Post by Teddy Bear on Aug 22, 2013 21:44:29 GMT
Michael Leapman writes in the Telegraph of his experience with trying to stop the threatening letters from TVL despite having a valid licence.
Watch out, the BBC is coming after you
Nearly 200,000 people were prosecuted last year for not having a TV licence. But many may have been victims of an out-of-control computer system
That’ll be £145.50: The TV licence fee was introduced on June 1, 1946. In its role as the licensing authority, the BBC has a duty to issue the licences and collect the fee. Even though its monopoly on TV was broken in 1955, when ITV was launched, the BBC is still controversially entitled to all the revenue.
By Michael Leapman
No doubt the top brass at the BBC’s TV Licensing Authority are congratulating themselves on having successfully prosecuted 155,000 people last year for not buying a licence, as disclosed in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph. The figure – 15,000 up on the previous year – might even earn them performance bonuses all round.
But there is an important element missing from the statistics. How many householders have been mistakenly and repeatedly harassed for allegedly not having a licence, despite being wholly innocent of the offence?
My wife Olga and I are among these victims, having been subjected to a seven-month campaign of escalating intimidation, which might still not be at an end. And I do not believe that we are the only ones.
The first of the small brown envelopes from the authority dropped on to our mat in February. The tone was innocuous enough, even though based on a false premise. Certainly it gave no hint of the vicious threats that were to follow.
The letter began with a stark falsehood. “This address doesn’t have a TV Licence any more.” The truth is that we have had a free licence since 2007, when Olga turned 75. Our licence, issued in 2011, expires in August 2014.
A simple administrative error, we thought; easy enough to correct. I rang the number on the letter. The woman who answered was polite and sympathetic and, after some delay (“the computers are running slow this morning”), she confirmed that our licence was in order and that we should ignore the letter. “If you get any more, bin them,” she advised.
We did not take her advice because the next letter, arriving a month later, warned specifically against any such cavalier action. “Ignoring this letter could cost you a lot more than the licence fee,” it announced. “Since you didn’t respond to our last letter [we did], an investigation into your property has now begun... A court appearance could cost you over £1,000.”
So I made another call and received another reassurance. “You shouldn’t get any more letters,” I was told. Of course we shouldn’t – but of course we did. The next one informed us that our details had been passed to the Croydon Enforcement Division, whose officers had been authorised to pay us a visit.
We decided that, since our phone calls were apparently falling on deaf ears, we would vary our response by filling in the form at the bottom of the letter and sending it to the authority, explaining their mistake. To no avail. Another letter arrived in June, further ratcheting up the threat and repeating the lie that “you have not responded to our previous letters”. Back to the telephone. This time the man who answered my protesting call promised to send me a letter confirming that our licence was in order and on record.
He was as good as his word – but still the dunning letters kept arriving. In July we were advised about “what to expect in court”.
That provoked Olga into writing to the authority’s customer relations office in Darlington, enclosing a copy of the latest letter, characterising it as a declaration of the authority’s intention of “briefing lawyers and preparing a punitive raid on my residence”.
This elicited an almost instant response – although, somewhat mysteriously, it came from Bristol rather than Darlington. It contained a partial apology and a partial explanation: “I’m sorry you’re unhappy... The letter you received was already prepared for posting before our system was updated.”
Updating is clearly a lengthy process, for a fortnight later the next brown envelope duly arrived. “As you have not responded to our letters yet... an Officer may visit your property any day of the week, morning or evening.”
So Olga wrote again, this time asking for a personal letter of apology from the Croydon enforcement manager, the man who had put his signature to most of the escalating threats. Until she received such an apology, she wrote, “I shall tremble at every ring on my doorbell”. (Being married to a journalist for 47 years, she has acquired a taste for hyperbole.)
The response from Bristol, from yet another customer relations executive, arrived last Saturday, confirming what we already knew, that “you shouldn’t be receiving these letters in the first place”. They were, she insisted, “inquiry letters”. But can “What to expect in court” really be categorised as an inquiry?
The fiasco had been traced, she wrote, to “a system error that we’ve only recently been made aware of”. She went into some detail: “An old system, that we no longer use, has been duplicating a small selection of addresses and sending inquiry letters.
Unfortunately, this is even to addresses that have valid licences. The only way in which we can cease these letters from being sent is if we’re informed by the licence holder that they’re receiving these letters.”
We had, of course, informed the authority of that very circumstance a good six months earlier. What she was implying, though, was scary. It seems that the “system” had been spewing out these letters spontaneously, without human intervention – a phenomenon that might explain other controversial aspects of the BBC. Perhaps those gargantuan payoffs that it doles out to failed executives can’t be stemmed because the system is self-sustaining and no mere mortal can control its whims.
So will our persecution end? Not necessarily, for there was a bombshell at the end of last week’s letter: “I should advise that there’s a small chance that another inquiry letter has been prepared for posting while the details are being updated.” Like a bolting racehorse, once a system has galloped out of control it is no simple matter to rein it in. So we are half expecting yet another brown envelope – although it is hard to imagine what further dire sanctions the folk at Bristol, Darlington and Croydon can think up to threaten us with.
To launch a campaign of intimidation against two innocent elderly people, and to sustain it long after their innocence (and age) has been confirmed repeatedly, is bad enough. But the last letter revealed that ours is not the only household subjected to such casual abuse. Just how big is that “small selection of addresses” targeted by these threats, and how much licence-payers’ money has been squandered in sending out unjustified letters?
The figures reported yesterday show that, as well as 155,000 successful prosecutions, another 25,000 have been unsuccessful. Were these innocent souls the victims of the same runaway “systems” as we have been?
Or is the real figure even higher? It might or might not be relevant that the reference number the authority has given to our complaint is 567196.
Where and when you need a TV licence
The TV licence fee was introduced on June 1, 1946. In its role as the licensing authority, the BBC has a duty to issue the licences and collect the fee. Even though its monopoly on TV was broken in 1955, when ITV was launched, the BBC is still controversially entitled to all the revenue.
Watching TV without a valid licence – currently £145.50 for a colour and £49 for a black and white licence – is a criminal offence, and can result in prosecution, court appearances and a fine of up to £1,000 (not including legal costs).
All households containing equipment used to watch or record programmes as shown on TV require a valid licence. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and DVD/VHS recorders.
When you reach 75, you may apply for a free over-75 licence.
Viewers are not exempt if they watch only programmes received by satellite or never watch BBC channels.
If your TV is used only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch “catch-up” services, you can apply to let the authority know that you do not require a licence.
Static caravan, mobile homes or movable chalets require licences if television is being watched at the same time as your main residence, but not if television is never watched simultaneously from the two locations.
A single TV licence covers multiple-occupancy rooms, such as communal areas in halls of residence or military bases.
Nearly 200,000 people were prosecuted last year for not having a TV licence. But many may have been victims of an out-of-control computer system
That’ll be £145.50: The TV licence fee was introduced on June 1, 1946. In its role as the licensing authority, the BBC has a duty to issue the licences and collect the fee. Even though its monopoly on TV was broken in 1955, when ITV was launched, the BBC is still controversially entitled to all the revenue.
By Michael Leapman
No doubt the top brass at the BBC’s TV Licensing Authority are congratulating themselves on having successfully prosecuted 155,000 people last year for not buying a licence, as disclosed in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph. The figure – 15,000 up on the previous year – might even earn them performance bonuses all round.
But there is an important element missing from the statistics. How many householders have been mistakenly and repeatedly harassed for allegedly not having a licence, despite being wholly innocent of the offence?
My wife Olga and I are among these victims, having been subjected to a seven-month campaign of escalating intimidation, which might still not be at an end. And I do not believe that we are the only ones.
The first of the small brown envelopes from the authority dropped on to our mat in February. The tone was innocuous enough, even though based on a false premise. Certainly it gave no hint of the vicious threats that were to follow.
The letter began with a stark falsehood. “This address doesn’t have a TV Licence any more.” The truth is that we have had a free licence since 2007, when Olga turned 75. Our licence, issued in 2011, expires in August 2014.
A simple administrative error, we thought; easy enough to correct. I rang the number on the letter. The woman who answered was polite and sympathetic and, after some delay (“the computers are running slow this morning”), she confirmed that our licence was in order and that we should ignore the letter. “If you get any more, bin them,” she advised.
We did not take her advice because the next letter, arriving a month later, warned specifically against any such cavalier action. “Ignoring this letter could cost you a lot more than the licence fee,” it announced. “Since you didn’t respond to our last letter [we did], an investigation into your property has now begun... A court appearance could cost you over £1,000.”
So I made another call and received another reassurance. “You shouldn’t get any more letters,” I was told. Of course we shouldn’t – but of course we did. The next one informed us that our details had been passed to the Croydon Enforcement Division, whose officers had been authorised to pay us a visit.
We decided that, since our phone calls were apparently falling on deaf ears, we would vary our response by filling in the form at the bottom of the letter and sending it to the authority, explaining their mistake. To no avail. Another letter arrived in June, further ratcheting up the threat and repeating the lie that “you have not responded to our previous letters”. Back to the telephone. This time the man who answered my protesting call promised to send me a letter confirming that our licence was in order and on record.
He was as good as his word – but still the dunning letters kept arriving. In July we were advised about “what to expect in court”.
That provoked Olga into writing to the authority’s customer relations office in Darlington, enclosing a copy of the latest letter, characterising it as a declaration of the authority’s intention of “briefing lawyers and preparing a punitive raid on my residence”.
This elicited an almost instant response – although, somewhat mysteriously, it came from Bristol rather than Darlington. It contained a partial apology and a partial explanation: “I’m sorry you’re unhappy... The letter you received was already prepared for posting before our system was updated.”
Updating is clearly a lengthy process, for a fortnight later the next brown envelope duly arrived. “As you have not responded to our letters yet... an Officer may visit your property any day of the week, morning or evening.”
So Olga wrote again, this time asking for a personal letter of apology from the Croydon enforcement manager, the man who had put his signature to most of the escalating threats. Until she received such an apology, she wrote, “I shall tremble at every ring on my doorbell”. (Being married to a journalist for 47 years, she has acquired a taste for hyperbole.)
The response from Bristol, from yet another customer relations executive, arrived last Saturday, confirming what we already knew, that “you shouldn’t be receiving these letters in the first place”. They were, she insisted, “inquiry letters”. But can “What to expect in court” really be categorised as an inquiry?
The fiasco had been traced, she wrote, to “a system error that we’ve only recently been made aware of”. She went into some detail: “An old system, that we no longer use, has been duplicating a small selection of addresses and sending inquiry letters.
Unfortunately, this is even to addresses that have valid licences. The only way in which we can cease these letters from being sent is if we’re informed by the licence holder that they’re receiving these letters.”
We had, of course, informed the authority of that very circumstance a good six months earlier. What she was implying, though, was scary. It seems that the “system” had been spewing out these letters spontaneously, without human intervention – a phenomenon that might explain other controversial aspects of the BBC. Perhaps those gargantuan payoffs that it doles out to failed executives can’t be stemmed because the system is self-sustaining and no mere mortal can control its whims.
So will our persecution end? Not necessarily, for there was a bombshell at the end of last week’s letter: “I should advise that there’s a small chance that another inquiry letter has been prepared for posting while the details are being updated.” Like a bolting racehorse, once a system has galloped out of control it is no simple matter to rein it in. So we are half expecting yet another brown envelope – although it is hard to imagine what further dire sanctions the folk at Bristol, Darlington and Croydon can think up to threaten us with.
To launch a campaign of intimidation against two innocent elderly people, and to sustain it long after their innocence (and age) has been confirmed repeatedly, is bad enough. But the last letter revealed that ours is not the only household subjected to such casual abuse. Just how big is that “small selection of addresses” targeted by these threats, and how much licence-payers’ money has been squandered in sending out unjustified letters?
The figures reported yesterday show that, as well as 155,000 successful prosecutions, another 25,000 have been unsuccessful. Were these innocent souls the victims of the same runaway “systems” as we have been?
Or is the real figure even higher? It might or might not be relevant that the reference number the authority has given to our complaint is 567196.
Where and when you need a TV licence
The TV licence fee was introduced on June 1, 1946. In its role as the licensing authority, the BBC has a duty to issue the licences and collect the fee. Even though its monopoly on TV was broken in 1955, when ITV was launched, the BBC is still controversially entitled to all the revenue.
Watching TV without a valid licence – currently £145.50 for a colour and £49 for a black and white licence – is a criminal offence, and can result in prosecution, court appearances and a fine of up to £1,000 (not including legal costs).
All households containing equipment used to watch or record programmes as shown on TV require a valid licence. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and DVD/VHS recorders.
When you reach 75, you may apply for a free over-75 licence.
Viewers are not exempt if they watch only programmes received by satellite or never watch BBC channels.
If your TV is used only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch “catch-up” services, you can apply to let the authority know that you do not require a licence.
Static caravan, mobile homes or movable chalets require licences if television is being watched at the same time as your main residence, but not if television is never watched simultaneously from the two locations.
A single TV licence covers multiple-occupancy rooms, such as communal areas in halls of residence or military bases.