Long time readers of the TV Licensing Blog will know that we are strong advocates of using the civil courts to hold TV Licensing to account.
We have previously written about our reader Phil, who successfully sued TV Licensing for the time and inconvenience of having to deal with its caustic correspondence despite having made it abundantly clear that he did not legally require a TV licence.
As the following figures demonstrate, it really is worth having a pop at TV Licensing via the civil courts. Based on the information available, most people who make a claim against TV Licensing are successful, so in our opinion the nominal fee (see table of fees here) of making a claim is worth the investment.
Not only are successful claimants refunded their fee, but every successful claim against TV Licensing further erodes its credibility and reputation. It is not the case, as TV Licensing would incorrectly have people believe, that it is not worth the bother of making a claim as the courts always side with TV Licensing - no way is that true. Every single claim is also an additional ball ache for the BBC and TV Licensing to have to deal with - it ties up resources and causes inconvenience.
It should be stressed that most of these successful claims will be in relation to instances where TV Licensing has refused to refund the licence-holder for whatever reason. In our experience TV Licensing is always very quick to coerce and accept payment from people, but deliberately slow and obstructive when processing refund requests. There is little doubt that TV Licensing likes to sicken refund claimants into submission.
In its recent response to a TV Licensing Blog Freedom of Information request (BBC ref: RFI20211456), the BBC has confirmed that 21 civil claims were made against TV Licensing since 1st January 2019.
Of those only 7 claims were dismissed, 9 were settled (e.g. TV Licensing paid out before a judgment) and 4 resulted in a default judgment against TV Licensing (e.g. TV Licensing, in characteristically arrogant fashion, didn't even bother to respond to the claim).
At the time of writing there is also one claim outstanding from earlier this year.
TV Licensing likes to highlight the number of default judgments, as if they are not real judgments in favour of the claimant. They are real judgments - just that TV Licensing was too arrogant (or lazy, or both) to bother responding to the claim.
Full information, as disclosed by the BBC, is as follows:
=====
2019:
3 claims dismissed; 5 claims settled.
Settlement amounts: £25.00; £763.42; £200.00; £37.19; £499.00.
2020:
3 claims dismissed; 3 default judgments against TV Licensing*; 2 claims settled.
Judgment/settlement amounts: £824.18*: £349.79*; £2,095.17*; £392.59; £235.92.
2021:
1 claim dismissed; 1 default judgment against TV Licensing *; 2 claims settled; 1 claim ongoing.
Judgment/settlement amounts: £182.50*; £970.62: £402.12.
=====
Anyone wishing to make a claim against TV Licensing will need to send it correspondence outlining the claim and giving it a final opportunity to address the issue.
Much more information in our earlier Standing Up to TV Licensing Harassment article.
We wish anyone proceeding down the civil claim route the best of success and would ask them to kindly keep us informed.
1 comment:
Sorry to be off-topic on this post, but I recently had a visit from a TVL goon last week and have some questions over their behaviour. I live in a third-floor flat and they can't enter the building without soeone buzzing them in via the intercom. Fortunately saw them through the window and didn't let them in as per best practice.
After a few minutes they left, but this is where the curious behaviour began. As the goon left he took a note of my car reg (we have numbered parking spots outside), and took out his phone and pointed it towards my windows, as if he was trying to use the camera zoom to see inside my flat (doubt he had much success since I live on the third floor and he wouldn't see much anyway).
Firstly, why would they note my car reg? and secondly, surely this is pretty sketchy behaviour and not what should be happening right?
Post a Comment