Great Western Coffee Shop

I get these letters even though I have a TV Licence (all to do with my flat having both a name and a number).  You may find this website (http://www.bbctvlicence.com/) interesting where the owner has been sent threatening letters since 2006 and just ignored them.  He doesn't have a TV.  Apparently TVL haven't taken any action against them and never even visited their property.

I'm confused, and I'm sure I'm not the only one. Perhaps you can explain what the circumstances where that exempted you from having a licence when you have a TV connected to an aerial.

I fear that you are one of the many that TVL have bamboozled by their less than honest advertising along with their co-conspirator, the BBC.

I am NOT "exempt" anything - I am obeying the Law of the Land.
The Law says that you require a TV Licence to watch or record LIVE television (regardless of its origin) - full stop !

If I use my TV for watching videos from Blockbuster, or playing on my PS3 or even watching last night's Eastenders that my neighbour recorded for me (there may be copyright issues here - but that doesn't fall under TVL's remit) I DO NOT require a Licence.
You do not have to de-tune or disconnect the TV. You do not have to tell TVL that you do not require a licence (If you do tell them this, they say that they will send someone round to check - therefore they are accusing you of lying - nice people ! Apart from which, if they do visit and you are not watching LIVE TV you are not committing an offence).
You do not have to let them into your house, you do not have to speak to them - unless you wish to tell them to "go away" - in whatever terms you wish !
You can legally ban them from ever setting foot on your property (as I have) - they have issued a statement through Parliament saying that people who do this will not be targeted or harassed as a consequence of their doing this.

Don't get me wrong here, I do have a licence  (my "saga" concerned an empty house which I was refurbishing). However, I do think the licence has become outmoded and I think that people who do watch without a licence are stealing from us honest folks who do pay.
What I did object to, most strongly, were the tactics used by TVL, I am old enough and ugly enough to look after myself, but what effect their tactics might have on the elderly and the vulnerable I shudder to think. There are (apocryphal ?) stories of pensioners who do not require a licence actually buying one just to get TVL "off their backs"

Rant over !!

OK, so you had an unoccupied house where nobody was watching a TV. I hadn't thought of that possibility. I'm not sure it needed a rant about me being bamboozled.

I agree that TVL have a reputation for being aggressive, but then I suspect if they weren't, the number not buying one would be much higher. Just look at all the motorists who aren't insured (or indeed pay road tax), whose costs come back on the rest of us who do pay our insurance.     

TVL are awful.  I do not have a TV and yet they continue to threaten and hassle me.  I refuse to tell them that I don;t have a TV because: 1) it involves using a premium rate number, 2) I am not legally reguired to do so, and 3) experince tells me that they won;t belive me anyway.

Just out of interest (and way off topic I know, sorry!) but, if you only watch TVCatchup (http://www.tvcatchup.com/channels.html) via your computer, and have no other equipment in the house or indeed an aerial of any kind, do you need a TV licence?

I'm intrigued as to how they can trace you using live streaming on the Internet!

The truth is they can't. The majority of prosecutions for TV License evasion come about because people have made statements to enforcement agents incriminating themselves, or have made the mistake of inviting them in, or have been observed through a window watching broadcast TV.

Even the use of Detector Vans (if they even exist/work) is not enough on its own to secure a prosecution.

Even the use of Detector Vans (if they even exist/work) is not enough on its own to secure a prosecution.

The truth is they can't. ...

Not certain on that as streaming requires you to temporarily download if I remember rightly so no doubt your ISP will have a download record so could probably show if you have been streaming live tv. Happy (and hope to be) corrected otherwise quite a few student friends of mine could be up the ceek withput a padle if the get caught

I used my mobile broadband connection to watch TV whilst on the train a few days ago.  Would this be covered under the TV licence for my flat?  Or would I need a licence for "a Class 158 somewhere between Bristol and Portsmouth"?  ;D :D

Yes, just as when you take your caravan to the Bude for a summer holiday, end up with the wettest and windiest week for years, and huddle inside all day watching Jeremy Kyle ... you are covered as an extension of your home license

Yes, just as when you take your caravan to the Bude for a summer holiday, end up with the wettest and windiest week for years, and huddle inside all day watching Jeremy Kyle ... you are covered as an extension of your home license

I was told I have to have a TV license because I have a computer (well three actually) in my flat. I do not own an games console, but do watch BBC iPlayer/4oD etc on my computer. I do not own a TV nor do I have one in my flat. Yet i'm told I have to pay because of my PC's.

I was told I have to have a TV license because I have a computer (well three actually) in my flat. I do not own an games console, but do watch BBC iPlayer/4oD etc on my computer. I do not own a TV nor do I have one in my flat. Yet i'm told I have to pay because of my PC's.

I work in IT and have a very good understanding of how these things work. Now most people who are on an ADSL connection (Broadband over the telephone line) will be issued an IP Address through a tool called DHCP (Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol). This is basically a server that listens for a request from your router/modem, and gives it an IP (A number used to communicate with other servers etc). When the PPPoA username/password negociations (sp?) are processed. The dynamic part means your IP address changes every time your router/modem reconnects to your ISP's servers.

Now if you look at an ISP like BT for example, they will have what is called a subnet pool of IP addresses to issue to your modem/router with... to give you an idea, the majority of internet subnets run on what is called a Class A subnet (255.0.0.0) Which can hold just over 16 million nodes! the range for class A addresses runs from 1.x.x.x - 126.x.x.x so if you do a quick calculation of 16M * 127 gives you an idea of how much class A subnet nodes you can have ;D I could talk about the other subnets like Class B, C & D but I won't for a fear of being too technical

So if you were to watch a live stream from your attic space from the BBC, then restart your router (provided your on dynamic addressing) your IP address will change, and your previous one will be allocated to another router, that could be 2 or 200 miles away! TVL would have to prove what time you were watching the live stream, and also prove that your router had that IP address at the exact date/time and it was the SAME router...! So if you decide to oust your BT HomeHub 2 for a nice little Cisco Linksys bit of kit, they can't prove you had that IP because your router was not the same ;D

So really i'd say the chances of getting caught are very very remote... You just have to look at how many people trust BT Broadband... The log files for the IP addresses are huge and someone would have the mundane job of trying to prove you actually had that IP on that router... BT Openreach (A BT Group company who one and maintain the POTS/21CN) network would indeed charge a nice little sum for that service...

Technical babble over...

* disclaimer * - I am not in any way saying you should stop paying TV License or should try and cheat the system, just saying the likelihood of getting caught is remote :)

Given there appears to be considerable resentment to paying the TV license, and continuing difficult in collection, maybe the government ought to consdier abolishing it and replacing it with a tax that is easier to collect and more in line with technological advances.   

Given there appears to be considerable resentment to paying the TV license, and continuing difficult in collection, maybe the government ought to consdier abolishing it and replacing it with a tax that is easier to collect and more in line with technological advances.

The coverage didn't get off to a good start either, as they ditched the dramatic music that had been used for Election Nights since 1979 in place of a piece that I'd forgotten even before it had finished. 

I wouldn't really consider it a tax (as such) and therefore wouldn't replace it with a tax but rather make the BBC get their own income.

BBC investigating TV licence fee collectors

The BBC has ordered an investigation into reports TV licence fee collectors targeted vulnerable people, spurred on by an aggressive incentive scheme.

An investigation by the Daily Mail said bosses at Capita, which collects the fee, promised bonuses of up to £15,000 a year to catch 28 evaders a week.

Capita said those statements "do not reflect the high standards we expect".

BBC Director General Tony Hall said Capita had "fallen short" of standards it expected on behalf of the UK public.

The government said it would talk to the BBC about the company's conduct.

The Daily Mail sent a reporter to interview for a job at Capita, and allegedly found staff being pushed to gather evidence to take as many people to court as possible.

One interviewer was recorded saying: "We will drive you as hard as we can to get as much as we can out of you because we're greedy."

According to the paper, the company's 330 field officers are told they must hit a target number of evaders, known as the "magic 28", and for each person they catch over that, they can be paid an extra £20 to £25.

The BBC's director general, Tony Hall, said he wanted "urgent confirmation" that the interview questions were not "standard practice", vulnerable people were not being targeted, and that Capita was taking "appropriate action" over the incident.

In a letter to Capita's CEO, Andy Parker, he said: "Public trust is the cornerstone of the licence fee system. It is clear that, in this instance, Capita has fallen short of the standards the BBC has a right to expect on behalf of the British public."

The BBC added that it expected licence fee officers to "behave in a courteous, professional manner and abide by a published code of conduct".

Capita said its incentive scheme only applied to sales of licence fees and it only prosecuted as a last resort.

A spokesman added: "Capita is required by the BBC to ensure households are not breaking the law. Officers are expected to act in a professional manner. We strongly refute any allegation that officers are instructed to act outside of these requirements. Where we find employees have not acted as they should we act appropriately."

Downing Street said ministers would be raising the conduct of the enforcement officers with the BBC. "Clearly, these are concerning reports," a No 10 spokesman said. "The licence fee does need to be collected in a fair and reasonable manner. I see the BBC has quite rightly ordered an urgent investigation into these reports."

Damian Collins, Conservative MP and chairman of the Commons culture committee, told the Daily Mail: "It's very concerning. This is being done in the BBC's name. The BBC needs to make sure changes are made to the way this contract is being run or that it's taken away from Capita and given to someone else."

Labour MP Chris Matheson, who also sits on the committee, called for Capita bosses to be summoned to Parliament.

In 2015, 166,000 people were fined for licence fee evasion. The maximum penalty for watching BBC channels or iPlayer without a licence is £1,000.

In January, new sentencing guidelines were introduced meaning magistrates can impose a non-financial penalty, known as a conditional discharge, so the person will not be sentenced unless they commit another offence.

This will only be used in cases where people have made significant efforts to pay the fee.

From the BBC (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39100048):