TV Licence Court Cases: Defence and Mitigation

Last time we looked at the options available for anyone summoned to the Magistrates' Court for the offence of using a TV receiver without a valid licence.

Before we start a quick disclaimer that we are not lawyers, however, over the years we have accumulated considerable knowledge and experience of how TV Licensing handles its prosecution cases.

The summons, you may remember from earlier, is a document issued by the court, which effectively invites the defendant to respond in person to TV Licensing's claims that they have committed an offence. The issue of a summons is a purely administrative matter and in no way indicates the final outcome of the case.

In responding to the summons the defendant has the option of entering a guilty or not guilty plea. It is only by pleading not guilty, thereby forcing TV Licensing to prove their case at trial, that the defendant has any chance of challenging their evidence. In all likelihood that evidence may be weak, flawed, or in some cases non-existent. If there is the slightest doubt about the soundness of TV Licensing's case, we would encourage a not guilty plea - that way they will have to work to prove the defendant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

It amazes us how many innocent people plead guilty when they receive the summons because they consider it the easiest option. Consider this analogy: If you were wrongly accused of driving without insurance, would you plead guilty when you received a summons through the post? No, of course not - you'd be rightly furious that the prosecution had tried to tarnish your good name and you'd expect them to stump up some credible evidence to back their claims. Dealing with a TV licence summons should be no different.

In the remainder of this post we shall explore some common factors that can be used in the defence or mitigation of TV licence evasion charges, assuming a not guilty plea is entered and the case does go all the way to trial.

1. The law (written in legalese).

Anyone that intends to mount a credible defence against TV licence evasion charges needs to be familiar with the law, because TV Licensing has to prove, beyond reasonable doubt, that the law has been broken.

Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 (as amended 1st September 2016) is the primary legislation covering the TV licence. Forget any misguided Freeman of the Land notion that because it is an Act it is somehow not the law - anyone displaying that attitude in court will invariably be making life difficult for them self.

- Section 363 (1) of the Act states: "A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part."

- Section 363 (2) states: "A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence."

- Section 363 (3) states: "A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who: (a) intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1); or (b) knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection: is guilty of an offence."

As a television receiver is mentioned in each of those sub-sections, it follows that the definition of a television receiver is important too. This definition is included in section 368 of the Act:

- Section 368 (1) states: "In this Part “television receiver” means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part."

- Section 368 (3) states: "References in this Part to using a television receiver are references to using it for:

• receiving all or any part of any television programme, or
• receiving all or any part of a programme included in an on-demand programme service which is provided by the BBC

and that reference to the provision of an on-demand programme service by the BBC is to be read in accordance with sections 368R(5) and (6)."

The specified regulations, as mentioned in section 368 (1) of the Act, are the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended 1st September 2016).

Sections 9 (1) and (2) of the Regulations define a television receiver and television programme service as follows:

- Section 9 (1): "Subject to paragraph (2), in Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver means any apparatus installed or used for the purposes of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise)-

• (a) any television programme service, or
• (b) an on-demand programme service which is provided by the BBC,

whether or not the apparatus is installed or used for any other purpose."

- Section 9 (2): "In this regulation, any reference to receiving television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service."

2. The law (simplified version).

In short, a person can only be guilty of an offence if they have either:

- Used or installed a television receiver without a valid licence, or

- Are in charge of a television receiver they have reasonable grounds to believe someone else will use without a valid licence.

In practical terms, in order to be found guilty the defendant must have been caught/admitted using a television receiver without a licence.

The equipment can only be deemed a television receiver if it is used to receive television programme services or BBC on-demand programme services, whether or not it can also be used for any other purpose. If the equipment receives anything other than television programme services or BBC on-demand programme services, then it cannot be a television receiver. If the equipment is not a television receiver then TV Licensing's prosecution will fail on that point of law.

A television programme service is a television programme, with or without sound, that is broadcast on a normal terrestrial/satellite TV channel and is available to other members of the public (viewers) at the same time (or virtually the same time).

Note that a licence is needed to watch any TV programme service, not just those on BBC channels. Some people are of the mistaken belief that because the licence fee funds the BBC, it is only chargeable if they watch BBC channels. That is legally incorrect.

Defences.

Defence is information presented to the court that refutes the honesty, reliability or accuracy of the charges the defendant faces. The defendant could reasonably offer the following points in defence:

- The equipment the TV Licensing goon observed was not a television receiver, so therefore no offence could have been committed. This might be the case if:

• It was only being used to watch non-BBC on-demand programme services, which were being streamed via the internet.
• It was only being used to watch pre-recorded DVDs.
• It was only being used as a games console/computer monitor.
• It was only being used to view CCTV images.
• It was only being used to listen to radio programmes.
• It was only being used to display images held on a removable storage device (e.g. to view a slideshow of photos held on an SD card).

- The equipment the TV Licensing goon observed was not installed, so therefore no offence could have been committed. This might be the case if:

• It was unplugged at the wall: This argument will be stronger if the equipment was demonstrably positioned away from any wall socket.
• The goon them self asked/acted to plug in the equipment, which was otherwise uninstalled.
• The goon them self asked/acted to view a television programme service or BBC on-demand programme service, which would not otherwise have been viewed.
• There was no aerial plugged in or present: In the digital era it is not possible to receive programmes without an aerial, which means an offence cannot be committed.
• The screen on the equipment was defective rendering it incapable of displaying television programmes or BBC on-demand programmes.

- The TV Licensing goon did not enter the property (or their view inside was obscured), so therefore has no way of confirming that a television receiver was actually in use.

- The TV Licensing goon did not touch or test the equipment, so therefore has no way of confirming it was being used as a television receiver instead of for an alternative non-licensable purpose (like watching pre-recorded DVDs).

- The TV Licensing goon did not read the caution before completing the TVL 178 (Record of Interview) form, so the defendant was unaware of their legal rights when interviewed.

- The TVL 178 form contains provable errors or omissions, which casts into doubt the accuracy of other information recorded thereon.

- The defendant's copy of the TVL 178 form is different to TV Licensing's copy, which casts into doubt the accuracy of the information recorded thereon.

- The TV Licensing goon made additions to the TVL 178 form after the defendant had signed it, which casts into doubt the accuracy of the information recorded thereon.

4 Mitigation.

Mitigation is information presented to the court that suggests the offence is less serious than it would otherwise be considered, in the hope that a more lenient sentence will be imposed. When deciding their sentence the Magistrate/Judge will consider the harm caused by the offence and the culpability of the offender. The defendant could reasonably offer the following points in mitigation:

- They are unemployed.

- They are in receipt of benefits.

- They are disabled or have a mental illness.

- They are a single parent, who only uses TV for the benefit of their children.

- They admitted their guilt at the earliest opportunity and co-operated with TV Licensing employees.

- They were not the normal occupier of the property where the offence was being committed.

- They were genuinely confused over their responsibility to obtain a TV licence (e.g. their landlord had told them a licence was already in force; they were using portable equipment).

- They had attempted to buy a licence, but the transaction was unsuccessful or incomplete (e.g. some payments had been made via payment card; a Direct Debit payment failed; the internet connection failed during an attempt to purchase a licence online; a cheque/postal order had been posted but no licence received).

- They obtained a licence as soon as they were informed of the offence.

Remember that by far the most effective weapon members of the legally-licence-free community can use against TV Licensing is non-contact. By simply ignoring TV Licensing correspondence and employees a lot of potential problems, including the threat of prosecution, can be avoided later on.

If you've found the information in this post useful, please share it with your family and friends. We shall endeavour to review the information in this post on a regular basis. Edit (20/9/15): You might also like to read our future post about the Rudd defence. 

Edit (28/8/16): This post has been updated to reflect the changes in legislation taking effect from 1st September 2016.

TV Licensing Goon Covert Footage

For a long time we have been strong advocates of TV Licensing goon filming.

The occupier of any property is well within their legal rights to film any visitor and does not need to announce their intention or seek permission to do so. For that reason an increasing number of the legally-licence-free community - people who have no legal need for a TV licence but are harassed by TV Licensing regardless - stand armed with their cameras ready to capture footage of their next goon visitor.

Over the years TV Licensing goon filming has proved a rewarding method of gathering intelligence. Not only does it make the goon feel very uncomfortable, but it also provides the occupier with a full and accurate record of the visit in question.

Until fairly recently TV Licensing goons were under strict instructions to terminate their visit at the merest hint of a camera, but recent changes to the Visiting Procedures now give them the option of remaining in the spotlight.

A couple of days ago we learnt that new covert footage of a TV Licensing goon had been uploaded to YouTube. Armed with a concealed camera the occupier takes the opportunity to converse with the goon. He explains that no-one at the property watches or records any 'live' TV programmes, but they do use a WDTV Live Box to stream non-live content from a computer hard drive. The occupier also confirms that he occasionally watches pre-recorded DVDs and listens to radio programmes via a TV set. Such an arrangement does not legally require a TV licence.

The goon, clearly unfamiliar with the equipment described by the occupier, asks if he can enter the property to see if it is connected to an aerial. The occupier comes back with the brilliant reply: "If it was connected to an aerial that would be irrelevant, wouldn't it? If you don't use it to watch or record 'live' TV?" After a sharp intake of breath the goon concedes and sheepishly replies "Yep".

It's all downhill after that point with the goon scarpering the moment the occupier says he'll only let him inside if he can make a copy of his ID card.

A textbook example of the new strategy of covert goon filming. Next time a goon calls make sure you secretly film them and see what bullshit they come out with when they don't realise they're being recorded!

Had Welsh Chris, who we discussed yesterday, been covertly filming the goons that visited his property, he might have been able to collect evidence that directly contradicted their claims of being able to hear a TV set in use.

TV Licensing Enfarcement: Failed Obstruction Charges

TV Licensing has allowed one of their most high-profile opponents to escape prosecution for search warrant obstruction.

Before proceeding, let us reassure readers that TV Licensing search warrants are exceptionally rare. They can only be granted, in theory, if TV Licensing is unable to gain voluntary access to a property where they have credible evidence that TV receiving equipment is being used without a licence. Anyone that does not receive TV programme services should never need to worry about the threat of a search warrant, despite TV Licensing widely publicising their use.

 TV Licensing visit the Allen home on 16th December 2012.

L-R Capita's Lanre Coker-Ojo, Ian Doyle and Police Sergeant Kingsnorth. 

On Sunday, 16th December 2012, employees of TV Licensing contractor Capita Business Services Ltd. visited Danny Allen's property with the intention of executing a search warrant granted under section 366(1) of the Communications Act 2003.

The snatch squad, headed up by hapless Goon Master General Ian Doyle, was forced to leave empty-handed when members of the Allen family point blank refused to let them in. To add insult to injury the entire episode was captured on video and uploaded to YouTube. The 20-minute video, which is mirrored on several video sharing sites, graphically illustrates Doyle's frustration as his every utterance is ignored. It has been viewed 70,000 times on Danny's YouTube channel alone. See our earlier post for more information about the botched search attempt.

Entertaining as Danny's video was, there was genuine concern at the time that Capita may have decided to take further action on the matter of search warrant obstruction. Past experience - most notably the Shakespeare case - has shown they vindictively target outspoken opponents. There is little doubt they would have relished the prospect of knocking Danny down a peg or two.

Those concerns have now evaporated as Capita, with its massed army of overpaid lawyers, has now missed the legal deadline to pursue any obstruction charges. Whether this was a deliberate omission, accidental oversight or downright incompetence is irrelevant - the fact of the matter is that Capita's lethargic response means that Danny cannot now face prosecution.

It is an offence under section 366(8) of the Communications Act 2003 to obstruct a warrant granted under section 366(1). However, because that offence can only be tried summarily, e.g. at the Magistrates Court, there are strict time limits in which the prosecution has to lay information before the court. This time limit expires 6 months after the commission of the offence, which meant 14th June 2013 was the crucial date.

For reasons known only to themselves Capita actually started proceedings a few days too late, which means the summons Danny eventually received, pictured below, was completely worthless.

Summons for the offence of obstructing a search warrant.

Welcome as Capita's inaction is, questions are now being raised about their motives for allowing Danny to slip through the net. Given that most A-level law students understand the time limits that apply to the disposal of summary cases, why have Capita's lawyer's - who presumably have slightly more legal expertise - seemingly made such an elementary procedural mistake?

Having experienced Capita incompetence on several previous occasions, there is something that doesn't feel quite right about this one. Lowly as we rate them, we doubt even they'd be inept enough to "forget" about taking action against Danny - particularly as several anti-TV Licensing websites, including our own, have gloated about their humiliation ever since.

Court letter confirming that Capita were too late to proceed with prosecution.

We are now of the opinion that Capita has deliberately chosen to miss the 6 month deadline, because that outcome is slightly less embarrassing than having to face Danny in court. They can be entirely confident that had Danny been hauled before the Magistrates he would have vocally challenged the legitimacy of their search warrant. He would have told the Magistrates quite clearly that TV Licensing could never have "detected" TV receiving equipment in his property, because he doesn't have any. He would have challenged TV Licensing's detection evidence that they claim asserted the presence of such equipment.

We can picture the exchange going something like this: "How then, Your Worships, could Capita's [insert silly tart's name] have told you, on oath, that non-existent TV receiving equipment had been detected in my property with a 97% confidence factor that a possible broadcast was being received?"

Answers on a postcard please.

It's a good thing there's 3% of wiggle room in the accuracy of "detection equipment" for such eventualities!

We are grateful to our noble friend TJoK for his tremendous efforts gathering material this article. Over the past few weeks he has done a lot of leg work, which we are merely presenting here for public scrutiny. A well deserved hat-tip in his direction.

Edit (16/11/13): We have just posted the final outcome of Danny Allen's search warrant obstruction case.

TV Licensing Welsh Search Warrant Update: The Hidden Dangers of WOIRA

Earlier this month we published the story of Chris, who was the unfortunate victim of a rarer than hen's teeth TV Licensing search warrant execution.

As we commented at the time, the attempted search was a rather unusual affair in that the two TV Licensing goons, employed by Capita Business Services Ltd, didn't really attempt to search anything. On the evening of 5th August 2013 they barged their way into Chris's home causing damage and startling his young family in the process. Once in the hallway, despite the reassuring presence of two police officers, they remained anchored to the spot and made no attempt whatsoever to conduct their search. They didn't so much as sway in a manner suggestive of wanting to look around the property. We suggest the goons' lacklustre attempts to "search" may come back to haunt them should Capita decide to pursue any fanciful obstruction charges.

Again, as in so many of these cases, we are in no doubt at all that Chris does not legally require a TV licence. We were therefore very interested in the evidence Capita had presented to Magistrates in order to obtain the warrant in question. On our advice Chris contacted the Gwent and South Wales Magistrates' Court and requested a copy of the Deposition, which is the sworn statement Capita made in application for the warrant. The information, shown below, was laid on oath on 10th July 2013 by Capita's Yvonne Mitchell.

Readers of TV Licensing Laid Bare will already know that a search warrant should only be granted, in theory, when the Magistrate considers it a necessary and proportionate step in order to secure evidence. It is only necessary if TV Licensing has previously failed to obtain voluntary access to the property; it is only proportionate if there are reasonable grounds to suspect evidence will be found at the property. 

By having previously issued a WOIRA instruction Chris had unwittingly allowed Capita to tick the first of those two boxes - namely he confirmed they would never obtain voluntary access to the property. The only hurdle remaining was to convince the Magistrate that there were reasonable grounds to suspect evidence of an offence would be found there. This is where things begin to get interesting.

The BBC has previously confirmed that non co-operation with TV Licensing or the presence of a TV aerial/satellite dish affixed to the outside of a property is not sufficient grounds for the application of a search warrant. It would therefore appear, having read the Deposition, that the warrant has been granted mainly on the basis that goon Anthony Elliott "could hear what he believed to be a television set in use" on a previous visit.

Given this previous visit took place at 12:43 pm on 22nd April 2013, when presumably a lot of TV programmes were part-way through transmission (e.g. likely to be speech-based audio, instead of any recognisable theme tune etc), that's quite a sweeping observation to make. In Elliott's shoes we doubt we'd know exactly which programmes were being broadcast on every channel at that precise time, let alone what their audio would be like. We also doubt we'd be able to distinguish between the audio from a radio, YouTube video, pre-recorded DVD, TV set or whatever, but apparently bearded goon Elliott has some magical ability to do so. Maybe there's some sort of detection chip lodged in his brain, which allows him to filter TV audio from all other ambient noise in the locality?

The top and bottom of it is that this evidence is woefully inadequate and the Magistrate that rubber-stamped the application should be embarrassed at their apparent lack of diligence. A family's personal space has been invaded on the uncorroborated word of a goon with an hourly target of achieving at least one Code 8.

In conclusion, let us highlight once again that this case reinforces some of the possible ramifications of an occupier issuing a WOIRA instruction. They are potentially playing into TV Licensing's hands, by making it easier for them to obtain a search warrant later down the line. Sometimes WOIRA really does cause more problems than it fixes, despite what you might be hearing from other commentators.

Edit (6/7/16): We have now written a more recent post, where we give the official number of TV Licensing search warrant applications in 2014-15. You can read it here.

TV Licence Summons: What To Do?

Imagine that you awake one morning to find a brown envelope on your doormat, which contains a summons to the Magistrates' Court for the offence of using a TV receiver without a licence.

[Note: Since this article was written, the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 now allows for TV licence cases to be dealt with by a single Justice. The information given below still holds true, but a summons (referred to as a Requisition under the new legislation) will only be issued when the case is being dealt with by the full Magistrates' Court instead of under the single Justice arrangements]

Would you know how to proceed in those circumstances?

In today's article we shall explain the general process for anyone living in England or Wales finding them self in that unnerving situation. The legal process in Scotland is slightly different, because virtually all TV licence evasion cases are dealt with by way of fiscal fines.

Before we start a quick disclaimer that, in common with the vast majority of TV Licensing's Court Presenters, we are not lawyers, however, over the years we have accumulated considerable knowledge and experience of how TV Licensing handles its prosecution cases.

It is true to say that since starting this blog we have reviewed and observed literally hundreds of TV Licensing cases. We have also offered winning advice to several defendants, including Tony who we blogged about only a few weeks ago.

1. TV Licensing Lay Information Before the Court.

It is an offence under section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 for a person to use or install (e.g. have connected/tuned ready for use) a TV receiver in a property that is not covered by a valid TV licence. It is a summary offence, which means it can only be dealt with by the Magistrates' Court in the first instance.

Since 1st September 2016 it is also an offence for a person to watch or download BBC iPlayer on-demand programmes in a property that is not covered by a valid TV licence.

In order for the Magistrates to issue a summons TV Licensing must lay information before the court that an offence has been committed. This basically means they tell the court they have evidence to charge the accused (hereafter referred to as the "defendant") with an offence, although the court will not actually review or test any evidence at this stage. There is nothing to say that the evidence laid before the court will withstand closer scrutiny.

2. Summons Issued.

After information is laid the court will issue a summons, which is effectively an invitation asking the defendant to respond to the charges in person.

The defendant normally receives the following documents with the summons:

• Statement of Facts: This is a short summary of the information TV Licensing laid before the court (e.g. "between 1st January 2014 and 10th January 2014 it is claimed that the defendent used a colour television receiver without a valid TV licence, contrary to section 363 of the Communications Act 2003").
• Plea Form: The defendant can complete this to indicate whether they plead guilty or not guilty.
• Statement of Means: The defendant completes this form with details of their income and outgoings, which the court uses to assess the level of any financial penalty it imposes.
• TVL178 Record of Interview form: Usually a copy of the famous TVL178 Record of Interview (self-incrimination) form is included. The defendant should closely examine this form and compare it with the copy they should have received when TV Licensing visited the property. See our earlier post for more information on this document.
• Proof by Written Statement: This is a statement by the TV Licensing visiting officer, which will be tendered in evidence unless the defendant pleads not guilty and asks for the goon to appear as a witness in person.

Under section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980 the court can only issue a summons if the prosecution lays information within 6 months of the commission of the alleged offence. If TV Licensing take longer than that the case cannot proceed.

If the defendant fails to respond to summons the case will be heard by the Magistrates in their absence and they will be found guilty by default. The majority of TV licence cases end this way, with the court making judgments against defendants that fail to respond to summons. For this reason it is very important that the defendant responds to summons.

3. Response to Summons.

This is where strategy comes into play, as the defendant will have to weigh up the most appropriate way to respond given their circumstances.

If, having thoroughly considered the circumstances, the defendant believes they've been caught "bang to rights", then the best option is to plead guilty from the outset. A defendant choosing this option does not have to attend court and the case will usually be dealt with in their absence. The court will convict them solely on the basis of their guilty plea and will not consider any other evidence, however weak, that TV Licensing may have presented.

If, on the other hand, the defendant wishes to challenge TV Licensing's representation of the facts, then they should plead not guilty. A defendant choosing this option does not have to attend the initial hearing, but will obviously need to attend for trial at a later date. If the case gets as far as trial then the defence will have the opportunity to test the quality of TV Licensing's evidence, which might be enough to discourage them from proceeding with the case. For whatever reason, TV Licensing are sometimes very reluctant to have their evidence and witnesses tested in court.

There may be circumstances where a guilty defendant takes the strategic option of pleading not guilty. That might seem a strange suggestion, but there are two possible advantages to the defendant by doing this:

• TV Licensing may well make procedural errors, which result in the case being dismissed or the Magistrates ruling in the defendant's favour.
• TV Licensing, who are known to take shortcuts, may decide to withdraw the case instead of risking closer scrutiny of their evidence at trial.

4. Pleading Guilty.

If the defendant decides to plead guilty then it is best to do so early, as the court will give a discount on the penalty they impose. The defendant has the option of attending the hearing, but most choose to have the case heard in their absence.

The court will usually impose a financial penalty on the guilty defendant. The starting point for any fine is determined from the defendant's completed Statement of Means form, but the Magistrates can vary this to take into account any mitigating or aggravating factors. The Magistrates' Court Sentencing Guidelines give details of the current recommended fine levels. In addition to the fine, the defendant will normally have to pay TV Licensing's prosecution costs (currently around £120) and the Victim Surcharge (the greater of £20 or 10% of any fine imposed). We are pleased to report that the latest edition of the Sentencing Guidelines now recommends a conditional discharge for offences of low culpability and harm (e.g. a person who accidentally receives TV programmes without a licence for a short period of time).

5. Pleading Not Guilty.

Whenever possible we would encourage the defendant to plead not guilty, thereby forcing TV Licensing to prove their case. It is only by challenging TV Licensing's evidence or procedures that the defendant has any chance of winning their case.

A defendant who pleads not guilty is entitled to review all of TV Licensing's prosecution evidence prior to trial. A written request for the evidence should be made via the court as soon as the defendant has formally entered a not guilty plea. If the court applies standard directions then TV Licensing will have 28 days to disclose its evidence to the defence. If they fail to make disclosure in accordance with the court's directions the case will be dismissed.

Prior to the trial TV Licensing may inform the defendant of their intention to submit "Proof by Written Evidence", which will be the visiting officer's (goon's) account of how they gathered information for the TVL178 Record of Interview form. The defendant can object to such a request within 7 days of receiving notice. We suggest that it is preferable to have all of TV Licensing's witnesses attend to give evidence in person, because this allows the defence the chance to cross-examine them.

The court will ask the defence whether they wish to call any witnesses at the trial. Notwithstanding the fact they may already be appearing for the prosecution, it is a good idea to call the goon who completed the TVL178 Record of Interview form, as the success of TV Licensing's case invariably hinges on whatever they have written. The defence should call any other reliable witnesses whose evidence casts into doubt TV Licensing's case.

We should mention that TV Licensing will attempt to ascertain the basis of any not guilty plea, so that their Court Presenter can be better prepared when the case comes to trial. The defendant should not explain their reasons for pleading not guilty to TV Licensing.

6. Examining TV Licensing's Evidence.

Once TV Licensing's evidence has been disclosed it should be carefully examined for any factual inaccuracies or contradictions that could weaken their case. If problems are found the defence has two main options - they can either get straight on the phone and challenge TV Licensing before trial or keep quiet and challenge them during the trial. There are advantages and disadvantages to each of these options.

If the defence challenges TV Licensing on the quality of their evidence before trial then there is a chance they will withdraw the case before it gets that far. The downside of challenging before trial is that the defence has shown their hand and TV Licensing may be able to mitigate the evidential weaknesses that have just been drawn to their attention. Alternatively, if the defence waits until trial it is less likely TV Licensing will be able to rebuff any weaknesses that are drawn to their attention, which is likely to weaken their case.

7. The Trial.

If the case gets as far as trial, then the hearing will proceed as follows:

• Prosecution opening speech: TV Licensing will summarise their case against the defendant.
• Prosecution witnesses: TV Licensing will call and examine their witnesses.
• Cross-examination of prosecution witnesses: The defence will have the opportunity to cross-examine TV Licensing's witnesses.
• Prosecution re-examination of its witnesses: TV Licensing will have the opportunity to clarify any points from its own witnesses that may have arises during the defence's cross-examination.
• Submission of no case to answer: The defence has the option of submitting there is no case to answer at this stage (e.g. the prosecution has failed to submit sufficient evidence to prove their case). In the unlikely event that the Magistrates agree the case will be dismissed and the defence can ask for costs to be awarded in its favour.
• Defendant's evidence: The defendant can choose to give evidence from the witness box. They do not have to, but the court may take into account their failure to do so when determining their guilt or innocence.
• Expert witnesses: If applicable. Unlike other witnesses who can only deal in fact, expert witnesses can be called upon to give opinion on matters within their technical expertise.
• Character witnesses: If applicable, character witnesses can be called to support the defendant's good standing. If a character witness is called then TV Licensing has the right to impugn the defendant's supposed good character by mentioning any previous convictions they might have.
• Defence witnesses: The defence will call and examine their witnesses.
• Cross-examination of defence witnesses: TV Licensing will have the opportunity to cross-examine the defence witnesses.
• Defence re-examination of its witnesses: The defence will have the opportunity to clarify any points from its own witnesses that may have arisen during TV Licensing's cross-examination.
• Defence closing speech: The defence will summarise its key arguments, highlighting any evidence that supports a not guilty verdict.
• The decision: The Magistrates will retire to weigh up the evidence and consider their decision. After a normally short deliberation they will return to the courtroom and announce their decision. If a not guilty verdict is returned the defence should ask the court to award costs in its favour. If a guilty verdict is returned then the defence will have the opportunity for mitigation before sentence is passed. The sentence is likely to be a slightly steeper fine that if the defendant had pleaded guilty from the outset. The defendant will also have to pay TV Licensing's costs, which will be more expensive having gone to trial.

If the defendant is found guilty at trial then they will almost certainly be ordered to pay a fine, TV Licensing's prosecution costs (which will be greater than if they'd pleaded guilty) and the Victim Surcharge.

If it all goes terribly wrong and the defendant is found guilty there is still the option of appealing the Magistrates' decision. The defendant needs to act quickly as there is only a short time to lodge an appeal.

To conclude, let us leave you with the heartening statistic that less than half of those people TV Licensing catch evading the licence-fee are actually convicted. With a little bit of research and preparation it really is possible to mount a very credible defence.

We hope that you've found the information in this article useful. If you require any further advice please get in touch and we'll be happy to help.

Edit (17/8/13): We should probably mention the unusual situation where a defendant does not receive their summons, so is completely unaware they are facing prosecution and are convicted without their knowledge. In these circumstances the defendant should make a Statutory Declaration (see form on Resources page), which is effectively a sworn statement denying all knowledge of the case. The completed Declaration should then be submitted to the court, which should then overturn the conviction. If there is sufficient time, TV Licensing may re-issue the summons for a second attempt at prosecution.

Edit (17/6/16): Following the introduction of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015, it is now possible for TV licence cases to be dealt with by a single Justice. Please see this article for further information.

Trespassing Scottish TV Licensing Goon

We really don't know why the BBC went to the trouble of writing a Withdrawal of Implied Right of Access Policy for TV Licensing, as many of their goons simply choose to ignore it.

The star of today's second post is follicly-challenged Scottish TV Licensing goon Andrew Skillen, who is a textbook example of a rule-bending goon. The fact he is pictured above is entirely due to TV Licensing's incompetence and his inability to follow the rules. We don't like his attitude so he has waived his non-existent right to anonymity.

The TV Licensing Visiting Procedures make it quite clear that goons are to abandon a visit the moment they notice they are being filmed. Skillen's first mistake was to ignore that simple rule, because we wouldn't be writing this article now if he'd walked away as he should have.

The occupier is perfectly within his legal rights to film but Skillen, forgetting his place as an uninvited Crapita minimum wage slave, arrogantly asserts: "You've not got my permission to share that video". It's at that point that we learn that the occupier has previously withdrawn TV Licensing's implied right of access (WOIRA) to the property, which means they have been given a legally-valid instruction to stay away. As the occupier had already issued a WOIRA instruction, TV Licensing should never have sent Skillen to the scene of this particular YouTube video in the first place.

TV Licensing's official line, as mentioned in our earlier post on the subject, is to respect any valid WOIRA instruction, but time after time we see them ignore their own WOIRA policy.

If TV Licensing goons seem unable to comply with even the most basic of instructions, it makes us wonder what other rules they might be bending in order to secure their commission payments.

You can watch Skillen's performance here on YouTube, although as he doesn't behave in accordance with the rules you can expect TV Licensing to try and get the video removed. In common with their BBC puppet masters, they don't respond well to public criticism.

Dejected Welsh TV Licensing Goon

In this life, one thing counts: In the bank, large amounts! I'm afraid these don't grow on trees: You've got to pick a pocket or two.

Sadly for this Fagin-like TV Licensing goon his latest commission-pocketing exploit proved a complete disaster, when he inadvertently knocked at the door of a bona fide member of the goon angling club.

The occupier leaves the goon standing out on the doorstep as he cheekily nips upstairs to retrieve his camera. He quickly returns, camera rolling and confronts the unshaven vagabond with one of the most effective weapons in the anti-TV Licensing arsenal - total silence.

Watching the video you can almost see the blood draining from the goon's face as the realisation dawns that not only is he losing his commission, but he's also going to look like a complete tit on YouTube for the second time.

We particularly like the way the occupier bounds down the stairs and gleefully says "TV Licensing here we come!"

It's a textbook anti-goon maneouvre and we doff our hat to the video maker. It's a great catch for his first cast.

TV Licensing Court Observation

An (unofficial) TV Licensing Blog observer recently attended one of the regular TV Licensing sessions at North Tyneside Magistrates Court.

Sadly he's not quite as dedicated to the cause as we are, so we have only just received a copy of his notes from the day. They make fascinating reading nonetheless.

All of TV Licensing's prosecution cases in the Northumbria local justice area (Northumberland and Tyne & Wear) are dealt with by this court, which is situated in the riverside fishing town of North Shields. TV Licensing cases are heard every Thursday, both morning and afternoon sessions.

The session took place on the afternoon of Thursday, 25th July 2013. It started slightly late at 2.25 pm and concluded by 3.15 pm. In the 50 minutes available the court worked at a frenetic pace and dealt with 53 cases.

None of the defendants attended court in person. 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.

Our court observer continues his field report below:

Attending court today was a very strange experience. I have never been anywhere near a court in the past, so the stifling heat combined with nerves of the unknown made me feel quite uncomfortable. Despite being present as a member of the public, I had a decidedly guilty feeling in the pit of my stomach.

I arrived promptly and was greeted by the usher, who was in disbelief that I wanted to view the TV Licensing cases. His words reinforced the idea that the court staff consider TV Licensing cases less worthy of the court's time. "We're not used to people wanting to watch those. Would you not rather watch a criminal court?" said the pleasant silver-haired gentleman. I declined, explaining that I had a special interest in observing the TV Licensing cases only.

Court was delayed by some administrative task or another. I could see the usher through a glass door panel talking to a lady who I'd later discover was the Capita Court Presenter. I could not hear their conversation, but their furtive glances in my direction made me think they were sharing their curiosity about my presence. Just as court was about to begin the usher called me across and showed me to a seat at the rear of the courtroom.

In an unfortunate twist of fate I was seated a split second too late to hear the first name of the Capita Court Presenter, but her surname was Robson. She was dressed in a black trouser suit with a turquoise top underneath her jacket. Think a female version of Harry Potter's Hagrid, with wavy dark grey hair and a soft Yorkshire accent, and you'll not be too far off the mark.

Pleasantries exchanged it was straight down to business, with Hagrid's evil twin sister announcing she had 53 cases for the court's consideration. On this occasion there were only two Magistrates sitting.

The cases were dealt with as follows:

1. Defendant was female. She pleaded guilty to using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 9 weeks. The lady is on benefits.

Outcome: Fine (F) £200; Victim Surcharge (VS) £20; Costs (C) £90.

2. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case be withdrawn.

Outcome: Case withdrawn.

3. Defendant was male. He failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 weeks. He is unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £50; VS £20; C £90.

4. Defendant was male. TV Licensing requested the case be withdrawn.

Outcome: Case withdrawn.

5. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case be withdrawn.

Outcome: Case withdrawn.

6. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned so they could monitor repayments.

Outcome: Case adjourned until 10 am on 19th September 2013.

7. Defendant was female. Pleaded guilty to using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 4 months. Lady is a divorced widow in receipt of state pension. She has no previous convictions and the court gives credit for an early guilty plea. In mitigation she tells the court: "My finances are haywire and I simply couldn't afford to pay my licence fee".

Outcome: F £35; VS £20; C £90.

8. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned so they could monitor repayments.

Outcome: Case adjourned until 10 am on 19th September 2013.

9. Defendant was female. She pleaded not guilty to using a colour TV receiver without a licence. The court legal advisor reads out her defence argument: "I do not live at the unlicensed property. I just happened to answer the door". The legal advisor suggests that the court should write to the defendant informing her that she is liable for prosecution because she was the one caught. Legal advisor suggests that case is adjourned to allow the court extra time to advise the defendant. Interestingly, it is Capita policy not to pursue prosecution when the defendant is a non-resident of the unlicensed property, but they appear to be making an exception in this case.

Outcome: Case adjourned until 10 am on 19th September 2013.

10. Defendant was male. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned so they could monitor repayments.

Outcome: Case adjourned until 10 am on 19th September 2013.

11. Defendant was male. Pleaded guilty to using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 4 months. He has no previous convictions and the court gives credit for an early guilty plea. In mitigation he tells the court: "I am finding it hard to cope financially, having just moved into a new home. I have also been involved in a custody battle over my young daughter".

Outcome: F £35; VS £20; C £90.

12. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 weeks. She is a support worker.

Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

13. Defendant was male. TV Licensing requested the case be withdrawn.

Outcome: Case withdrawn.

14. Defendant was male. He failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 month. He is unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

15. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned.

Outcome: Case adjourned until 10 am on 19th September 2013.

16. Defendant was male. He failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 week. He is unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

17. Defendant was male. He failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 week. He is unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

18. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned so they could monitor repayments.

Outcome: Case adjourned until 10 am on 19th September 2013.

19. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 weeks. She is unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

20. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 months. She is unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

21. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 months. She is a sales assistant.

Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

22. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned so they could monitor repayments.

Outcome: Case adjourned until 10 am on 19th September 2013.

23. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 months. She is a single parent.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

24. Defendant was male. He failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of less than 6 months. He is unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

25. Defendant was male. He failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 weeks. He is a fork lift truck driver.

Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

26. Defendant was male. He failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 7 months. He is in receipt of Disability Living Allowance.

Outcome: F £82.50; VS £20; C £90.

27. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 week. She is a housewife.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

28. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 months. She is unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

29. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 5 months. She is unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

30. Defendant was male. He failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 3 months. He is a chef.

Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

31. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 months. She is unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

32. Defendant was male. He failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 months. He is unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

33. Defendant was male. He failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 4 months. He is unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

34. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 8 months. She is in unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £82.50; VS £20; C £90.

35. Defendant was male. He failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 months. He is a warehouse operative.

Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

36. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 6 months. She is a retail assistant.

Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

37. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 7 months. She is an HR manager.

Outcome: F £300; VS £30; C £90.

38. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 weeks. She is in unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

39. Defendant was male. He failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 3 weeks. He is in unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

40. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 month. She is in unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

41. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 5 months. She is in unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

42. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 month. She is in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £82.50; VS £20; C £90.

43. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 month. She is a single parent in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

44. Defendant was female. Capita Court Presenter asked that details on the original summons be amended, because it contained a spelling mistake in her name ("Lyndsey" instead of "Lindsay"). Magistrates agree to this. Magistrates ask the legal advisor if the original summons was still valid despite the defendant's name being incorrectly shown. Legal advisor confirms that the original summons was still valid. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 months. She is a housewife.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

45. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 3 weeks. She is in unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

46. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 4 months. She is a domestic assistant.

Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

47. Defendant was male. He failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 2 months. He is an account director.

Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

48. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned so they could monitor repayments.

Outcome: Case adjourned until 10 am on 19th September 2013.

49. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned so they could monitor repayments.

Outcome: Case adjourned until 10 am on 19th September 2013.

50. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned so they could monitor repayments.

Outcome: Case adjourned until 10 am on 19th September 2013.

51. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 week. She is a supervisor.

Outcome: F £200; VS £20; C £90.

52. Defendant was female. TV Licensing requested the case to be adjourned as there is a chance she hasn't received the summons.

Outcome: Case adjourned until 10 am on 19th September 2013.

53. Defendant was female. She failed to respond to summons. Admitted using a colour TV receiver without a licence for a period of 1 month. She is in unemployed and in receipt of benefits.

Outcome: F £55; VS £20; C £90.

At the end of the hour I was aghast at how quickly the court had worked. It really was a near-automated process, with none of the cases attracting more than a minute's consideration.

The greatest fine of the afternoon was £300, which was calculated on the basis of the defendant's job and the fact she had been unlicensed for a period of more than 6 months. I would also highlight that in the space of 50 minutes Capita were awarded more than £4000 in costs. Magnify that across all the courts they use and it's not inconceivable they're making a healthy profit at the expense of the vulnerable, infirm and socially-disadvantaged.

The only evidence presented were comments from the completed Record of Interview (TVL178) forms. The Capita Court Presenter gave a quick summary, e.g. "the occupier admitted to the 'officer' that they had used a colour TV without a licence for 6 weeks", and that was good enough for the Magistrates to find the charge proven and pass sentence.

It is a matter of real concern that so much evidential weight is placed on these forms, particularly when Capita employees are incentivised for their completion. Capita TV Licensing goons have to meet strict performance targets of completing one "Code 8" prosecution statement an hour, and can face disciplinary action if they fail to meet that standard.

The one-sidedness of the process left me feeling sick and I'll not be rushing back to see a repeat of that particular circus.

Edit (8/10/13): We have just confirmed that the Capita Court Presenter is called Helen Robson.

TV Licensing: Horse Arousal

The latest televisual offering by TV Licensing's media harlots leaves little to the imagination when it comes to equine anatomy.

Anyone using a mobile device to watch TV programme services should be correctly covered by a TV licence, although in most cases will already be covered by the licence of their home address. 

The one minute trail features several scenarios where people are using mobile devices to watch TV programmes. It suggests that it's not a good idea to watch programmes on your mobile if you're stood on the edge of a cliff or abseiling down a building. 

Curiously, given the rarity of such an occurrence, it also suggests that it's a bad idea to watch TV programmes on your mobile if you're the back end of a pantomime horse. This is then illustrated in the image above, which shows an extended arm protruding from the groin area of the horse costume. Anyone that works closely with horses will spot an uncanny similarity between the phone-grasping arm and a horse's erect penis. A significant proportion of viewers would consider the inclusion of such an image juvenile, deviant and distasteful in the extreme.

We can think of no plausible explanation for the inclusion of this horse scenario, other than it being a childish prank signed off by one of TV Licensing's high ranking media harlots. We certainly don't think it's a coincidence. 

It appears that the trail, which no doubt cost thousands in licence-fee cash to produce, has been discreetly removed from broadcast. Had the BBC and TV Licensing been doing their jobs properly it would never have hit the airwaves in the first place.

We hope to provide a link to the video here shortly, but unfortunately it has been removed from YouTube. I would expect the BBC, who salivate over our every post, to try to have the image above removed on copyright grounds too. What better admission of responsibility if they do?!

TV Licensing Welsh Search Warrant Execution

New footage has appeared on YouTube showing a brace of TV Licensing goons attempting to execute a search warrant.

According to the occupier, he went to answer the door last night (5th August 2013) and was immediately confronted by two TV Licensing goons who forced their way through causing damage in the process. In accordance with TV Licensing policy, the goons were accompanied by two police officers, who were there solely to prevent any breach of the peace.

The video footage starts a few seconds after the goons have entered the hallway of the property. The occupier, understandably aggrieved that total strangers have unexpectedly stormed his front door, remonstrates with them for a few moments. 

The lead goon, who appears to be wearing a jet black hair piece and fake moustache (pictured above), announces that they have a search warrant and starts to recite the caution. The goon offered the occupier a copy of the warrant to inspect, which he refused to take. The goon then placed the warrant down on a nearby table, telling the occupier it was there for them anyway. 

A lady in the background voices concern that children are present, and she asks to be able to take them upstairs out of the way. The occupier then asks to speak alone to one of the police officers, which takes place out of camera shot. 

All the while the toupee-wearing goon is feverishly scribbling notes on a sheet of paper. He mutters something about "obstruction of the warrant" to his colleague, who we learn is called Anthony Elliott when he later shows his ID card to the camera.

The occupier asks one of the police officers if he enjoys helping defend TV Licensing, to which he replies that they (TV Licensing) have a job to do and the police have been asked to attend to prevent a breach of the peace. The occupier then confirms that the video footage will be appearing on YouTube.

Having completed his scribbles the toupee-wearing goon indicates their imminent departure to Elliott and the police officers. He mutters something to one police officer about "we'll now do whatever we need to do" as they shuffle out of the door.

The occupier explains in a YouTube comment that he has experienced two previous doorstep encounters with TV Licensing goons. He gave them no information on either of those occasion, so was very surprised when they arrived armed with a search warrant. He also explained that he had been in contact with Capita to make a formal complaint, and they have told him to contact the police about any damage caused by their employees.

Having listened to the mutterings of the fake-moustachioed goon we now expect TV Licensing to argue that the occupier has obstructed the execution of the search warrant. However, we don't think it's quite as clear cut as that. The law, section 366(8) of the Communications Act 2003, explains the circumstances in which a person is guilty of the offence of obstructing a TV Licensing search warrant. To be guilty of an offence a person either needs to either "intentionally obstruct" or "without reasonable excuse, fail to give assistance to" the person executing the warrant.

On the basis of the video evidence, we don't think either of those benchmarks has been met in this case. It is quite clear from the video that neither of the TV Licensing goons, despite being beyond the threshold of the property, make any effort at all to conduct their search. The toupee-wearing goon remained anchored to the floor as he officiously rustled his bits of paper; the Anthony Elliott goon didn't move any further than the doormat. At no time did the occupier physically obstruct their way, as they were already clearly within the property. 

We consider it extremely unlikely that had either goon attempted to search the house they would have been physically prevented from doing so, particularly as the police were present. It is an irrefutable fact that neither of them made any effort whatsoever to enter any of the other rooms in the property. If they didn't make any effort to search, how can any reasonable person consider they were obstructed in doing so?

In any event, we consider the occupier would had reasonable excuse not to assist TV Licensing, given his family had just experienced alarm and distress caused by their unexpected forceful entry to the property. How could he reasonably be expected to keep a level head in those circumstances and kowtow to the goon's every demand?

We will be very interested to see how this one pans out. Hopefully we'll be able to add some more information to this post later on.

Given the BBC's apparent fascination with watching TV Licensing goon videos, please remember to download your own copy and share it with as many people as you can.

Edit: The occupier has just uploaded a copy of the warrant to YouTube (this is a reuploaded version). It was granted by a JP at Gwent & South Wales Magistrates Court on 10th July 2013. We have advised him about the next steps to take.

Edit (22/8/13): We have just learned that the toupee-wearing goon is called Chris Morgan.

Edit (23/8/13): You can now read the deposition in this case in this follow up post.

Short-Dating TV Licences: A BBC Money Maker

The BBC is surreptitiously raking in millions in extra revenue by short-dating TV licences.

Most people would think, understandably, that their £145.50 cash injection to the BBC will cover their use of colour TV receiving equipment for the next 12 months. In reality they may receive a rude awakening when they see the true expiry date on their new TV licence.

The most recent figures available, published in the BBC Licence Fee Trust Statement 2011, suggest that as many as 2.1 million new licence holders may be disadvantaged to the tune of £12 by the scam, which sees them paying for 12 months of TV licence coverage but receiving as little as 11 months in return. In other words the BBC could be profiting to the tune of £25 million annually through what can only be described as sleight of hand.

The way the BBC chooses to administer the licence fee means that a new licence expires 12 months from the first day of the month in which it is purchased. This means that an ‘annual’ licence bought on 30th April 2013 will actually run out at midnight on 31st March 2014, or, in other words, the licence holder is effectively forced to pay for April 2014 twice. The current arrangements mean that a TV licence can only expire on the last day of the month, so there are 12 possible expiry dates in a year.

The BBC was asked to justify its policy of short-dating TV licences, short changing viewers, in a recent Freedom of Information Act request. 

Louise Wright, of the BBC's Licence Fee Unit, explained: "This system of dating is used in preference to a system whereby a licence can expire on any day of the year simply because it is more cost-effective. 

"Given the number of TV Licences (sic) that are in issue (more than 25 million), to operate a system whereby there are 365 alternative expiry dates would be far more costly in terms of both administration and enforcement - a cost which, ultimately, would be borne by the licence payer."

Short-dated licence holders must be heartened to learn that the BBC is only ripping them off in the short-term in order to save them money later on. Indeed, the BBC's recent abandonment of the £100 million Digital Media Initiative perfectly illustrates their ongoing commitment to provide the licence fee payer with best possible value for money.

Anyone considering buying a new TV licence should ensure they do so at the very start of the month, so that they get the 12 months coverage that they're actually paying for.

At least Dick Turpin wore a mask when he fleeced members of the public!

TV Licensing's Response to Negative Publicity: Deny or Remove

Last year we reported the case of a TV Licensing goon who forcibly snatched at the door handle of one of the properties he was visiting.

The Hartlepool property, which had no legal need for a TV licence, was occupied by a lone female and her child at the time of the goon's visit. Fortunately the property was equipped with CCTV, which clearly captured the moment the goon angrily snatched at the door handle. Had there been no video footage, we have no doubt at all that the shaven-headed goon would have denied any wrongdoing. As this incident happened only 10 miles from where TV Licensing goon Gary Catterick had earlier committed rape, the lady was no doubt terrified at the prospect of one of his colleagues pushing at the door.

Most decent right-minded folk would consider the goon's actions absolutely appalling, but here is what Capita said about the incident shortly afterwards: "In this case I think there is a lot of unfounded speculation regarding the officer and there is little else we can or should do about this particular incident". In other words, they apparently couldn't give a stuff.

Today, thanks to the marvels of the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the BBC has sent us further evidence of TV Licensing's apparent inability to accept public criticism, however justified it might be.

It is perfectly legal for the occupier of a property to film TV Licensing goons as they visit. The goon does not need to give any permission and can only opt out of being filmed by walking away from the camera. That is an irrefutable fact of law, which TV Licensing don't seem to like one bit.

We asked the BBC to provide us with all information they hold about filming/photographing of TV Licensing employees produced since 1st January 2010. To their credit they responded, on this occasion, within the 20 working days required by law. They sent us an extract of the TV Licensing Visiting Procedures, which we're regular readers of anyway, and a rather fascinating email trail that details their continuing crusade to have TV Licensing critical content removed from YouTube.

The BBC has previously told us that Capita only requests the removal of YouTube videos when it appears, ironically, their staff might become the victims of bullying or harassment. This is contradicted by one of the disclosed emails, which suggests that Capita routinely ask YouTube to remove videos "if they feature an EO (Enforcement Officer - their name for a goon) without their consent". That pretty much encompasses all TV Licensing critical YouTube videos. It would appear that YouTube, like the obedient sexually-frustrated puppy it is, seemingly dry humps the leg of TV Licensing every time one of these requests is made, regardless of the fact these videos are produced completely within the law.

Whenever TV Licensing go sniveling to YouTube, they are arrogantly depriving amateur film makers of their right to display their lawful creative content. The same creative rights the BBC would pawn its granny to defend, are at the same time being eroded by their TV Licensing bitch Capita. That counts as sickening, albeit very typical, BBC hypocrisy in our book.

Delving a little further into the email trail our noble colleague TJoK gets a special mention as "the guy who makes these videos is not very nice to watch". They also single out BanTheBBC at YouTube, whose magnificent anti-TV Licensing videos have attracted hundreds of thousands of views, as a target for special attention.

We're predicting a deluge of new goon videos will be appearing soon on YouTube, now we know how much TV Licensing enjoy watching them!

Edit (3/8/13): We have made minor amendments to improve the readability of this article.