Why we're here:
This blog is to highlight the unjust persecution of legitimate non-TV users at the hands of TV Licensing. These people do not require a licence and are entitled to live without the unnecessary stress and inconvenience caused by TV Licensing's correspondence and employees.

If you use equipment to receive live broadcast TV programmes, or to watch or download on-demand programmes via the BBC iPlayer, then the law requires you to have a licence and we encourage you to buy one.

If you've just arrived here from a search engine, then you might find our Quick Guide helpful.

Monday, 24 December 2012

TV Licensing Offers Cash Sweetener


A year ago we touched on an article published in thedailynag blog.

The author, who has no legal need for a TV licence, had been on the receiving end of TV Licensing threats and intimidation for several years. 

She moved home and was greeted by a pile of TV Licensing threatograms, which spurred her decision to withdraw the errant organisation's implied right of access to her new property (read our earlier post about WOIRA). Two days later, in direct contravention of her lawful WOIRA instructions, a TV Licensing employee trespassed onto the property regardless.

That's about where we left the story back in November 2011.

In the intervening year thedailynag's author has moved home again. This caused her to issue a fresh WOIRA instruction to TV Licensing, which again refused them access to her new property. As you've probably guessed by now TV Licensing, who like to pretend they respect WOIRA instructions, displayed contempt for her lawful wishes by trespassing yet again.

She takes up the story in a recent blog post: "Springing to the door with a pen and paper, I politely took the man's details and informed him that he is now trespassing, as he is not actually allowed to attend the property since I withdrew his implied right of access a few weeks ago. 

"This obviously phases him less than the idea of losing his commission so he stands his ground nonetheless, ignoring my complaint and continuing to ask if he can enter my property or not. I again explain that legally, he's not even allowed to be standing where he is and politely inform him that on that note, he's most certainly not coming into my house. 

"I then tell him that I will have to contact the police to discuss this matter and he stands up (now a bit more confrontational) and tells me not to worry about contacting the authorities as he will be doing so himself. 

"Of course, I go on to say I don't actually require his help in doing so and he tells me that it's actually to obtain a search warrant to enter my property. "Knock yourself out" I reply, shutting the door."

The author was rightly incensed by this stage, that some minimum wage jumped up little Hitler was standing on her doorstep issuing legally baseless threats. She contacted TV Licensing several times by email and their response was lethargic to say the least.

Just then an email arrived, seemingly acknowledging that TV Licensing's actions had caused her inconvenience and offering £30 as a gesture of goodwill. 

She wrote back explaining that their offer was unacceptable: "I would be prepared to discuss a more reasonable figure which takes into account the sustained harassment I feel I have received from your company, including 3 breaches of a right of access restriction, constant threatening letters, threats of court action, threats of covert surveillance and threats of a police search warrant."

TV Licensing wrote back and offered her £75 instead, which they emphasised was their final offer.

The author is currently discussing matters with her solicitor and deciding if it's worth pursuing TV Licensing through the courts on a point of principle. After all, TV Licensing's own letter and subsequent cash offer appears to acknowledge their shortcomings: "That said if we have made an error, and feel that inconvenience to someone could have been prevent, we would consider a monetary amount as a goodwill gesture."

We'll be glued to this one to see how it turns out. There are thousands of other people that have withdrawn TV Licensing's implied right of access and had their wishes ignored, so this case could set a very significant precedent.

5 comments:

Colin said...

£75 isn't a huge sum of money, but it's certainly something, and shows that the BBC/TV Licensing knows it's in the wrong.

I've never heard of them doing anything like this before - agree there any precedents?

hypnagogic said...

Hi all,

Thank-you so much for sharing my story, I'd love to hear what people have to say about it. I did originally think £75 was quite good, but when you break it down perhaps it's not quite enough to make TV Licensing take account of their actions. I don't want to give myself an unnecessary headache by taking any one to court, but I think with evidence like this perhaps it's worth pursuing it. I just think they should be stopped- life is stressful enough without having someone harass you over a service you have no involvement with. I know if any other company did the same, they'd be closed down by now or heavily penalised. I think people are just still under the impression that TV Licensing are an authority and this is all part of the misinformation originally spread by them. I know with compensation as well, a low amount is considered to be around £50, say for an administrative error. But for what they've done, I think it should be £200 and a court injunction to stop them from harassing me any further.

Let me know your thoughts! I don't want to be too harsh on them, but they do need to re-asses the way they run their business.

Take care,

Thedailynag! x

Colin said...

Suing them and getting an injunction certainly isn't being too harsh! When you think what they're routinely doing, often to vulnerable people, then £75 isn't very much in return.

But there again, getting £75 from them (and advertising the fact) is a victory in itself, and a concrete demonstration of their malpractice.

If you do decide to sue them, I wish you every success (and I recommmend you do so only after you've had advice from a solicitor), and well done even if you decide not to sue.

Anonymous said...

1] One post urges us to withdraw the implied right of access this post casually informs us they routinely ignore anyway! What's the point?

2] I urge legal action if you are willing and able to see it through. Easy enough for me to say, but the importance of legal action would be in the precedent it sets. That's why they'll move heaven and earth to stop you or, our corrupt judiciary being what it is, ensure you lose the verdict.

People never grow up. This isn't 'Auntie'. This is the STATE BROADCASTER, the equivalent in sound and pictures of Pravda. Mutual dependence of politicians and broadcasters make it virtually certain the elite will never relinquish its grip on the licence tax.

The first principle of elite governance is to have people pay the cost of their own dispossession and brainwashing. That's what the licence tax does. Challenge it by all means, if you have all means, and I for one wish you well. Perhaps your legal adviser will prove more optimistic than me about the outcome.

Dee said...

I'd be interested to learn what came of this. I DO have a TV and have always paid the license fee promptly, so I am not too happy to now be receiving letters saying that I've not paid for the latest year (in spite of it showing clearly on my bank statement that I have). The letters get more threatening as time goes on and I'm not inclined to waste precious time chasing them, when all they surely need do is to look at their records.