TV Licensing has decided to withdraw another TV licence evasion charge brought in questionable circumstances.
Forget any misguided notion of TV Licensing festive benevolence. In our opinion, it has withdrawn this charge for the purposes of self-preservation and damage-limitation.
Regular readers may remember the case of Nabz, which we mentioned at the end of October.
Briefly, for the benefit of newcomers to this parish, Nabz's wife was visited by a TV Licensing goon on the early evening of 29th May 2015.
She was minding the couple's three young children at the time, so understandably declined the goon's request to enter the Slough property. Despite Nabz's wife having a very limited grasp of English, the goon continued to read her the questions printed on his TVL178 Record of Interview form. The goon scatched away completing the form, but Nabz's wife refused to sign it and he failed to leave the top copy as he should have done.
Five months later a summons arrived unexpectedly in the post, which was accompanied by the completed TVL178 form. This was the first opportunity Nabz and his wife had to scrutinise the completed TVL178 form and they quickly realised the information recorded differed from her recollection of events. In particular, the completed form stated there was a TV set connected to an aerial inside the property, when actually there was not.
It was at the point that Nabz sought assistance from members of the TV Licence Resistance forums. We acknowledge and commend the collective endeavours of several learned members of those forums, who have worked tirelessly to achieve a just outcome for Nabz's wife.
After several letters and phone calls to the BBC and TV Licensing Prosecution Team, we are very pleased to learn that TV Licensing has decided to withdraw the charge against Nabz's wife.
This case is just the tip of the iceberg. We suspect that hundreds of people are taken to court by TV Licensing on the basis of evidence that would fail to withstand closer scrutiny. We certainly hear about and receive examples of flawed evidence on a very regular basis.
It is for that reason we'd always encourage innocent people - like Nabz's wife - to stand up to TV Licensing and force it to prove its case. Quite often, it won't be able to.
As this case further demonstrates, TV Licensing will often run a mile at the prospect of having its evidence tested in court. TV Licensing realises it would very damaging if the evidence of a goon was publicly discredited in the witness box. It wants to avoid that eventuality at all costs, as it could easily shatter the illusion of a fair and efficient enforcement regime.
Readers of this article might also find the following of interest:
- TV Licensing Summons: What To Do?
- TV Licence Court Cases: Defence and Mitigation
- Advice for Those Caught Without a TV Licence
- TV Licensing: Playing the Court System
Don't be one of the thousands of innocents that simply roll over and accept their fate, in the mistaken belief that TV Licensing must have "concrete" evidence against them. TV Licensing prospers when good people stand back and do nothing.
If you've found this article useful please consider using our Amazon link for your Christmas shopping or downloading our free ebook.