TV Licensing Threatogram Complaints Revealed

Regular readers will be aware of our ongoing battle with the BBC to reveal the true number of complaints received about TV Licensing annually since 2008. Of particular interest was the number of complaints received about TV Licensing's routine threatograms, which the BBC were struggling to quantify.

You might remember that we initially posed questions on this subject to the BBC at the end of December. Their initial response was riddled with inconsistent misinformation, which we challenged them on.

Today, eight weeks after their initial erroneous response, I finally received a corrected version from the BBC. I can honestly say I am impressed by the humility and clarity of Louise Wright's response, which reflects on exactly what went wrong with the handling of my initial request. As her colleagues at the BBC will undoubtedly read this post, I publish on record my appreciation for the way she has tied up all the lose ends, differences of opinion aside. As she has given such a complete and apparently sincere response, I see little point in pursuing my internal review request.

Now turning to the corrected complaint data. Addressing each of our initial questions in turn, the BBC has now provided the following information (their initial response data is given in brackets):

The total number of TV Licensing complaints:

In 2008: 35,908 (31,656)

In 2009: 33,174 (31,336)

In 2010: 25,870 (25,778)

In 2011: 22,588 (22,432)

The number of complaints regarding TV Licensing correspondence:

In 2008: 3,782 (1,693)

In 2009: 3,823 (1,960)

In 2010: 4,965 (767)

In 2011: 3,947 (385)

The number of complaints regarding TV Licensing visiting officers and field operatives:

In 2008: 307 (307)

In 2009: 302 (294)

In 2010: 325 (312)

In 2011: 358 (347)

The number of complaints regarding TV Licensing call centre staff:

In 2008: 545 (542)

In 2009: 694 (682)

In 2010: 594 (582)

In 2011: 478 (467)

The number of complaints regarding the wording/tone of TV Licensing communications:

In 2008: 2,346 (2,226)

In 2009: 2,028 (1,935)

In 2010: 1,028 (958)

In 2011: 989 (954)

For all the unseasonably intense sunshine appears to have mellowed my outlook on this request, it does not change my opinion that the BBC is negligent in their monitoring of TV Licensing complaint data. Given the ongoing high profile criticism of TV Licensing's enforcement tactics, it is incomprehensible that the BBC can't readily access and evaluate the number of complaints.

The full trail of our battle for information can be viewed here.

Rapid Fire: 10 Common TV Licensing Questions and Answers #3

As regular readers will know, we frequently browse the internet looking for TV Licensing related articles and trivia. Every day someone has a new take on what the TV licence fee is, what it's for and how it's enforced.

Today we present our third instalment in the "Rapid Fire" series of posts, where we endeavour to remove the mystique surrounding TV licence rules and regulations.

Before we begin you might find it useful to consult our earlier Rapid Fire post.

1. Is watching someone else's TV without a licence an offence?

Ans: Cracking question! We hadn't even considered that to be honest. The law requires that a licence is obtained for properties where equipment is installed or used to receive or record live broadcast TV programmes. Suppose you were left alone watching TV in someone else's property without a licence, then technically you would be committing an offence. In reality TV Licensing, anally retentive as they are, have a policy whereby they don't pursue visitors to an unlicensed property. Of course they don't always follow their own policies, but that's the chance you take. 

2. Can TV Licensing trace the internet?

Ans: No, they can't. TV Licensing get good mileage out of people thinking their bells and whistles "detection equipment" can perform scientific miracles. The law is such that TV Licensing "special agents" can't tap into phone lines and monitor internet usage, although that's probably given them an idea for their next advertising campaign. The Internet Service Providers do not provide incriminating information about their customers to TV Licensing. The only way they could possibly detect online viewers is by catching them in the act, which will never happen if you take our sound advice to ignore TV Licensing completely.

3. What right do TV Licensing have to enter my home?

Ans: None at all, unless they have a search warrant. TV Licensing has no more right to contaminate your doorstep line of sight than any other peddlar of immoral wares. If you don't appreciate their visit simply say nothing, close the door and send them on their merry way. TV Licensing salespeople are notoriously economical with the truth. They are often that desperate to secure a sale they pretend to have the legal powers of a High Court Judge. They don't. It's all bull. They have no more legal authority than the gypsies that came around offering to sharpen your scissors last week. Indeed the gypsies are considerably more desirable! As for that oft-quoted search warrant threat, they need real solid evidence to get one of those.

4. Can I watch live BBC iPlayer programmes without a licence?

Ans: Legally speaking no. Practically speaking just click the "I have a TV licence" box and you're sorted. Not that we would encourage anyone to view illegally, but we're so not bothered if you do. Remember the TV Licensing Spetsnaz aren't tapping your internet connection, as they have no legal authority to do that. They have no legal authority to do much come to mention it.

5. How can I get a job with TV Licensing?

Ans: Mmm, right. Why would you want to? There are plenty of honest jobs out there if you look hard enough.

6. How long do you have to pay for a TV licence after they (TV Licensing) visit you?

Ans: An indefinite period. If you foolishly admit you've been viewing/recording live TV without a licence then it's probably a shrewd idea to buy one as soon as possible, although that's no guarantee they'll not prosecute. If TV Licensing have visited you on an unsuccessful "fishing trip" and have no more information then they arrived with, then don't feel compelled to get a licence. If you're legally licence free snubbing TV Licensing is positively encouraged.

7. When is your TV licence valid from?

Ans: It is valid from the first day of the month you purchased it. It expires on the last day of the previous calendar month the following year. Sounds gibberish, but makes sense if you read it slowly.

8. What happens if I stop paying my TV licence?

Ans: TV Licensing will realise within a few weeks and you'll be entered into their monthly prize draw. Each month you'll receive a letter saying what a wicked person you are for failing to subsidise the pensions of bloated BBC executives. They'll also threaten to send someone around to sell you some raffle tickets in person. Just ignore them, as you probably have a completely legitimate reason for not paying anyway. You are under no legal obligation to tell TV Licensing why you cancelled. You are under no legal obligation to communicate or co-operate with TV Licensing at all.

9. Whatever happened to Kevin Hamilton?

Ans: Who cares? In the bottom of Salford Quays? That would be quite apt actually!

10. How many complaints have been made about TV Licensing letters?

Ans: A lot. Too many for the BBC to keep abreast of, so it would seem. When we do find out, which is only a matter of time, you can be sure we'll write about it in great depth and with cutting sarcasm.

TV Licensing Threatogram Complaints

A message to my readers:

If anyone has any idea how many complaints TV Licensing's routine correspondence (e.g. threatograms) has attracted since 2008 then please can you let the BBC know, as they evidently still have no idea at all!

It's now 6 weeks since I informed the BBC they had ballsed up their initial response and they still can't give a complete and honest answer, citing miscommunication between their contractors as the reason for their cock-up.

So Capita don't keep adequate complaint records and the BBC, despite knowing full well the criticism Capita attracts, don't demand any.

What a marvellous state of affairs.

TV Licensing Fails Martian Test

The Daily Mail, bless them, have had a seriously slow week for news. Taking a leaf out of The Sun's book they decided to browse the blogosphere for inspiration.

Further following The Sun's lead they've forgotten to credit the Justice of the Peace's blog, despite it being abundantly obvious that was the source of their article.

Earlier this week His Worship, not his real name, wrote an article critical of the way valuable court time was being consumed by the legal triviality of TV licence evasion.

No-one in the entire world, outside the BBC, could reasonably consider TV licence evasion to be a criminal matter. It is farcical that people can be humiliated in court for watching TV programmes on equipment they legally own, in the comfort of their own home, when people committing far worse crimes are dealt with in a fraction of the time by way of a fixed penalty notice.

As the Daily Mail put it: "For smashing up a bus shelter, or painting a wall or stealing from a business you walk away with your name intact and a small fine.

"But the army of TV licence officials will hunt you down, knock on your door and haul you to court if you don't have a TV licence? The Men from Mars must think we're completely mad."

The licence fee is an outdated anachronism from a time when television was novelty rather than norm. It's time to have a complete rethink and make the BBC sing for its supper rather than rely on state handouts.

The Many Faces of TV Licensing's In Brief Newsletter

A while ago I asked the BBC to provide copies of TV Licensing's "In Brief" newsletter.

In Brief, which is prepared by TV Licensing PR harlots Fishburn Hedges, is sent to what they amusingly describe as "TV Licensing stakeholders". In other words, people they wish to indoctrinate to their own way of thinking about how the fee is administered and enforced.

A fellow TV Licensing commentator, Watchkeeper, has brought In Brief back into focus. He has been diligently studying the documents provided by the BBC and has spotted a discrepancy in the Summer 2010 edition.

The Summer 2010 edition of In Brief, as provided to me by the BBC, can be viewed here. The Summer 2010 edition of In Brief, as provided to the author of The Magistrate's Blog, can be viewed in his post here. The lower part of page 4 of those documents is clearly different. The BBC version includes general contact information, whereas the Magistrates' version contains more specific contact details relevant to their role.

The significance of these discrepancies might not be obvious, so I'll elaborate slightly. It would appear that there are actually at least two versions of each In Brief newsletter, which the BBC failed to mention when we first asked them about it. Furthermore, it would appear that one version is specially adapted to the needs of Magistrates.

So why, I hear you ask, would TV Licensing want a "special" version of In Brief just for Magistrates? And why would they fail to mention its existence when we originally asked them about it?

The answer should be glaringly obvious. The second version of In Brief is intended to condition Magistrates into TV Licensing's way of thinking. It advertises contact details for "court training sessions" and "court presenter queries". As the author of The Magistrates' Blog puts it: "I cannot comment for others but I would suggest that it would certainly disturb JPs' position as impartial judges of fact and as such Magistrates would use the proverbial barge pole to that organisation if direct contact were even hinted at."

This must all be getting very embarrassing for the BBC. Apologies to James Leaton Grey, but I yet again question the efficiency and integrity of your Information & Policy Compliance Team.

BBC Hit Back at Freedom of Information Act Criticism

Today I received a letter from James Leaton Grey, who is the Head of the BBC's Information Policy & Compliance Team.

I think it's fair to say that there's no love lost between me and James. He's probably still right pissed off that he was the internal reviewer that dealt with our "Evidence from TV Detection Equipment" request, which revealed once and for all how evidentially worthless the BBC's TV detection gizmos really are.

Last week, infuriated that the BBC still couldn't tell me how many complaints had been received about TV Licensing threatograms, I decided to vent my frustration using the complaint link on their website. Shortly afterwards I received an acknowledgement saying that my complaint, highlighting the ineffectiveness of the Information Policy & Compliance Team, had been passed to that very same Team for their consideration. You couldn't make it up!

You can read James's letter, complete with typing errors, by clicking here. I don't suppose it was actually him that typed it, but a bit of spell checking wouldn't have gone amiss.

The edited highlights are:

• As the BBC handles 1,600 requests for information annually I am being unreasonable to expect they'll always meet the statutory 20 working day deadline to respond.
• Of the 13 requests I made last year only 3 of them were delayed and then only by a couple of days.
• Of the 4 requests I have made so far this year 2 of them have been delayed.
• There is no statutory time frame for the BBC to deal with internal review requests, so if they're delayed past their own deadline then it's just tough luck.
• The fact that the BBC is so willing to change their mind about disclosure during the internal review process shows that they're prepared to correct earlier mistakes. Contrary to my opinion, it does not exemplify the fact that these mistakes are made in the first instance.

So there you go. It's all my fault the BBC Information Policy & Compliance Team  is shit at their job.

Incidentally the BBC still can't tell me how many complaints it has actually received about TV Licensing threatograms. They evidently haven't got a clue, which is shocking given the amount of public criticism these letters have attracted. No doubt it'll be my fault for asking them such awkward questions when they're so overworked.

Internal Review Request on TV Licensing Withdrawn Cases

Last week the BBC refused to reveal the percentage of people summoned to court for TV licence evasion that had their cases withdrawn before trial.

They don't want people to know because that percentage is actually quite large - e.g. TV Licensing summons people to court to scare them into compliance, when they have no real intention of pursuing the case. Either that or TV Licensing summons people to court when they have little confidence in their prosecution evidence. Why else would they withdraw so many cases at the final hour before they are scrutinised closely by the court?

Sadly, getting the BBC to admit embarrassing facts is never straightforward, so we've had to send them yet another internal review request.

It reads as follows:
________________________________
Dear FOI Enquiries,

Please note my request for an internal review of RFI20120137.

It is unfortunate that I am requesting yet another internal review, but I am consistently finding the BBC's responses fall short of the standard required by the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Indeed, contrary to the legal requirements of the 2000 Act, I am beginning to think that refusal is the BBC's default option whenever there is the slightest chance they'll be embarrassed by providing a complete response - an observation I have already drawn to the attention of the Information Commissioner.

The basis of my review request is that the BBC has incorrectly applied the s.31 exemptions of the 2000 Act when compiling their response to RFI20120137. That being the case the BBC should have given a full and complete response to question 2 raised in my initial request.

I believe the s.31 exemptions have been applied incorrectly for three main reasons:

1. By the time TV Licensing has the opportunity to withdraw the case against an alleged licence fee evader summonsed to court, they are already well into the prosecution process and expecting to attend court. Releasing the percentage figures requested is not going to change that fact, as anyone summonsed to court has no way of knowing TV Licensing’s true intent to follow through with the prosecution process.

2. The BBC Trust, in their “Review of Licence Fee Collection” dated March 2009, set a precedent by releasing very similar information to that requested in RFI20120137. Paragraph 186 of the Trust’s Review gives tabulated information showing the number of “Evaders Caught”, “Cases Heard” and “Convictions” in each of the years 2002/03 to 2007/08. It is a reasonable assumption that a significant proportion of “Evaders Caught” are summonsed to court for offences under s.363 of the Communications Act 2003. It is also quite clear from the Trust’s figures that considerably fewer than half of the “Evaders Caught” actually have their cases heard in court, with only about three quarters of those being convicted. Given the Trust’s willingness to release this information only a few years ago, I consider it unreasonable that the BBC’s Information Policy & Compliance Team, which is much further down the BBC pecking order, has decided to refuse my similar request for information now.

3. The public has a right to know if TV Licensing is placing an excessive burden on the court system by summonsing a much larger number of suspected licence fee evaders than they intend to pursue to conviction. If excessive numbers are being summonsed it could be an indication that TV Licensing lack confidence in their prosecution evidence, which they wish to avoid being scrutinised in the full gaze of the court. It could also be argued that TV Licensing view summonsing people to court as just another tactic to coerce fee payment from suspected licence fee evaders, when they have no real intention of pursuing the case. That would be a clear abuse of the legal process.

In writing this review request I am also very mindful of the fact that the BBC has demonstrably provided several misleading and substandard responses to my previous requests for information. I hope the BBC will carefully consider the obvious conclusions people (including the media) will draw if they persist in their obstructive refusal to respond in full to RFI20120137.

Yours sincerely,

Peter Jones
________________________________
I don't think they'll like that, but it will leave them with little option but to respond in full.

We shall see.

BBC Clueless on TV Licensing Complaints

A while ago, as regular readers might remember, we asked the BBC to give us a breakdown of how many complaints had been received about TV Licensing over the last few years.

With farcical regularity the BBC ballsed up their response (yet again) by replying with misleading statistics, which wrongly implied TV Licensing complaints were much less common than we know they are. 

Challenged on their misinformation the BBC, sensing their bullshit had been pinpointed with far greater accuracy than their laughable detector vans could ever hope to achieve, quickly admitted their mistake and promised to make amends. That was well over a month ago and, despite the BBC failing to adhere to two of its own deadlines to issue a corrected response, we have still not received the correct information. The BBC, by its own admission, has been thus far unable to tell us how many complaints it has received about TV Licensing threatograms since 2008. They haven't the foggiest idea, because the complaints are collated by a contractor who evidently doesn't communicate them to the statutory Licensing Authority.

The public should be immensely concerned that the BBC communicates so poorly with its contractors that it has no idea at all how many people have complained about TV Licensing mailings since 2008. We know the figure is significant. The BBC know there are widespread concerns about these letters, so are negligent in the extreme for failing to keep tabs on complaint statistics. What else is Capita doing that the BBC is ignorant of? Quite a lot of things they shouldn't be we'd suggest: harassing the legally licence free, intimidating vulnerable social groups, issuing hollow threats with no legal basis and falsifying visit records (the BBC has told us via FOIA responses this has happened in the past). That's probably just the tip of the iceberg.

The BBC has again failed in its statutory duty to provide simple answers to simple TV Licensing related questions. They have also let down the viewing public as a whole by failing to monitor the errant behaviour of their TV Licensing contractors.

The day of reckoning is rapidly approaching.

BBC Hides TV Licensing Withdrawn Cases

Incensed is too weak a word to describe our feelings about the BBC's mishandling of our most recent Freedom of Information Act request, which sought to establish how many Magistrates Court cases they had abandoned before the first hearing.

Under the terms of the 2000 Act we asked the BBC to disclose the following: "The percentage of people summoned to court for offences under s.363 of the Communications Act 2003 who have the case against them withdrawn by TV Licensing before it is heard. Please provide this data annually from 2008 to date."

Predictably, and rather tellingly, they refused to respond, saying: "Disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the collection of the licence fee and the BBC’s ability to discharge its public functions in respect of such matters. This is because it would provide information of use to those seeking to evade and/or assist others in evading payment of the licence fee."

So why is the BBC so tetchy about revealing this information? Why won't they reveal the percentage of TV Licensing prosecutions they've backtracked on? What harm can revealing those percentage values really do?  How can they possibly assist people evading the fee? It's not as if the percentages could be used to calculate the actual number of cases involved.

The only logical answer is that the BBC don't want to reveal those percentage values because they are quite significant. They are significant because TV Licensing, realising just how tenuous some of their evidence is, would rather withdraw from court than have their dishonest operation scrutinised too closely. TV Licensing are so lacking in confidence about the quality of their evidence they'll cut their losses rather than risk public humiliation.

Court is like a "sausage factory" to TV Licensing. They'll book an afternoon of court time and throw literally dozens of cases at the Magistrates for what is tantamount to a rubber-stamping exercise. TV Licensing know this, so they sometimes throw in dubious cases in the hope they'll evade the Magistrates' bullshit detector as they dispense justice on autopilot. TV Licensing do not want the dubious cases being publicised. If there's the slightest chance their evidence or employees will be discredited then they'll walk away from it.

The BBC has yet again failed on its statutory obligations to provide information because they want to avoid embarrassment. It's what they do, over and over again.

They might think they're clever, but we're not finished yet.