It appears that TV Licensing has been using its legendary customer service skills on a member of the Netmums forum.
Katie F sounds like she is fully conversant with TV licence legislation: namely that a TV licence is only required for those properties where equipment is used to receive "live" broadcast TV programmes.
Mindful of that the unemployed Mum decided to save a few quid by not renewing her TV licence and watching only non-live catch-up programmes on her son's PS3 instead.
Evidently a belt-and-braces kind of girl, Katie rang TV Licensing to check her understanding of the rules. TV Licensing confirmed that watching only non-live catch-up programmes would not require a TV licence.
Katie picks up the story in her Netmums forum thread, "TV Licence - I am so angry!":
____________
Not once have I watched live TV since March, only catch up.
Tonight a bloke from TV Licensing came to door, I invited him in (nothing to hide - don't need one, feel free to check). He was so intimidating (or tried to be) and aggressive, told me I had to have one due to the fact that I can watch live through iPlayer app.
I had NO clue about this and swear on my child's life I haven't watched it once. He had to actually show me, tried to put it on and I stopped him as then I would have been in breach.
____________
Having read that account, it appears the TV Licensing goon that visited Katie's home fed her a pack of lies. He undoubtedly did this to scare her into compliance, thus ramping up his performance stats and commission.
It is the act of receiving TV programmes that requires a TV licence, not the mere possession of equipment (or means) to do so. If that was the case then everyone with access to the internet would require a TV licence, which is plainly inaccurate and absurd.
We also note that the dishonest goon tried to incriminate Katie by attempting to receive "live" TV programmes on her equipment. Had Katie not been wise to his ruse, you can be pretty sure he would have stitched her up on an evasion charge to boot.
As experience regularly demonstrates, some TV Licensing goons are dishonest scum from the lowest level of the evolutionary chain. They cannot be trusted and should never be allowed voluntary access to any property. Stories like Katie's perfectly demonstrate the reason why.
If TV Licensing calls, simply say nothing and close the door.
TV Licensing Blog Appeal: Do you know Katie F at Netmums? If so, please ask her to get in touch with us.
7 comments:
If you read the complete Netmums thread you'll see some prime bad behaviour courtesy of the BBC TV Licensing crew, namely:
Attempted incrimination of the innocent
Deliberate deception
Bullying of women and the elderly
Continuous phone harassment
I can't think of any legitimate organisation that would dare operate in this way.
The government seem minded to make it mahdatory to havs a TV License to watch catch upo and streaming, so yes soon a TV License for an internet connection.
And yet what course of action is this Katie F going to take?
Make an official complaint and seek damages? No.
Contact her local rag and try and get them to highlight this situation? No.
No, instead Katie F is going to...............REMOVE THEIR IMPLIED RIGHTS OF ACCESS!!
"Yesterday, 21:54 #10
Join Date Mar 2014 Posts 11
Also, Christopher I've found a wealth of knowledge online. I shall be writing my removal of implied right of access tonight and sending it the morrow!!
Screw it, quite fancy a row"
Oh for fook's sake!
Hadn't spotted that one.
It's depressing that so many people still see WOIRA as a fix-all solution, instead of drilling down into the finer detail.
It might be a good time to write a post updating people on the WOIRA situation.
I have called today and made a complaint about the lovely gentleman who visited. The lass on the phone assured me that he had updated the system to say I didn't need one and I wouldn't be getting anymore visits or letters (highly doubtful).
Alright so I'm obviously behind on the implied right of access crap that everyone else is telling me to do, what's the best course of action?
Hello Katie and thanks for finding us.
Withdrawing the implied right of access to your property is not the magic bullet people think it is. It only serves to heighten TV Licensing's interest in your property, and they will assume you are an "awkward" customer requiring "special" attention. Quite often they will ignore your request to stay away.
The best course of action is to ignore TV Licensing entirely. Bin its letters (they'll keep coming) and leave any TV Licensing goons out in the cold (if they visit again). You do not legally require a TV licence; they have no legal right to enter your home to confirm you are not doing anything wrong.
Be careful not to engage in casual chit-chat with strangers at the door, as TV Licensing goons do tell lies and will twist whatever you tell them.
If you've not already done so, can I suggest you download our free ebook. You'll find a link to it at the top of the page
Katie F handled the situation very well. If she'd switched on live TV as the goon wanted he'd have been able to fill in parts of the TVL 178 self-incrimination form. In particular the sections:
TV Set seen
Programmes seen/heard
Channels tested
He'd then either have attempted to scare Katie into buying a licence (see the contribution of Claire M in the Netmums thread)or even tried to stitch her up at the magistrates court.
Making a complaint and going on-line with the details was the best way at turning the tables on them. I suspect they will be very polite with her in future.
Whatever method chosen to deal with BBC TV Licensing and their running dogs, the main aim should be to stay in control of the situation. The goons have no more rights to inspect your electrical equipment than the milkman has to inspect the contents of your fridge.
Post a Comment