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.

Thursday, 18 August 2016

Innocent Woman Cleared After Wrongful Conviction for TV Licence Evasion

A woman only learnt that she'd been convicted of TV licence evasion when someone searched for her name on the internet.

St Ann's resident Monica Monni, 39, was shocked to learn that she had been prosecuted by TV Licensing on the falsehood that her previous address didn't have a valid TV licence, when in fact it had always been covered by a TV licence in her partner's name.

After discovering she'd been wrongly named and shamed, Monica brought the matter to TV Licensing's attention. Monica's wrongful conviction was duly annulled by Nottingham Magistrates' Court but, quite rightly, she is furious to have been convicted in the first place.

Speaking to The Nottingham Post, Monica said: "This was a terrible mix-up.

"The TV licence was being paid out of my partner's account. I had no idea that I was being prosecuted.

"We had moved by the time the letter from TV Licensing came through. I only found out later I had been 'found guilty' in my absence.

"I appealed it through TV licensing and was completely exonerated. It's been a nightmare."

The mother-of-one had originally been fined £200 and ordered to pay the £15 victim surcharge and £60 prosecution costs when the non-existent offence was dealt with back in January 2013.

Cases like this make us very angry, as they serve to demonstrate the fundamental flaws in TV Licensing's prosecution process. One would assume that TV Licensing would carefully check the TV licence-status of a property before attempting to prosecute the occupier for evasion, but Monica's case proves otherwise. Yet again, TV Licensing's slovenly attention to detail has seen a totally innocent individual wrongly criminalised and put through the wringer.

Capita Business Services Ltd. is the TV Licensing contractor responsible for bringing prosecutions on behalf of the BBC.

In our opinion Monica's case is far from an isolated incident. Every week hundreds of innocent people are wheeled before the courts by TV Licensing, often on the most tenuous of evidence.

Capita makes a good living from prosecuting alleged TV licence evaders, with recently released documents showing the company was awarded almost £120m in prosecutions costs in the 12 months to 31st March 2015.The BBC has previously confirmed that all prosecution costs awarded by the court are retained by Capita.

As is customary for the TV Licensing Blog, a quick reminder of the relevant legislation:
  • A TV licence is required for any property where equipment is installed (e.g. plugged in, ready for use) or used to receive TV programmes at the same time as they are broadcast to other members of the public.
  • From 1st September 2016, a TV licence will also be required by anyone intending to watch or download on-demand BBC iPlayer programmes.
  • The TV licence of a person's home address will cover any occupant of that property to view TV programmes on uninstalled devices (e.g. unplugged laptops, tablets or mobile phones) elsewhere.
  • A TV licence is NOT needed merely to own a TV set, PC, laptop, tablet, mobile phone or whatever. It is the act of receiving TV programmes that is licensable, not possessing equipment capable of doing so. 
Furthermore, we'd add that anyone who doesn't legally require a TV licence has no business whatsoever with TV Licensing. We'd encourage these legally-licence-free people to ignore TV Licensing completely.

TV Licensing cannot be trusted. Keep the door firmly closed and keep the scum from TV Licensing out.

If you've found this article useful please consider using our Amazon link for your shopping or downloading our free ebook.

Get our latest posts straight to your inbox: Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner


Fred Bear said...

Hopefully, Monica will know that she's entitled to compensation for wrongful prosecution.

Admin said...

I can confirm that I have spoken to Monica and she is aware of TV Licensing's goodwill/compensation payments.

She tells me that the female goon that visited her property all those years ago was obnoxious in the extreme. No surprises there then!

aybadog said...

So a goon turns up at a licensed property and somehow gets evidence to prosecute...how the hell is this possible.

Admin said...

It is possible due entirely to Capita ineptitude.
Capita are that useless they'd struggle to pour piss out of an upside down boot.
They're reading this, so if they could please repeat the line above around the office.

Maggs.61 said...

My daughter has just received at her current address and out of the blue a summons stating she had been found guilty in her absence in 2010 for non payment of tv licence at a former address in Wales. She has received no previous communication, and the court letter looked so atrociously produced, and unsigned, that she believed it to be scam and went to her police station with it! However she was told it was genuine, although it gave no indication what the offence was and she spent the whole day on the phone trying to elucidate the basic details of the alleged offence. She was informed (1) by TV Licencing that they only keep a record of her CURRENT licence although they "hold something about her on an archive record" but wouldn't divulge what; (2) they allege that they hold a document which "she signed" in 2010 when visited by a doorstep official. However, they have also said that they hold a record of a telephone call received from a named person at the property later in 2010 advising that my daughter was not the resident (possibly as a result of a Licencing letter being sent to the property and addressed to my daughter)!. The property in question was a rental, and she has written documentation from local councils of her quitting this property in 2008 and taking up residency in South Glos. Apparently she is unable to acquire any of the prosecution evidence and has to attend the Bristol Courts to sign a Declaration. I have strongly advised her to see a solicitor for a free initial discussion. What else can she do?? This is an appalling situation.