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.

Sunday, 18 January 2015

TV Licensing Wrongly Threatens Licence Holder Despite Being Corrected SIX Times

TV Licensing, the BBC's despicable revenue generation arm, has continued to wrongly threaten a Leicester TV licence holder, despite being corrected on at least SIX separate occasions.

Ann Boseley, 64, told the Leicester Mercury how she had been plagued by TV Licensing's threatening correspondence ever since she moved to her current property three years ago. TV Licensing's aggressive enquiries are despite the fact that Ann holds a valid TV licence.

It's a common story and one we hear with alarming regularity.

Ann told the Mercury: "I'm so angry and fed up. At first I thought I'd done something wrong, but it wasn't me at all. I feel like I'm talking to a brick wall.

"Not only that but it's costing me a lot to ring them (TV Licensing). Sometimes I'm on the phone to them for more than half an hour, and I've only got a mobile phone, so it's costing a fortune."

TV Licensing has received a lot of criticism for the tone of its routine enquiry letters, which are automatically distributed to unlicensed properties. The letters, which are often daubed with bold red print, threaten the recipients, more than 80% of whom do not legally require a TV licence, with a court appearance and £1,000.

In reality the letters, dubbed threatograms, are nothing more than a kite-flying exercise designed to coerce information and payment from the recipient, whether or not they actually need a TV licence.

Ann continued: "It's scary when you get the letters. In one they even said they had opened an investigation into my house.

"I live on my own and some of the letters have got big, bold red writing on telling me that I have received an official warning. It's quite threatening."

The Mercury contacted TV Licensing, who duly trotted out their well rehearsed line that mistakes can when you've got a database with 30 million addresses on it. For the seventh time TV Licensing has said it will put matters right.

Ann shouldn't raise her expectations too much, as the letters will probably continue to arrive anyway. TV Licensing is the epitome of incompetence and anything it says has to be taken with a pinch of salt.

If Ann is reading this, we strongly suggests she gets on the phone to TV Licensing again to make it pay for her inconvenience. At the very least TV Licensing should be covering the cost of her phone calls.


Chris said...

She should write to to Capita and advise that she is invoicing them for all her costs including her time, all incurred due to their incompetence. Give them an opportunity to resolve it adequately and, with no joy there, enforce it via the small claims track.

Fred Bear said...

If you look at the comments under the original newspaper article, you'll see a lady called Susan, who had a similar problem, solved it by threatening to sue TVL for harrassment. Surprise, surprise, TVL then got their finger out and did something

Anonymous said...

Just ignore these letters. TV licensing have no power to enter your home without a warrant, which they won't get. If they take you to court without evidence, the case will be dismissed and TVLwill look even more foolish, if that's possible!