TV Licensing Threats and Intimidation: The Reality

Our distinguished colleague TJoKayaking, not his real name, went undercover earlier this month to observe TV Licensing's proceedings in court.

He chose Burton-on-Trent Magistrates Court, which was hearing a string of TV licence cases on 6th August. 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.

TJoK diligently noted the outcome of the 24 cases he heard that afternoon. No-one received a fine anywhere near the £1000 figure often bandied about by TV Licensing. In fact we don't know of anyone at all who has ever received the maximum fine.

Notice as well that most of the people TV Licensing prosecute are invariably female and financially disadvantaged. That's a trend replicated in court rooms across the land.

TJoK's observations:

1. An African female, who had only been in the UK 3 months, had only owned a TV for 3 weeks and was unaware of the need for a TV licence. She had very poor English language skills, so much so that her 8 year old son had to act as interpreter when TV Licensing visited. She offered to pay there and then, but the salesman told her to start paying by PayPoint instead. She has made regular payments ever since despite being in receipt of Job Seeker's Allowance. The case was delayed because she recently moved house, which meant the summons was wrongly delivered to her old address.

Outcome: 12 month conditional discharge + £60 costs.

2. A male who was unable to attend court.

Outcome: Case adjourned.

3. A female who had failed to respond to summons. She had been unlicensed for more than 6 months.

Outcome: £200 fine, £75 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

4. A female. TV Licensing asked for this case to be withdrawn, which the Magistrates agree to.

Outcome: Case withdrawn.

5. A female who had failed to respond to summons. TV Licensing asked for this case to be withdrawn, which the Magistrates agree to.

Outcome: Case withdrawn.

6. A male who had failed to respond to summons. He had been unlicensed for more than 6 months.

Outcome: £200 fine, £75 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

7. A female. TV Licensing asked for this case to be withdrawn, which the Magistrates agree to.

Outcome: Case withdrawn.

8. A female who had failed to respond to summons. She had been unlicensed for more than 6 months.

Outcome: £200 fine, £75 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

9. A male. TV Licensing asked for this case to be withdrawn, which the Magistrates agree to.

Outcome: Case withdrawn.

10. A female who had failed to respond to summons. She had been unlicensed for more than 6 months.

Outcome: £200 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

11. A male who pleaded guilty by post. TV Licensing asked for this case to be withdrawn, which the Magistrates agree to.

Outcome: Case withdrawn.

12. A male who was summonsed only a week earlier. Magistrates decide to adjourn the case as it was brought too quickly.

Outcome: Case adjourned.

13. A female who pleaded guilty by post. She was in receipt of benefits and had a previous conviction for licence fee evasion.

Outcome:  £55 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

14.  A female who pleaded guilty by post. She was in receipt of benefits.

Outcome:  £50 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

15. A male who pleaded guilty by post. He had learning difficulties, was in receipt of benefits and didn't really understand what a TV licence was for (join the club).

Outcome:  £35 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

16. A female who pleaded guilty by post. A change of bank details meant she missed payment for her TV licence. She apologised to the court for her clerical oversight.

Outcome:  £35 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

17.  A female who pleaded guilty by post. She can't afford a TV licence, but bought a TV set on the spur of the moment at a car boot sale. Summonsed to court only 5 days earlier on 1st August, but the Magistrates allow the case to proceed.

Outcome:  £20 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

18. A female who pleaded guilty by post. She was in receipt of benefits and had been unlicensed for more than 6 months. In mitigation she told the court she was waiting for a new TV Licensing payment card and the TV Licensing salesman that nabbed her said that was okay.

Outcome:  £75 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

19. A female who pleaded guilty by post. She had been unlicensed for less than 6 months. She was in receipt of benefits and had a previous conviction for licence fee evasion. She told the court: "If I buy a tv licence I can't afford to live which I why I keep getting caught".

Outcome:  £80 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

20. A male who pleaded guilty by post. He was in receipt of benefits and had been unlicensed for 9 months.

Outcome:  £35 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

21. A female who pleaded guilty by post. She was in receipt of benefits and had been unlicensed for less than 6 months. In mitigation she told the court she had a young daughter and no local family so felt isolated.

Outcome:  £35 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

22. A female who pleaded guilty by post. She was in receipt of benefits and had been unlicensed for less than 6 months. In mitigation she told the court money was very tight because her partner was being pursued by the Child Support Agency.

Outcome:  £35 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

23. A male who pleaded guilty by post. He had been unlicensed for less than 6 months. In mitigation he told the court he'd forgotten to pay because of a family bereavement. When challenged by TV Licensing he offered to pay immediately and has since kept up with the payments.

Outcome:  £35 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.

24. A male who pleaded guilty by post. He had been unlicensed for less than 9 months. He is disabled because of neck and back problems and is living on benefits. He apologised to the court and explained that he was finding life very difficult at the moment.

Outcome:  £35 fine, £60 costs + £15 victim surcharge.