.jpg)
We have been approached by the legal occupier of a legitimately licence-free property, who had the recent misfortune of coming face to face with a TV Licensing goon.
The occupier, who we'll call Tony for sake of argument, claims to have moved into the property only three weeks before TV Licensing came-a-knocking. He hadn't even had the chance to unpack all of his boxes. According to Tony his TV was only set up to watch pre-recorded DVDs, which definitely does not require a TV licence.
Tony recounts his story on the TVLR forums: "On 12th November (2012) I got a visit from TVL.
"I hadn't discovered this website or heard of the tactics they use. Feeling I wasn't committing any offence I allowed him in. He looked at my TV and noticed it wasn't connected to any receiving equipment. He then asked me to connect it to my Sky box so he could check reception."
Tony claims to have followed the goon's instructions and connected the Sky box to his TV. As a result of Tony's naive compliance the goon, his eyes no doubt flickering with pound signs, gleefully announced that an offence had been committed. Fearful of legal consequences Tony signed up for a TV licence there and then, even though he claims not to have been receiving TV programmes until the goon's visit.
He continues with the worrying allegation: "Today I got a summons for the so-called offence of using a colour TV without a licence. When I checked the evidence, which consisted of the TVL (record of interview) form, I was shocked to see that information had been added after I signed it. The form now states that I admitted to have been watching TV without a licence for 18 days."
Should Tony's story be an accurate representation of his goon encounter, then you'd be forgiven for thinking he'd been lured into incriminating himself.
We have no way, at the moment, of verifying any alleged discrepancies between Tony's copy of the TVL178 and the evidential copy that the goon delivered to his bosses. That said, close examination of Tony's copy, shown above, reveals several contradictions and inconsistencies in what the goon has written. For a start, according to the goon's own timings, it took him only 3 minutes to enter Tony's property, question him, caution him, test his equipment and leave. Those timings seem a bit far-fetched. The goon also claimed that the TV was "on now", but contradicts that by saying no programmes were seen or heard. Even stranger, given the goon's claims that no programmes were seen or heard, is that he claims to have tested "Channels 1-5".
We have advised Tony of the inherent flaws in TV Licensing's evidence and are encouraging him to attend court and plead not guilty. Having heard several allegations of TV Licensing "creativity" in the past, we are inclined to believe Tony's chain of events. We're very much looking forward to the outcome of this case.
Edit (16/7/13): Case dropped by TV Licensing. No surprises there!
Edit (16/7/13): Case dropped by TV Licensing. No surprises there!
7 comments:
do not sky channels start at 101? so there is no channels 1-5; since no aerial was present;
Sounds very fishy. Hopefully the goon will be locked up for perverting the course of justice.
If the goon is guilty of any sort of misconduct then hopefully his bosses will deal with him.
As they've been swarming over this article like flies on shit, it's a sure bet they're "clarifying" matters as we speak.
Fantastic! TV Licensing Blogspot back in full spate. Been all the blog item like a bad rash have they? Sure sign of an attempt at covering up the tracks of misconduct.
Watching on from Aussie land I'm disgusted at the way them pigs are acting. I was enfuriated when I watched the video where old mate had a DVD on and they tried to use that then got him to fire up bbc1 on his computer. I'd have flogged the copper for his behaviour then turned on baldy and beard (have a nice staff for such unwelcome visitors). I really hope that bloke sued the ass off the plod and Capita for that BS.
On another note, any chance of getting these forms done up as an example in higher quality? We don't have that BS system so never seen them and I'm curious about the crap on them. Be nice to have a sample library to look at. Glad to hear that at least this case was rightfully dropped.
Tsunami Australia.
Don't fall for their entrapment and don't break their interpretation of the law even when asked. Don't sign their paperwork, it's notoriously dodgy. They can legally lie to you as they are NOT the Police! The warrant is only civil.
I had a enforcement officer call, said only had the TV 4 days (it was given to me)I agreed to pay weekly and told "no action would be taken"
When asked to sign the form I told him I cant read it because no glasses, he said don't worry no action will taken, feeling pressure to sign I did, wasn't given a copy. 2 months later I received a summons for the day before the visit. I have pleaded not guilt & go to trial next month. You couldn't make this up......?
My daughter, and my dependant, was minding my toddler yesterday tea time so that I could quickly nip out to the shop. When I got home she was in a state because an enforcement officer came just after I'd left.
She told him I wasn't home and he asked her age. She's 17, so legally, a minor and she's also in sixth form, full time education, and my dependant.
He called someone who told him to go ahead and he cautioned my girl, terrifying her. She was rooted to the spot and was imagining all sorts of scary things were going to happen to her.
She told him she was minding the baby and could she pass on the relevant info to her mum (me) when I got home and he said no!
He forced her to acquiesce to his intimidation and harassment over the tvl; something which is not legally nor financially her responsibility or burden to bear.
He gave her no option. Then he documented her as a tenant and I the home owner when I am the lone tenant of this property.
All this whilst the toddler was sitting on his potty. He made a filthy mess of himself and I'm so relieved h hadn't gotten into mischeif whilst his sister was unable to supervise him because she was frightened and believed the enforcers underhand bully boy tactics weren't within her rights to terminate.
I'm outraged and feel sick that a vulnerable young person and in fact my toddler too, were treated this way by a representative of any organisation.
Post a Comment