Why we're here:
This blog is to highlight the unjust persecution of legitimate non-TV users at the hands of TV Licensing. These people do not require a licence and are entitled to live without the unnecessary stress and inconvenience caused by TV Licensing's correspondence and employees.

If you use equipment to receive live broadcast TV programmes, or to watch or download on-demand programmes via the BBC iPlayer, then the law requires you to have a licence and we encourage you to buy one.

If you've just arrived here from a search engine, then you might find our Quick Guide helpful.

Friday, 20 January 2012

BBC Confirms Responsibility for Heinous TV Licensing Court Threat Letters


The BBC has confirmed that it gave the green light for TV Licensing's most heinous letter yet, which implies the recipient is heading to straight to court without justification.

The letter, shown above, is designed to intimidate TV Licensing non-respondents by threatening them with court action, for an offence they probably haven't committed. Their only "crime" is to have ignored TV Licensing's previous requests for information - despite the Licensing Authority, the BBC, having confirmed that non-TV users are under no obligation to respond to any of TV Licensing's mailings.

Mark of Licence Free submitted a Freedom of Information Act request asking the BBC about this letter back in December. In their response the BBC confirmed that more than 3.1 million of the scaremongering letters had been sent to properties high on TV Licensing's target list. This includes properties where the occupier had failed to respond to previous TV Licensing intimidation and properties where the occupier had failed to renew their TV licence.

Disclosure documents provided by the BBC leave little doubt that they have the final say over the wording of TV Licensing letters, which have been dubbed "threatograms" for their deceptively menacing tone. The letter in question closes with the bare-faced lie that: "There are only two ways to stop this investigation going any further... buy a licence... or tell us you don't need one."

As previously mentioned legitimate non-TV users are under no obligation to confirm the negative that they do not require a licence, yet this threatogram implies they'll be punished if they don't.

Make no mistake that TV Licensing is the bastard offshoot of the BBC. The BBC tell TV Licensing what to do, which includes terrorising non-TV viewers in their homes.

7 comments:

George said...

I've just sent the latest red demand to Zarin Patel, Chief Financial Officer of the BBC. We'll what, if anything, she has to say for herself!!!

Anonymous said...

I have just moved into a new flat - and one of these was in the pile of post for the "Legal Occupier" - the place has been empty for months.

I will get a TV licence, but I am going to send this letter to my MP, as it is truly disgraceful.

If an elderly person was to receive this, it would scare the life out of them. Quite literally, in some cases.

This is no way for a public body to behave.

The TV Licence Rebellion Blog said...

More BBC Harassment

Anonymous said...

I think that the best solution is
to try to organise a proper petition which will ask that the
BBC be either totally or partially
privatised.

If the BBC as it claims is confident it is producing quality programming then it will have no
problem in getting subscriptions.

The license fee is a TAX and it is unfair on two counts ...
-1-It is not income related ...
-2-It is a tax which has to be paid to watch other private companies like BSKYB or ITV.

All the BBC TV letters constitute harrassment!

What is really appalling is to get a demand for a TV license
when you do not have one simply
to support the sort of depravity
Jimmy Savile implemented and
which a BBC covered up.

On top of this a lot of BBC journalists (when working abroad)
willing and sometimes get paid for information of intelligence
value which is incorporated into
SIS (LEGOLAND) CX reports for the
UKG.

If the BBC is really a extension of the UKG intelligence Community
it needs to be FUNDED directly by the TREASURY.

Anonymous said...

I've just received the letter shown above for 'not answering questions' -something I associate with a regime with a love of smart uniforms and making house calls at 4 am. I do not say this lightly, I had family accommodated by that lot for refusing to co-operate with their requests. Consequently, I do not take well to being threatened, especially when I am obeying the law and acting perfectly within my rights; it makes me come over all stubborn. I shall, therefore, continue to enjoy iPlayer etc to watch post-transmission programmes and eagerly await any further interventions with a view to them contributing to my recalcitrance quotient.

Anonymous said...

After 14 years without a TV Licence, and me getting cross about every sodding red letter and rude letter from them, this was the letter that upset my wife.

She has seen me get wound up and said a few times "Oh, let's just pay the damn thing to shut them up".

But this one she opened (the envelope was a plain brown envelope rather than the usual TV Licensing branded one). Seeing the need to get legal advice and there'd be a court hearing, she got rather upset.

Bastards.

Anonymous said...

I paid for my last licence 12 months (52 weeks) but because I did not buy it at the beginning of the month I ended up only getting about 51 weeks - how can this be legal? I did not get what I paid for. I complained and got a response that did not make sense, this is theft. I am sure I am not hte only one this has happened to. This needs highlighting as theft, a test case needs to be taken. If I pay for 4 apples and the guy gives me 3... you get the picture. Then I had to go and look after a dying relative, so my place is empty and I gave my TV to them. I then found that they were taking the payments quarterly and I did not remember signing up for that on the website. So the property is empty for the last 2 months of my licence and then they took a further 3 months (I cancelled the DD as soon as I realised – the perils of buying on line!). They will not give me the last 3 month’s money back. They basically are calling me a liar. Theft again.
My property is empty and does not have a TV in it, they know this from my lengthy conversations trying to get my money back. BUT they are now sending me these threatening letters to the ‘legal occupier’, yet they know who I am. Did they forget? I pick up the mail periodically so I get several at a time. The last two tell me they are sending someone around and how court works etc. I have told them I do not have a TV. Since then, about a year, I have ignored all the letters, I have the misery of watching someone I love dying, the last thing I want is more of this TV stress.
I was previously fined for being at a friend’s house and watching TV as she went out to get a pint of milk I was thinking of moving in with her, and I had asked if she had a TV licence funnily enough – she had said yes, so when the guy turned up I gave him my info..... I got fined. This was about 25 years ago and cost me £60 then. No she did not give me the money! So I do pay when appropriate.
On the back of the last letter dated May 2014 it says: ‘Remember: even if you do not have a TV, under the Communications Act 2003, you still need to be covered by a licence if you watch or record TV on any other device. This includes computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and DVD/VHS recorders.’ It does NOT say LIVE TV. It says if you watch TV. I use Iplayer to catch up. Under this wording it states that I need a licence to watch iPlayer, youtube etc. Surely their documentation is inaccurate and they are breaching some sort of law?