How to deal with tv licence officials in the uk.

Not sure if this belongs here, but could not work out exactly where to put this. Mods, do yo thing

here is a compilation of videos showing different altercations with the dreaded tv licence man.

www.liveleak.com...

They really don't like to be filmed, and can do nothing if you do not give them your name.
Many just run as soon as they see a camera, the braver ones who don't mind being on YouTube still leave empty handed.

Might have to try this. One guy revolked their right of access to his property, and sent them a bill for his charges for reading their letters and they promised not to bother him for 2 yrs.



If you don't watch it you don't have to pay for it. But that dont stop them harassing.

You need a license to watch tv?

Do you still have to pay for the tv programs as well?

There's been 100's of times when I've thought, 'f**k it, I'm not paying it anymore' but every time I end up giving in! It's not the £10 odd that bothers me as much as the fact we have to pay it in the first place, because at the end of the day the money directly funds the BBC.

Yes you can certainly use a document which I believe is called "Notice of removal of implied right of access", lots of templates on the net. This pretty much bans them from going any where near your property and they can only contact you on your agreed terms say for instance over email....

If you don't watch live television, then you most certainly have a case to politely tell them to 'ram it' , and then they need to obtain physical proof you're using a TV set so they can go to the courts.

I have a close friend who actually doesn't have a TV at all, partly down to his busy work schedule so any spare moment he gets he spends listening to the radio on browsing the net, yet they regularly turn up at his door hounding him for payment and ask if they can inspect his house, which on every occasion he laughs at them and tells them to stick it.

There's ways and means around paying it, but in the long term we need a revolution like what happened in Auz/NZ, they refused to pay in the masses, and what could TPTB do.....absolutely nothing!

A TV license "inspector" has no powers beyond any other person so if they turn up and ask to check you can tell them nicely to go away and theres nothing they can do and they have to prove you are watching live TV which is hard if they cant gain access to verify the fact and as a friend say to one of them when they mentioned that they had an Ariel on the roof "it says typhoo on the side of a bus but it doesn't mean they sell tea"

Originally posted by snowspirit
You need a license to watch tv?

Do you still have to pay for the tv programs as well?

Yes we do.

ALL of our channels are funded largely by displaying their own advertisements, however on BBC they don't broadcast any and instead take about £10-15 from every TV set owner in the country....which equates to a hell of a lot more.

What people don't realise is they also now receive a hedge fund from the European Parliament which in practice breaks the terms and conditions of the original agreement....that and all the fuss made over Jimmy Saville which has landed them in deep do-do is really leaving the TV licence payers reeling!

Edit: Mines about £12 a month!

reply to post by snowspirit


It's about £120 a year I think. For BBC, the others get paid through adverts. If you pay for satellite tv you still have to pay for a licence to watch live broadcasting.

Edit: £145 a year.

Originally posted by snowspirit
You need a license to watch tv?

Do you still have to pay for the tv programs as well?

As the BBC is publicly funded, and it is available to all UK citizens, we are required to pay for a license to own a TV. There are no terrestrial TV channels that we have to pay for. There are satellite TV channel services like Sky.

So, yes, everyone in the UK is supposed to have a TV license to own a TV, because all TV's can receive BBC channels.

There was a lot of confusion when BBC started streaming news and programs on the website, and they say that we are supposed to have a TV licence for that - even if we don't have a TV in the house.

It's a messed up situation. People who have a TV and might never watch the BBC (really, the quality of BBC programming has sunk in recent years) still have to pay for it. I would prefer them to just make it a pay service so that those who actually watch it pay for it, and those who don't can ignore it completely.

reply to post by Maxatoria


You're absolutely right. It's up to them to provide proof so they can go through the courts, but even after you've told them they can't enter and even after your excuses as to why you still have an aerial on your roof, these guys turn up...



Now many have said a lot of these vans are in fact fake and just turn up to instil the 'fear' factor, but I've heard that they only need to see a reflection on your window or match up any light or sound coming from your house to use as proof, so if solid precautionary measures are taken by the householder, they can in theory get away with it!

With CRT based screens they could use basic technology to view what you are viewing and this grab you by the short and curlies but with modern TV systems theres no broadcast of your viewing habits into the ether so you are better protected but you have to match this with the fact of increased paperwork and people knocking on your doors

The UK - as Denmark also - has the public service channels that are state funded (i.e. paid for via tax or license). We don't pay extra for these channels.
We do, however, pay extra for all the other commercial channels absoluitely inundated with commercial breaks. Some of us hate commercials which is why we like HD Recorders so that we can fast forward past the commercials.

We are often asked why we should have to pay a license, when most people most often watch the commercial channels because of their greater appeal creted by popular series and films.

My answer is something like this:
If we only have commercial channels then we will only have popular programs that attracts enough people to pay for the commercials. While the companies pay for the right to have a commercial shown, we pay by watching it - ON A CHANNEL WE PAY EXTRA TO GET.

We will be relegated to watching the usual brainless crap aired for the couch potatoes. We will be watching the same 50 episodes of Friends aired in bundles (not cronologically) and shown on several channels. The Prince of Bell Air has lost it's appeal after fiftyseven reruns of the same 100 episodes. And Discovery has gone from a great channel to showing programs with dysfunctional idiots building cars, motorcycles or shooting any weapons they can find while laughing like mentally challenged children.
Music is represented by specialized channels that cater for the MTV-attention span youth that has no idea what quality music is about. The channels force feed us with rolemodels that are drug addicts and/or violent criminals.

Public service channels are the ones that give us a quality product that compete in this tough media world. But the quality is there. There is a reason why the public service channel BBC are responsible for some of the greatest documentaries ever made. It is because the aim was to produce quality - not attract commercials.

Public service channels are where we find music not in main stream - opera, jazz, classical music.
Public service is where we find theatre and drama, ballet, critical journalism.
We don't get that from MSM. Gods forbid they step on the toes of a possible sponsor with low ratings or an inconvenient exposé.

Not many would pay for a channel that has so many "boring" programs, but it is important that we expose our younglings and ourselves to our culture.

I will always pay my license happily. The thought of being left with commercial tv is frightening.

On a sidenote - I cannot understand why film makers don't prohibit their work being cut into pieces by commercial breaks. Who in their right mind thinks it is good that a suspense filled moment gets cut off by 7 minutes of mindless crap trying to sell you stuff you don't need. Some films are now 1 hour thirty long, but sent in two hour slots. And you PAY FOR IT?

reply to post by Just Chris

If you don't watch live television, then you most certainly have a case to politely tell them to 'ram it' , and then they need to obtain physical proof you're using a TV set so they can go to the courts.

This is a little misleading... You do not need a licence if you own or use a TV... You need the licence to watch LIVE TV... You can watch on-demand, even the BBC, without a licence...

Btw you do not need to do anything, just do not answer your door. Or you can laugh in their face if you fancy some fun... You do not have to tell them a thing! Do not tell them who you are, do not tell them if you watch TV or not... It is non of their damn business... I have never paid for this "licence" in my life!

reply to post by Just Chris


Hey just chris, was this you?

I couldnt believe it when i read my licence

it says i need one even if i own a mobile fone
the whole thing is a farce and hopefully it breaks soon

reply to post by davesmart

I couldnt believe it when i read my licence it says i need one even if i own a mobile fone the whole thing is a farce and hopefully it breaks soon

This again is misleading (but it's not your fault, they do it on purpose)... You do not need a licence to own a mobile phone... You need the licence (or so these scumbags say) to watch LIVE TV on your phone or any other device capable of streaming LIVE TV... Only if you watch LIVE TV though...

Just tell them you only watch on demand. They will ask to check tell them to get lost... They will ask your name, tell them to get lost... Simple...

reply to post by mee30


Ahhh i get you now

LIVE TV...crafty buggers
cheers

The BBC is extremely biased in its news reporting and the overall standard of its programs has diminished over recent years to the point of it almost being a joke when a new series is revealed, the fact we are forced to pay for this 'Service' is not fair. You should be given the choice of receiving BBC channels or not, I for one wouldn't bother and i'm pretty sure there's a lot of others who feel the same as me. O.K i concede to the fact adverts are really annoying but on the whole these channels provide much better viewing material and their news agencies are a lot fairer in their reporting. I would back any mass movement to force the end of the monopoly the BBC holds over us.

On one occasion when I had a visit I decided to have a little fun so I told the guy that I only watch on demand so I don't need his services etc... He said "well I need to come in and check you have no sky or virgin boxes etc"... I informed him that there was no need because I indeed DID have a virgin box and that I use it for the ON-DEMAND services only... He just said "so you watch no LIVE TV" I said "NOPE"... He asked for my name and I told him to get lost! lol...

But what could he do? How would me merely having a sky or virgin box PROVE I watch LIVE TV? When they both offer ON-DEMAND services? Think about that one!

No-one should be paying this ransom unless you want to! If you are felling FORCED to pay then refuse to pay! You really that spineless to take this shakedown? I am 31 and have NEVER paid this extortion money. I've made many of these bullies leave with their head held LOW!

Anyone that works at the BBC are just as guilty too! You can not run a BUSINESS with the threat of FORCE! Imagine if british gas came round telling you you must have their gas! It was "the law" or some BS, would you really take that? Basically anyone that works for the BBC are receiving STOLEN/EXTORTION money! I don't know how they sleep at night and I ask them too! Never get a response!

Seriously though, why take this? If you don't want BBC then why do you pay? If people WANT to pay, that is fair enough, no bother... But to all those that don't, what gives?

reply to post by chaztekno


I'd agree with that.

They should pay us to watch that crap

reply to post by davesmart


It is a racket so what do you expect?

They are a bunch of criminals in my opinion and I think more people should stand up and tell them so...

reply to post by HolgerTheDane2


I'm not so sure about the BBC providing me with a quality viewing experience. In fact I find ITV far more interesting from a news, sport and entertainment perspective, any day of the week.

What's good about BBC? Eastenders.....not for me personally. Even the sports coverage is dire.