV programs available, in which case I would eagerly purchase a TV license in the future.

Yours sincerely,

Me!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 7, from TV Licensing

Thank you for your email. TV Licensing act as an agent for the BBC (the Licensing Authority) and collect the licence fee for them. We are not involved with the production of TV programmes, or how the TV Licence fee is used. If you need to contact someone about these issues please contact BBC Information.

We write to all addresses that have not got a valid TV Licence and where we do not know the situation. You need a licence if you are using television-receiving equipment. While I can appreciate your feelings in the matter, we have a responsibility to explain in our letters what could happen if a person is found using this sort of equipment without a valid licence.

When someone buys a TV Licence, they are paying for a legal permission to install or use television-receiving equipment until the licence expires. It is not a service or product. We need to ensure that all properties where television-receiving equipment is used are adequately licensed. There is no obligation to respond to our communications. However, the replies we receive help us to make sure our records are appropriately updated to reflect the current situation. In your case, you have kindly advised us that you are not using a set.

We have already told you we will stop writing to you for almost two years, now you have told us you do not require a licence. It is our policy to carry out verifying visits to all addresses where we have been advised that television-receiving equipment is not used. While we appreciate that many addresses we are visiting will be genuinely not using television, we believe this was the fairest and most consistent approach, and one, which enables us to place a long-term guard against our record of non-television users.

Due to the nature of our officers’ work, we do not make arrangements for the time or date of a visit. In your case, you have withdrawn the common law right for TV Licensing’s officers to approach your property. In such cases, as explained in my last email to you, we reserve the right to use other methods available for the detection of television receiving equipment.

It is the responsibility of Customer Relations to record and fully look into complaints. We aim to resolve complaints first time, but if the customer is unhappy with the reply they receive, they can escalate their complaint by writing to our Operations Director.

I hope the above information has clarified the situation.

Yours sincerely,

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

N.B. After asking for my complaint to be escalated as above, the following letters have been addressed to another department at TV Licensing.

Letter 8, my reply…

Dear TV Licensing,

Unfortunately, I have been asked to write to you following an unresolved complaint. To summarise, I recently received a letter stating that evidence would be gathered against me during an impending enforcement visit and this would be used in court to set a fine of up to £1,000 for license-fee evasion. This quite clearly makes the unfounded and insulting accusation that I am guilty of license-fee evasion. I was then informed that the only way to avoid a hearing at my local court was to either purchase a TV License or inform you that I do not need one.

As you can understand, I am furious at these unprovoked threats from an organisation I am not associated with. Simply not being in possession of a TV License does not warrant this type of threatening behaviour, on the contrary, it is reflective of the fact that I do not need a TV License and have no interest in obtaining one. I understand that it may be difficult for you to enforce your policy at all times and that people who do not have a license may in fact require one, but there are issues of privacy and laws protecting people from harassment which override your need to pursue license evaders in this manner. I am not responsible for fee-evaders and do not wish to be harassed on their behalf, neither do I have any obligation to be involved with your organisation.

With reference to previous communications, I stated that I would be seeking compensation for damages under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 unless an immediate stop could be put to these enquiries, whether in the form of letters, home visits or any alternative method. Unfortunately, you have been unable to guarantee this. I previously extended the courtesy of informing your organisation that I do not require a TV License and instead of satiating your enquiries, it appears I have only invited more attention in the form of impending enforcement visits and ‘other methods of detecting television receiving equipment’. I would like to clarify that your own regulations state a TV License is only necessary when watching live TV and not for the possession of television receiving equipment, which in itself, is not a crime. This type of purposefully misleading information appears to be in keeping with the numerous enquiry letters I have received in the past.

TVLA have made it quite clear that unless I purchase a TV License, whether one is required or not, this sustained harassment will not only continue, but escalate. There is no way for me to prove I am not doing something, in which case your ‘enquiry’ can never be satisfied. Even if I was to undergo further inconvenience in the form of a home-visit, I doubt this would permanently cease all further enquiries. I believe this cyclical ritual of harassment will only continue, since it is based on the notion that all non-fee payers are guilty of license evasion until they can be proven innocent (which is not possible). Thus, the only way to satisfy your enquiries would be to purchase a TV License on an annual basis, regardless of its necessity. I believe that this unethical conduct quite clearly constitutes harassment.

In conclusion, following earlier, unsuccessful attempts to resolve this matter, I will be seeking compensation to the amount of £1,000. I am also requesting that all further enquiries are permanently ceased. The compensation will cover the anxiety suffered as a result of your enquiries (which is heightened due to my mental health problems, as previously disclosed) and my time, effort and personal expenses in pursuing this matter. I believe the amount set is fair as it reflects your own maximum fine for license evasion. If we are unable to reach this resolution, I will be forced to escalate matters to a small claims court.

Yours faithfully,

Me!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 9, from TV Licensing

Thank you for your email. I am sorry you feel that Customer Relations were unable to resolve your complaint. As such, it has been passed to me in line with our formal escalation process.

A TV Licence is needed when receiving or recording live television broadcasts. We are responsible for ensuring that a licence is held where needed and we would be remiss in our duty to licence payers if we did not do so.

However, we make no assumption about the situation at an address and understand that some people do not watch TV and have no need for a licence. It is important that we identify these people, so that future contact can be kept to a minimum. This is why write to all addresses where there is no licence held and where TV Licensing is not aware of the situation at the address. When we write to an address, we will not know the situation so the wording of our letters is chosen to reflect all possibilities.

Our letters hold no implication for those who do not need a licence and we would not expect anyone to buy one unnecessarily. It is important though, for our letters to advise people of when a licence is needed and what may happen if they watch TV without a licence. We appreciate any feedback regarding TV Licensing’s letters. The BBC (the Licensing Authority) regularly reviews all TV Licensing communications and any complaints are recorded so they are taken into account.

We do not wish to offend or harass those who do not watch television and do everything possible to respect the rights and privacy of individuals. We are satisfied our policies comply with current legislation.

You told us on early this year that you do not use a TV receiver, and TV Licensing will not write to your address for two years. We will then write to you to confirm that the situation at the address has not changed. I also note that you have withdrawn the common law right for TV Licensing’s officers to approach your property. This too has been recorded and we will not visit you.

If our implied right to approach is withdrawn, in line with our responsibilities, we reserve the right to use other methods for the detection of television receiving equipment. The use of detection equipment is provided for and regulated by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British Broadcasting Corporation) Order 2001.

I would like to reassure you that if detection equipment is employed, this is non-intrusive and discreet. The occupier of an address would not be disturbed. Where detection is used for an address where there is no TV, this is simply to help confirm the situation.

Finally, I note your request for £1000 compensation in respect of this matter, but I must advise that we would not agree to this. I am confident our enquiries at your address have been made in line with our responsibilities and we have acted upon the information you have given us.

I hope my reply has been helpful and addresses your concerns.

Yours sincerely,

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 10, my reply…

Dear TV Licensing,

Thank-you for your response, however it seems you are unable to supply me with any further information which does not reiterate the points made in your enquiry letters. This is largely unhelpful to me as it does not address the issues raised in my complaint; mainly that you have explicitly written to me stating intended court action simply because I do not have a TV License.

I am therefore writing to make a request under the Data Protection Act 1998 for copies of all communications sent to my address since the start of my tenancy.

Thank-you for your cooperation in this matter,

Yours sincerely,

Me!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 11, from TV Licensing

Thank you for your email. I am sorry for the delay in my reply, as I have been making further investigations to help in responding to your complaint. With regard to our letters, I would reiterate that they are sent in line with our responsibilities and hold no implication for those who do not need a TV Licence. You have told us you do not use a TV receiver and our records have been updated to reflect this. Licence enquiry letters have been stopped. Your effective withdrawal of the common law right of TV Licensing officers to approach your property has also been noted and we will not visit you.  I note you have asked for copies of TV Licensing letters that have been sent to you in the past. I should explain that given the number of letters we send every month, we do not retain copies of the letters sent to individual addresses.  However, we do record the type of letters that we send. Our records show that 14 letters have been sent to your address and I have listed these below for your reference:

January: Home-movers. This type of letter is sent to an unlicensed address that may have a new occupier.

February: Unconfirmed No Set. This type of letter used to be sent to acknowledge that we had been advised that a licence was not needed for the given address.

July: DD Pay Plan renewal. This letter was sent to acknowledge the Direct Debit you had arranged for your TV Licence.

May: 1st Reminder. This letter was sent to advise that your licence was approaching expiry and would need renewal if you continued to watch television.

August: 2nd Reminder. This letter was sent as your license had expired and at that time it had not been renewed.

September: 3rd Reminder. This letter was sent as your license had expired and at that time it had not been renewed.

September: Unconfirmed No Set. Letter was sent to acknowledge that we had been advised that a TV Licence was not needed at the given address.

September (following year): Unconfirmed No Set. Letter was sent to ask whether there had been any change to the licensing needs of the address.

October: Unconfirmed No Set. Further letter was sent to ask for confirmation of the licensing needs of the address.

November: Home-movers. As no reply had been received to our previous letters, the address was placed back into our licence enquiry process. As the address was unlicensed and may have had a new occupier, a letter was sent to ask about its licensing needs.

January: Home-movers. No reply to previous letters, so a further letter was sent to enquire about the licensing needs of the address.

February: Home-movers. No reply to previous letters, so a further letter was sent to enquire about the licensing needs of the address.

March: Home-movers. No reply to previous letters, so a further letter was sent to enquire about the licensing needs of the address.

May: Home-movers. No reply to previous letters, so a further letter was sent to enquire about the licensing needs of the address.

Following our letter, you contacted us and the Customer Relations team replied and noted your withdrawal of the implied right of access for our officers.

Thank you again for contacting me. I hope my reply proves helpful. If you now wish to pursue your complaint, you can ask the BBC (the Licensing Authority) for a further review.

Yours sincerely,

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 12, my reply…

Dear TV Licensing,

Thank-you for your email, it has raised some interesting points. I am aware that once you have informed TV License that you do not require a license and they have updated your records, you won’t receive any further inquiry letters for almost two years. However, your own records state that I received a letter in September acknowledging my status and as little as a year later another inquiry was made as to whether or not I required a license. I had informed you several times previously that to continue sending these types of communications would be considered harassment. In addition to the fact that you have not complied with your own policy, I believe I have been harassed by TV Licensing. Furthermore, you fail to mention that the most recent enquiry letter was actually threatened court action. Please therefore inform me why this exact letter was sent when your records were in fact up to date and a period of approximately two years had not yet passed.

Sincerely,

Me!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 13, from TV Licensing

Thank you for your email. Please allow me to address the further points you’ve raised.

When we’re told that a TV Licence isn’t needed at an address, our policy is that normal enquiry letters will be stopped for two years. This was introduced early in 2010, following the Licensing Authority’s review of ‘No TV’ policy.

As part of this review, we wrote to addresses already noted as places where a licence wasn’t required. We did this to ensure our records remained up to date. In some cases, it had been a number of years since we’d contacted an address and we wished to confirm the situation. If we were advised that the situation hadn’t changed, the new No TV process was applied.

Your address had been noted as a No TV address. A year later, following the review of our procedures, we wrote in September and October to confirm that our records were still correct. We received no reply to our letters, so we were unsure of the situation. Your address was then automatically placed back into our enquiry process.

Between November and May, five letters were sent to you. We didn’t receive a reply until June of this year, when your complaint was passed to the Customer Relations team.

We choose the wording of our letters to reflect that the recipient may not need a licence; has forgotten to buy one or may be a possible evader. As letters progress for an address, they do include a stronger message, as experience shows this can encourage a reply. The number of evaders has reduced since we started using a strong message.

Our letters hold no implication for those who have no licence requirement. Our last letter, sent in May, was sent as part of the enquiry process that had been in place since November. Although it contained general information about what could happen during a Court appearance, it did not specify that any action was to be taken against you. The letter also gave information about how to obtain a licence if necessary and also how to inform us if one wasn’t needed.

When you contacted us in June, we immediately updated our records to reflect your licensing needs. We have also noted your withdrawal of the implied right of access for our officers. Letters for your address have been stopped and we will not visit you.

I hope my reply has answered your questions, but if you wish to further your complaint, you can request this by writing to the BBC.

Yours sincerely,

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 14, my reply…

Dear TV Licensing,

Thank-you for your email. I have read your No License Needed Policy, which doesn’t have e a date of implementation. However, it does not require that TV Licensing seeks confirmation for existing ‘NLC’ addresses, if this information is already available and up-to-date. As I interpret the policy, my address should have been registered as ‘NLC’ and contact should have been restricted for a 2 year period (inclusive of the period which had already passed). Therefore, I do not believe this policy supports your argument.

I would also like to know what the previous policy stated about ‘no licence needed’ households, since I did not receive any communications for a year and therefore assume some sort of restriction period was already in place.

Sincerely,

Me!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 15, from TV Licensing

Thank you for your most recent email. I realise that when your home was noted as a No TV address in September, we then wrote to you a year later to confirm this was still the situation. However, this was following a review of the No Licence Needed policy by the BBC (the Licensing Authority). Previously, our policy meant we would note an address as not requiring a TV Licence and we would write on an annual basis to ask if there had been any change to this. We would also ask a visiting officer to call and confirm there was no use of television. If an officer verified this, enquiries would then be stopped for three years.

At the beginning of the year, the Licensing Authority reviewed this policy and decided upon a new approach. If advised that a licence isn’t needed at an address, our policy is now that all written enquiries will be stopped for two years. An officer may also call to confirm the situation. After two years, we then write to ask if anything has changed. As part of the review process, we wrote to all addresses already noted as not requiring a licence. We did this so the new process could then be put in place for them.

In some cases, we’d had no contact with an address for several years. Properties can be sold and the occupiers move away. A new occupier may then need a TV Licence and we simply wished to keep our records up to date. Unfortunately, our policy was amended only a year after you had told us of your licensing needs.

We didn’t receive a reply to the letters we sent you last September and October, so it wasn’t clear that the circumstances were the same. Automatically, your address was placed back into our normal enquiry process. This generated the letters sent between November last year and May this year.

As soon as you contacted us, we updated our records in line with our current policy. We’ve subsequently noted your effective withdrawal of the implied right of access for our officers and your instructions will be adhered to.

Thank you once again for bringing your concerns to my attention. I trust my reply has answered your questions and brings the matter to a satisfactory close.

Yours sincerely,

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 15, my reply…

Dear TV Licensing,

I can understand your frustration at my numerous enquiries, I’ve been in a similar situation myself. However, the fact remains that TV Licensing wrote to me DIRECTLY THREATENING COURT ACTION. This issue still remains outstanding. Many times I was informed that my address had been placed into the ‘normal route of inquiry’ but nowhere is it explained how things had escalated to threats of court action. Your letter directly accuses me of license fee evasion, implying my guilt and threatening a fine of up to £1,000. This is simply indefensible behaviour and to make such accusations is borderline libellous.

Therefore, until this issue is directly addressed my complaint cannot be satisfied. By saying that this was simply another method of enquiry designed to ascertain my licensing requirements. I refuse to be threatened by a company simply because I did not wish to comply with their administrative procedures, noting that I have NO obligation to do so and do not wish to expend my energy in such a way. Had TVLA approached me in a way that did not constitute harassment, I might have been more inclined to comply with their investigation, however, I will not be on the receiving end of unfounded threats simply to motivate a response. Unfortunately, you have been partially successful in this aim, initiating this complaint. Therefore, I would be grateful if we could seek a swift resolution in the form of compensation (as noted previously) for stress suffered as a result of these ‘enquiries’ and my time in pursuing the matter- an escalating cost at the moment.

Sincerely,

Me!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 16, from TV Licensing

Thank you for your email. I am sorry you feel your complaint has not been resolved. With regard to the letter you received in May, this was the fifth in a sequence that had commenced in November of last year. As letters to an address progress, the message they contain does become stronger.

Whilst there’s no obligation upon the recipient of our letters to respond, licence enquiries are made in line with our responsibilities. We are satisfied those enquiries are made appropriately and that our policies comply with current legislation. I would reiterate that our letters hold no implication for those who do not need a TV Licence. Our letter contained general information about what might happen during a Court appearance. It did not state you were suspected of TV Licence evasion and did not specify that any action would be taken against you. The letter included information about obtaining a licence if required and also on how to inform us if this wasn’t necessary.

I must advise that we’re unable to agree to your request for compensation. I would also add that we have now addressed this matter as fully as possible and are unable to add anything further. I am sorry if my reply is disappointing, but I hope it makes our position clear. If you wish to pursue your complaint, you can ask the BBC to review it in line with the formal escalation process.

Yours sincerely,

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 17, from TV Licensing (following my request to escalate matters)

TV Licensing has escalated your complaint to me and I’ve reviewed your previous correspondence with them. I’m sorry you are unhappy about the letters you have received from TV Licensing and that they were unable to resolve your complaint.

Firstly, I’d like to reassure you again that TV Licensing has recorded that you don’t need a license and they will not write to you again until May 2013. They have also noted your withdrawal of the implied right of access, and no officer will call at your address.

It might be helpful if I briefly summarise the recent letter you have received. You let TV Licensing know that you did not need a TV License, and they stopped writing to you for one year. The following year, TV Licensing wrote to you to check that your circumstances were still the same. No response was received to confirm that you were still living at the address and that a license was still not needed and so your address was returned to our normal enquiry process. Five further letters were sent as TV Licensing wished to discover whether this address needed a license. As you have now informed TV Licensing you do not need a license, they will stop writing to your address for two years, as confirmed above, in line with the new policy for those who don’t require a license.

It is, of course, your choice not to communicate with TV Licensing but if they receive no response from letters, they do not know how is living at that address and what the licensable requirements are there. TV Licensing has a duty to enforce the law where a license is needed and, as their emails to you have previously explained, it is for this reason that letters become more strongly worded, in order to encourage a reply.

I’m sorry if you were unhappy with the letter you received. As TV Licensing has previously explained, I would like to reassure you that their letters carry no implication for those people who do not need a license and, as you know, this letter asked the recipient to contact us if they do not require a license. At that time, because TV Licensing had not heard from you, they did not know the circumstances at your address and so letters sent needed to take into account the possibility that the occupant(s) might be attempting to evade the license fee.

The letter explains what may happen if evasion is taking place, including a hearing at a local court but the letter clarifies that a license is needed to watch live television programmes and also asks anyone who doesn’t need a license to let TV Licensing know. I’m sorry you felt the letter directly accused you of license fee evasion, as this was not intended, but we do not accept that TV Licensing’s communications amount to harassment.

TV Licensing took a reasonable course of action by sending you a series of letters which were asking about your licensing requirements and which only became stronger in tone when no response was received. TV Licensing has a duty to collect the license fee, and they have an obligation to ensure as far as possible that everyone who needs a license has one. This is why the letters must address a range of circumstances, including the possibility of evasion.

You may be interested to know that the BCC Trust recently conducted a review of TV License fee collection. Their recommendations included asking TV Licensing’s early letters to be reviewed (these have since be re-written); for letters to give greater prominence to the message that people may not need a TV License; and making it easier for people to let TV Licensing know they don’t need a license, which people can now do through the website. However, the Trust agreed that, in the absence of information from the householder, it was reasonable for TV Licensing’s letters to become stronger in tone. You can find a copy of the review on the BBC’s website at the following address: http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/review_report_research/tvl/tvl_report.pdf

I can see from your previous correspondence with TV Licensing that you have mentioned you have mental health problems. In light of this, please let me know if there are any reasonable adjustments we can make for you in terms of dealing with your complaint. For example, you may wish to discuss your complaint over the phone, in which case please contact us.

Thank you for contacting us with your comments and for confirming the situation at your address. I’m afraid I cannot agree to your request for compensation.

Yours sincerely,

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

 Letter 18, my reply…

 Dear TV Licensing,

Thank-you for your letter. Unfortunately, it appears TV Licensing are unable to do more than simply re-state previously covered topics, such as the fact that I have withdrawn your right of access etc. which I am fully aware of. I’m sorry to say that the majority of your letter actually failed to address my complaint and whilst I appreciate your suggesting that should I have any requirements due to the nature of my disability, you would be happy to comply, I fail to see how a telephone conversation would be more accommodating to my needs than a written reply which would give hard evidence of our communications. I would be very upset to find there might have been alternate intentions for this suggestion, mainly that I would not have a written record of our communications which would greatly hinder progress with my complaint. However, I’m sure that’s not what you meant to do.

With reference to May letter mentioned before, you reassure me that this letter carries no implications for someone who does not need a license, however, I would disagree with this point. The majority of the letter specifically implies court action and whilst you are right in that I have no legal obligation to reply to the letter, this is not mentioned, instead it is said that the ONLY way to avoid a court summons would be to either purchase a TV license or to inform you that I do not need one. This is untrue, a court summons could not in fact proceed unless you had substantial evidence to suggest that license fee evasion had occurred and this should have been made clear in your letter. Therefore, the May letter is intentionally misleading by stating that unless someone contact you in one way or another, they will be summonsed to court. Furthermore, you state that the letter explains what “may happen if evasion is taking place”, however, this is not in line with the wording of the letter which specifically states “we want to ensure you have the information you may need before a hearing is set at your local court”. The last part of this statement is particularly revealing, as it implies definite action will be taken (“before a hearing IS set at your local court”). You maintain that this letter did not intend to directly accuse me of license fee evasion, but this cannot be supported as the letter quite directly accuses me of license fee evasion.

As you can see, I have underlined the above areas where it I am told I should expect a court hearing. The last statement I have highlighted actually says that evidence collected during an enforcement visit would be used against me to set a fine amount. This makes several unfounded assumptions. Firstly, by saying that evidence collected during an enforcement visit would be used to set a fine suggests that evidence is available to collect, implying that I would be guilty of license fee evasion. For this statement to be neutral, it would have to follow the lines of “evidence which may be collected during an enforcement visit”. Again, it suggests that this would set a fine amount. If I was not guilty of license fee evasion, there would be no evidence and furthermore, no fine. However, by suggesting a fine amount will be set implies an amount over £0 (£0 not qualifying as a fine). Lastly, this statement implies that an enforcement visit will take place. Assuming the occupier did not allow an enforcement officer onto their property, this statement might assume that a warrant would be obtained as an impending enforcement visit seems inevitable. To obtain a warrant, again, implies that evidence exists to suggest license fee evasion.

I would like to suggest that unless you can provide me with direct quotes from this letter to support your statement that it was not your intention to accuse me of license fee evasion, then your statement cannot hold true and therefore, I believe my allegations of harassment still stand, in which case I may pursue legal action to recover any compensation I am owed.

Yours sincerely,

Me!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 19, from TV Licensing

Thank you for your email.  I hope you will accept my apologies for the delay in replying while I have been investigating your complaint.

As I explained in my previous reply, when TV Licensing have written several times to ask about the situation at an address without a licence, and received no reply, their subsequent enquiries become stronger in tone to encourage a response. TV Licensing has a responsibility to ensure that everyone who needs a licence has one.

I’m sure you will appreciate, there are those who will attempt to avoid buying a licence they need and TV Licensing’s letters explain when a licence is needed. This does not mean that we will take court action if someone doesn’t reply. As you know, we would need to visit an address or to identify evidence of evasion before considering court action. By encouraging people to respond to their letters, TV Licensing can avoid the need for such a visit. The majority of people who receive TV Licensing’s letters do respond, which enables them to update their records and to minimise future contact with them.

TV Licensing cannot know prior to a visit whether there is any TV in use but it is true to say that if they do find evidence it can lead to prosecution and a fine. As the letters explain, this is for a court to decide. I do not agree that the letter is misleading, as it clearly asks people to let us know if they don’t need a licence.

Our letters are regularly reviewed and we welcome comments from members of the public in order to improve them. Your complaint has been recorded and will be included as part of future reviews.

I am sorry you feel that my suggestion for you to discuss the matter over the phone may have been a way to avoid providing you with a written record. I would like to reassure you that this is not the case. This offer was made, as an exception to our normal process, in view of the mental health problems you have explained. This offer remains open and any conversations can be recorded and confirmed in writing if you wish.

Alternatively, you may wish to take your complaint further. If you would like me to escalate your complaint to the Executive Board member responsible for Licence Fee collection, please let me know and I will arrange this for you.  If the Executive Board member believes that TV Licensing and the Head of Revenue Management haven’t dealt with your complaint properly, they will carry out a review. However, they’ll not normally step in if you’re just unhappy with the decision.

Thank you for contacting me.

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 20, my reply…

Dear TV Licensing,

In view of the lack of a response which appropriately addresses the concerns raised in my previous emails, I would like for my complaint to be escalated. However, since having my complaint previously escalated to various departments, I’m not sure this will prove any more fruitful and would also like to know which external body governs TV Licensing so that I may raise my concerns with them in the hope of a resolution. I would also like your final deadlock decision on these matters so that I can forward your final response. Please ensure this is supplied within 14 days, or I shall take your last email as your final word on the matter.

Sincerely,

Me!

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

Letter 21, from TV Licensing

Thank you for your email which has been passed to me for review as the Executive Board member responsible for Licence Fee collection, in line with our complaints process.

I’ve reviewed your correspondence with TV Licensing and with the BBC and I understand that you are unhappy with letters you have received from TV Licensing, and in particular with a letter you received which mentioned a court appearance.

I’m sorry you feel that you have not received a response that appropriately addresses your concerns. As you know, the letter you received is only sent when there has been no reply to several earlier letters. Although it does include information about what to expect in court, it also goes on to explain when a licence is needed and it asks people who don’t need a licence to let TV Licensing know. We are reviewing the use of this letter as a result of customer feedback.

Once TV Licensing knows that no licence is needed at a property, they minimise further contact. When you let TV Licensing know that you don’t need a licence, they updated their records straight away and stopped any further letters for nearly two years. When TV Licensing contact you in two years time, it will be to confirm that your situation is the same and you still do not need a TV Licence.

If you are not satisfied with this response, and you wish to escalate your complaint further, you may appeal to the BBC Trust. Your request for an appeal must normally be made, in writing, within 20 working days of receiving your response from the member of the Executive Board. The Trust will decide whether your complaint fits the criteria for appeals they will consider, and may agree to take your complaint. I have enclosed a copy of the complaints escalation process for your information.

Finally, I would like to reassure you that TV Licensing has recorded that you do not need a licence and that, in line with your instructions, no officer will call at your address.

Thank you for contacting us.

TV Licensing.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

My letter to the BBC Trust

Dear BBC Trust,

I am writing to make an appeal regarding an unresolved complaint with TV Licensing, having escalated matters to an Executive Board member without success. To summarise my complaint, TVL wrote to me making this following threat for court action:

“You have not responded to our previous letters. We want to ensure you have the information you may need before a hearing is set at your local court.”

This precedes a larger section entitled “What to expect in court”, bullet pointing various items of information including the following example:

“Evidence collected during an enforcement visit to your property is used by the court to decide the penalty for TV License evasion.”

This borderline libellous communication explicitly states that a hearing IS going to be set and implies that I am guilty of license fee evasion and would be fined accordingly, failing to take into account the possibility that I do not require a TV License which was reflective of my situation at the time. The letter goes on to state (in the very last paragraph) that the only way to avoid this type of action would be to purchase a TV License, before finally (the last line of the letter) mentioning that if I did not need a license, I should inform them, although this may provoke a visit from an enforcement officer. It is not mentioned that I have no legal obligation to contact TV Licensing, on the contrary, it quite clearly implies the opposite.

Following your recent review of TV License fee collection in March 2009, I believe it was agreed that TVL should give greater prominence to the message that people may not need a TV Licence, ensuring that letters were “polite, informative and non-accusatory”. I believe the letter I received does not comply with this recommendation, implying that I would be taken to court without any supporting evidence or reason to believe I was purposely evading the license fee. Simply not having a TV License is not indicative of a crime, nor should it be treated as such. In fact, it is representative of the fact that I do not need one and whilst a fraction of people making this claim may well have been license fee evaders, it is not representative of the general public.

Angry at this unprovoked threat from a service in which I have no interest, I made a formal complaint and have since been in communication with various departments at TV Licensing, all failing to appropriately address the issues raised. Annoyed at the lack of progress, I finally demanded that my complaint should be escalated so that I could contact the BBC Trust and a response from an Executive Board member was dispatched. TVL did not provide a reference number with this, nor did they attach a copy of the complaints escalation process as promised, so further delays were encountered when I had to research this information myself.

TVL consistently dismissed my complaint, insisting their letter was simply an ‘enquiry’ designed to inform people when and how to purchase a TV License. They fill out the rest of their response with tediously repeated facts, acknowledging that I no longer required a TV License and accepting my withdrawal of their implied right of access. They fail to respond to the majority of issues raised, specifically regarding their earlier letter threatening court action. I mention several times that I feel I have been harassed by TV Licensing throughout their onslaught of junk mail and accusations and made it clear that I do not require a TV License and do not wish to be persuaded to buy one regardless. I mention that should my circumstances change, I would hasten to let them know and clarify that any further action would be considered harassment. TVL then acknowledge that in line with their new procedures, they will cease communications for approximately two years, but do not guarantee the harassment will stop altogether and do not inform me of how I could ensure it does. They then threaten to send someone round to my property to clarify that I am not lying to them, forcing me to withdraw their implied right of access to intercept this new route of further harassment. I also inform TVL that I have mental health problems and find their undue attention distressing since I have no interest in watching live TV, but cannot be free of their enquiries without purchasing an annual license regardless of its necessity. I am then informed that being unable to visit my property or write to me for an extended period, they shall now be pursuing alternative methods of detection, implying covert surveillance of someone who suffers from mental health problems, including anxiety and paranoia. TVL have been unable to guarantee that their harassment will cease altogether and it appears the situation has only worsened following my attempts to satisfy their enquiry.

Having previously informed TVL on several occasions that I felt harassed by their actions, I am seeking to have my stress, time and effort compensated under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 and for all further actions to be permanently ceased.

Thank-you for your time processing my appeal, I hope to hear from you shortly,

Many thanks,

Me!

The Blogging Virgin: Breaking my oath of chastity

OK, so I never thought I’d end up writing a ‘blog’. I find the very word detestable, an onomatopoeia for the up-spew of irrelevant information divulged in unnecessary reflection like the burning reflux of a lately digested meal.  Not to mention, the self-indulgent nature of writing an online ‘journal’ is in itself enough to shame even the most egotistical of us. But, I must say I have been persuaded to pop my proverbial cherry at the roaring call of my beckoning public (allow me this one- of many- exaggerations) and, ashamedly, at the admittance that somewhere amongst the very depths of my being, I harbour that will to exert my seemingly extensive knowledge in the surety that I am always right.

No, I must not succumb… but it is too late, I have used up that gift of abstinence and now it lies shamefully on the dirtied sheets of it’s once passionate exuberance. There’s no turning back now… Ich bin ein Blogger.