This is the best and most articalute explanation of the enforcement aspect of TV licensing I've seen. I stopped watching television 8 years ago when I sold my set and I don't watch TV programs of any kind, live or catchup, as I really don't enjoy mainstream entertainment. But I do get the threatening letters and it really worries me, although I've never had TV licensing attend my premises. I'm a very honest person so this has been fantastic in allaying my fears, so thank you very much for this series.
@@mozzjones6943 No he cannot operate anywhere in Scotland unless he is qualified in Scots Law and has been accepted by the Law Society of Scotland. I know because a family member works for Los and confirmed that.
@@mozzjones6943 read your own post. You state it doesn't matter where in the UK he operates. My reply was that he can't. By the way how have you helped me?
@@gavinpotts6747 One would think that Scotland would do away with the need of a BBC licence .Just goes to show that Scotland is just as bad as England / Wales when it comes to money grabbing
I ceased buying a TV licence in 2006 and don't miss live TV at all. A massive saving of over £2,000 so far. Another reason for stopping is my protest at ridiculous salaries to presenters, and more recently, the use of offensive language on entertainment programs broadcast at 1830, weekdays on Radio 4. Occasional hotel stays and looking through a TV magazine, allowed me to confirm my view! I only view items on UA-cam, or similar free to view internet based content, and I buy DVD videos 10 for £1 from charity shops or occasional sets from online suppliers (DVDs don't get erased). I watch my choice of interesting channels such as this. Thanks for another great video.
I recently stumbled across your channel.A true gem of a find. Absolutely amazing! Such detailed and concise, videos, from a legal expert.(no more ambiguity of trawling through dubious content) Thank you so much, for putting this content out there.🙂💯👍
Thank you for your valued upload. Liked. These days I don't use the BBC at all on any device and you can 'opt out' from a TV license on the appropriate web site and give reasons if you so wish. This was duly done. However, they still threaten to fine me but that issue rests with them. I will not be forced to pay for something that I don't use anymore.
If you don't require a licence, you ignore all the Threatograms and don't say anything to any Goons who might come knocking, how can they possibly have any 'evidence' to get a search warrant? This is why ignoring the Threatograms and saying absolutely nothing to any Goon (apart from perhaps "No thanks") is vital.
@@Nickcooper625 Please elaborate. What do you mean by 'TV Licence agitator'? If somebody is legally licence-free, are you saying that my original post is wrong?
@@hughmungo-sarce7557 He's probably one of those people who are unable to conceptualise how a human being could possibly do without broadcast TV and thinks anyone who doesn't have a licence is a criminal.
I wrote to my MP about 3 years ago accusing them of harrasing me and my MP wrote to the BBC and they backed off, but they have been harrasing me again so I am ignoring them now as the likelihood of them gaining entry is minimal. They do not play by the rules.
I always remember when my (now Wife) and I rented our first flat, the TV licensing people turned up on the doorstep within days. They were very perturbed when my other half presented them with a TV license bought at the Post Office that same day. What or who tipped them off to check though? The next day, I had a Police Officer at the door, wanting to check a Gun License. I have never owned a gun. Very bizarre.
Thanks for all that you do. I have never seen a "Warrant", could you please explain or show what they look like and what is needed for them to be lawful? I wouldn't know a warrant if it slapped me in the face.
Due to the BBC and other TV channels constantly churning out repeats and crap I stopped watching TV I needed a licence for. So, on January 10th 2021 I made a 2-year declaration that I no longer needed a TV licence. I then cancelled my direct debit and considered the issue closed. Despite making the declaration I have received 7 letters from Capita so far.
Im sick of this tv licence. I dont watch bbc I dont watch it live. I dont want it.....yet I feel pressured to get one !!!! They need to be more clear about who needs one
I don’t understand the hostility around TV licensing, I have not required a TV license for over 10 years, informed the required department, had one visit where I was friendly and open, didn’t even want to enter the premium to check, and then every two years I just reconfirm that I don’t require a licence, done no hassle no visits. Being obstructionist just implies that you have something to hide.
What is a legal enforceable warrant? There are loads of videos where they arrive with with court paperwork saying that it is a warrant where the house holder Denys them entry because the so called warrant was signed by a court official and not a magistrate for judge. It would be nice to get clarification of this.
@@GH-lo8vl However, these days that warrant can be electronic, i.e. a document on a phone. Difficult to verify if it's real, especially if the police are also present and believe it to be real.
@@Thurgosh_OG - If the police have to ask you to come in, they're asking because they know the warrant isn't enforceable without your consent - ua-cam.com/video/g-Fn4BiHekk/v-deo.html
Two questions: Where do the embassies/consulates get their information from? I.e. will you be refused a US visa for your holiday in Florida if you've been convicted of watching live TV without a licence? The video mentions the testing of equipment. If I have stopped watching TV and put my TV set in a cupboard, it would presumably show live TV if it was switched on; that doesn't prove that I watch live TV. Similarly if I use the TV as a monitor for my computer, it is still capable of showing live TV, expecially if an aerial is attached. Testing the equipment to show that it is capable of showing live TV does not prove that the owner has broken the law.
The tv licensing are a private company so why would the police help them force entry into a property, the police should only be there to keep the peace and nothing else.
That is a very good point. My experience of the police is only as a victim of crime. To be precise my partner and I were illegally evicted from our rented property. We were not at fault, we're not in arrears of rent or council tax nor had we damaged the property. In fact we had paid for a gas safety inspection which the landlord is legally required to have carried out yearly. There had been no Section 21 notice to quit issued and the landlord and his cronies illegally broke into our home and locked us out. We called the police but on arrival they actively supported the landlord and his clearly intoxicated associates in evicting us. They were clearly being instructed by a sergeant who held the belief that tenants had absolutely no rights in law. I was assaulted by one of the landlord's associates while calling the police and insulted by one of the PCs that attended. To cut a long story short Staffordshire Police Service apologised in writing after I lodged an official complaint but it was hollow and showed the police care little for the law. Unfortunately, at the time I didn't have the money to launch a legal case against the police or the landlord but learned a few things. 1. The police care nothing for the law. 2. The police view the people they allegedly serve through a highly discriminatory class and status based lens. I now own a beautiful Grade 2 listed picturesque property in a well to do area and the police are suddenly deferential and subservient minions as they clearly perceive me as wealthy and well to do. The law means nothing in the UK unless you have the time and means to drive and implied a case. I am now a relatively 'law abiding' person who has no respect, trust or confidence in the law, the police or the judiciary. This is how a private company coops the police as, effectively, enforcers when neither has any business with you.
@@leeenglandland2978 That's good to hear but I don't trust them anyway. The standard PC drone has no understanding of the law and, under the control of it's superiors is a menace to anyone who comes into contact with them. Please don't misunderstand me, I'm someone who would very much like to trust and have faith in the police. I'm not someone who dislikes them because they impede my criminal activities. I have never had more than a speeding ticket in my distant youth. The two occasions on which I desperately needed their help they treated me as a criminal and try took away and lost my property. I am hugely out of pocket and they have created yet another person who does not trust nor support them.
It's a bit more complicated than that. TV Licensing is acting on behalf of the BBC, which is the statutory Licensing Authority. Under the legislation (section 366 of the Communications Act 2003) the warrant is granted to "one or more people authorised by the BBC", which is where TV Licensing comes into it. There is a BBC authority list that gives the name of every TV Licensing employee authorised to apply for/execute a warrant granted under this legislation. The legislation allows for them to be accompanied by a police constable. It also allows them, technically speaking, to force entry to the premises if necessary - HOWEVER, it is TV Licensing's own policy never to force entry. If there is no response when an attempt is made to execute the warrant, they will simply leave and (might) try again some other time. The warrant is only valid for one month.
Its simple: No contact, no contract. Don't speak to them, don't sign anything ask them to leave then close the door. Also most convictions are because the person was pressured or coerced into signing a document saying that they don't have a licence and watch TV. Thats then used to convict them as a signed confession.
I think I have experienced "Culture Shock." Having been brought up in a country where signals broadcast over the airways are free, I find the TV License appalling. Scrambling the signal being broadcast and selling the decode that changes on a monthly basis would be much more cost effective.
welcome to socialism and state run propaganda oh i mean TV, also i think UA-cam needs to kick off government run organisations like the BBC that rely on demanding money in this sort of manner.
@@Quebecoisegal ignore? Because they're telling the truth? The sooner the vile organisation is gone the better. I see no reason why poor old Doris has to go without heating to contribute paying someone a million pounds to play records on the radio. Left wing biased propaganda that holds a monopoly and doesn't have to compete for funding (socialism).
The cost of a TV would go up if unscrambling software for free to air TV had to be built in. That and the subscription cost could make it dearer than a TV licence
Could you go into a bit more detail on the warrants? What are they allowed to search and what counts as obstructing? Do we have to share computer passwords? Do we have to log in for them?
@@BlackBeltBarrister Hi Blackbelt Barrister - Responding to the above - I don't believe not aiding TV Licensing during an enforced warrant of entry is an obstructable offence - Are not computers covered by GDPR? No one is lawfully required to assist BBC perpetrators to build a case against themselves - Is not the onus upon the BBC perpetrators to prove their case without the assistance of the tenant/householder? Should the warrant have the name of the tenant/householder upon it? Or is it against the property only? - Thank You
If they get a warrant, use force entry, but I genuinely don't need TV licence, should they pay for damages they caused with the force entry and possible missed salary if need to be home until the door is repaired? Also, what evidence they can give to the court to get the warrant if they don't have evidence that someone is watching TV without a licence? This force entering someone's home without an actual evidence sounds dodgy.
@@juditvoros8933 Have heard of cases wherein BBC goons have lied to magistrates without providing evidence and the magistrate/s rubber stamp the warrant so to speak which in itself has to be unlawful....
I told the TV licence people I didn't need a license and hadn't watched TV for over two years due to being busy making gaming videos on UA-cam. The guy said it didn't sound like i needed a license and cancelled it. Within 6 weeks of my license running out one of their goons visited and put a note through the door saying he had visited to enquire why I felt I didn't need a license.
My stepdads parents once had the TV licensing people come round saying they didn't have a TV Licence. In fact they did, the confusion had arisen because the house had a name and a number, and the licence was in the house number not the name.
The Rehabilitation Act was 1974 not 1975, the exceptions are 1975. A minor point of law from a former barrack room lawyer ;-) Great series please keep up the work of explaining the law in simple terms.
I had letters for a year to "The Occupier" until I declared and then I did the online declaration. Two weeks later I had a capita agent at my door armed with my name wanting in to prove it.
Just ignore the letters. They do nothing. I've not paid in years. I don't watch iPlayer. My TV isn't connected to the aerial (that came with the house, and I ain't taking it down coz the next person who lives here might want it). I don't even watch the BBC YT channels.
They need your legal fiction name for contract, if they send to THE OCCUPIER, then there's no contract and nothing they can do, as in all contract law, there must be acceptance by both parties, all LEGAL STATUTES are governed by contracts.
A great channel, pal. Takes me right back to my law lectures 1991-1993 with Liz Williams QC. I wish that you were around then. Maybe I would have pursued a career in financial law. Who knows?
I had a TV Licencing letter a few days ago. There is one part of this letter that I have not noticed in any previous letter, and I am curious about it. "As we still have no record of a TV licence at this address, by law we have no option but to continue with our investigation." It is the "by law" bit that I question. What they seem to be saying is that, because I could (or could not) be braking the law They have no legal option but to investigate me... Not even the Police investigate someone just because that person might/could brake a law of one sort or another.
@Robert Stallard Pls can you point to the relevant wording? AFAICT the Licence Fee bit of the Charter is very general, and doesn't really cover enforcement.
@Robert Stallard Yes - that's the bit I was thinking of. I just wonder about how lawful it can be to mount a whole law enforcement activity (that is the most prolific prosecutor of women) without enabling legislation. Seems like a big issue. BBC Trust no longer with us, so I guess even that responsibility is a bit shaky?
Regarding obstruction, the following should be noted:- (7) Where a person has the power by virtue of a warrant under this section to examine or test any television receiver found on any premises, or in any vehicle, it shall be the duty- (a) of a person who is on the premises or in the vehicle, and (b) in the case of a vehicle, of a person who has charge of it or is present when it is searched, to give the person carrying out the examination or test all such assistance as that person may reasonably require for carrying it out. The requirement to assist only applies to the *examination and testing* , not the search. It is not up to you, to show them where the equipment is, and if they happen to miss some equipment, that's their hard luck.
TVL Warrants are extremely rare, and seem mainly to be used on people who have essentially claimed that they do not have to abide by the Licence law. TVL aren't supposed to gain evidence by looking through windows.
That is quite a specific question, so allow me to interject - they will usually only apply for a warrant in one of the following circumstances: 1. That an admission has been made by the occupier that unlicensed TV reception is taking place at the property; 2. That a TV Licensing agent has seen or heard unlicensed TV reception taking place at the property; 3. That unlicensed TV reception has been "detected" at the property (although the use of detection is very rare). Furthermore, they need to be able to satisfy the court that access will not be granted without a warrant (e.g. they have tried to gain voluntary access, but have been refused). It should be noted that the following alone are not sufficient grounds for a warrant, but they might support an application along with other evidence: 4. The presence of an external TV aerial or satellite dish; 5. Refusal to co-operate with TV Licensing; 6. The sight of TV listings magazines etc. at the unlicensed property. There is a lot more information about this on our blog and in our free ebook: tv-licensing.blogspot.com/p/free-book.html
TV licensing should compensate householders if a search warrant is granted and executed when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. If the householder has declared they do not require to be licenced and a warrant is sought in order to confirm this is fact the amount awarded should be higher. I live in a small rural community in the western highlands where everyone knows everyone's business so a warrant being carried out would cause issues and embarrassment. They have been in my property twice and was then exempt for the fee if they don't believe me this time that's there problem. Waiting on an enforcement officer due soon.
I understand that many 'live' programs are broadcast with a several seconds delay. This is to enable any infringements such as naughty words can caught and bleeped out. Therefore, are we technically watching a recording?
Love the videos and am really grateful for you taking the time to help people out like this. It is such a shame that while growing up and going through the school system, that these law clarifications and revelations are not taught to the children as part of a "Life Skills" lesson plan. Here is a quick question for you...... If a married couple do not buy a TV licence when they should, which one is prosecuted or are they both prosecuted for the offence / crime? Just curious really??? Keep up the great work and stay safe, Joe
@ Joe's Model Kits: Excellent point, Joe. As the late Peter Burns from Dead Or Alive said 'Kids need to learn how to handle life not what to do with the decimal point'.
Back in the 90s I was paying an amount of money to pay off my TV License, I couldn't afford the payments and asked for them to be reduced(£70.00 was left to pay). They refused to lower my payments and took me to court. I explained to the Judge my financial circumstances and that I'd given up smoking purely for financial reasons, he was impressed by this and lowered my debt to £40.00 also allowing me to pay off the debt at the reduced rate that I'd asked for. I'll never forget the Judge because he was fair and could see that it wasn't that I refused to pay but that I wasn't able to afford the high payments they wanted at that time.
The official website is laid out and worded in a confusing manner that could quite possibly be done to mislead people into thinking they might need one when they don't.
In Australia we don’t have TV licences but for minor offences police can seize all of your computers and cameras as evidence and take them away which would be a major inconvenience. You will get them back but I bet that would take months and they won’t be gentle with them.
If you go to prison for not paying the fine, guess what they give to you as a part of the punishment - why! it is free television. You could not make it up. They condone your original offence!
I enjoy watching you, and I take in as much as I can to not only learn but to understand. Back in 1998 I had a tv which didn’t work, therefore I did not need a license, some time and letters received I told the tv licensing that I did have a tv but not working, and at that time I could not afford the repair let alone a new tv. Anyway they came with a warrant and a police officer two tv licensing men. They turned my tv on and got no picture not even a grainy one. Anyway I was taken to court, three times I pleaded not guilty and it was Adjourned because neither of the tv officials attended the court even though they submitted an affidavit saying the tv was fully working, the police officer didn’t turn up either, on the forth court appearance still no one came and I was found guilty and find £150 needless to say I didn’t pay, yes you’ve guessed it back to court again none payment of fine, to this day I still have the letter from the court dated 23rd June 1998 and signed by Ms Whyte, (my appeal was allowed). I also have two letters from Russell Jones and Walker, dated 9th July 1998 saying the enquiry officer in respect of this matter is on long term sick leave, and they’re not going to oppose the appeal, in my experience they can be very Uneconomic with the truth. And how many times have they did this and got away with it. MY FINE WAS Squashed done away with abandoned. And I can supply you copy’s if you wish. Please keep doing what your doing it helps more than you know.
I've gone through life without worrying about these goons. I don't pay for a tv license nor do I need one, because I don't watch live TV or record it. Mostly catch up on free to view. Yet to have a visit from an inspector but if I do I won't be speaking to one as these are just sales agents. No thank-you goodbye. It used to be compulsory if you have a TV you need a licence but it's not the case today
I never realise how bad our justice system is in this country. I believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. More and more times you have to prove your innocence in this country.😢😠😡still loving the videos👍😁😊
Thanks for an interesting video. What I don’t understand is if they are in your property what are they actually looking for? Owning a tv is lawful, presumably having the aerial plugged in is lawful. So what evidence are they looking for?
@@sudokuanimation1316 Hi. I get the recent recordings is a giveaway but even if your tv is configured to receive live broadcasts surely doesn’t prove you do actually watch it.
I would presume that they are mainly hoping that you crumble and say something incriminating. Even having a TV plugged into an aerial socket is not proof that you have been watching live TV.
They're looking to stitch you up. If one comes knocking on your door. Close the door in their face. Investigation closed. Nothing good comes from interacting with TV License goons.
Imagine if your local window cleaner decided you needed to pay him £200 a year for clean windows, whether he cleans your windows or not. Would it be acceptable if he then threatened to fine you £1000 if you didn't pay the £200 but had clean windows, using threats of kidnap to coerce payment?
The DVLA don't send someone around to my house to see if my car is in the driveway if I declare it SORN - and there's far more money at stake there - as far as TV licensing are concerned - if they send someone to my property - they'll first be politely asked to leave - and if that fails - then I'll use reasonable force to eject them. End of!.
From what i understand, if YOU dont talk to them or let them in, they couldnt get a warrant and when they visit , you just SHUT the door, Investigation over and no possible warrant or charges can occur. NOW- what if they look through your window and see you watching LIVE tv without licence. Can you claim in court TRESPASS and have charges withdrawn? or can they gather the warrant that way and come back and force way in?
Another great video, thank you. Please can you do a video on the recent changes to the offensive weapon laws around possession of items inside your home?
@@experiment54 it is now illegal to own certain items such as throwing stars and zombie knives, even in your own home. Be good to drill down a bit more into the particulars such as exactly which items and the penalties
@@Ashs-mini-vlogs Of course it has! If you don't pay the fee without cancelling first, they will send the "salesmen" round. If you keep ignoring them and you are unlucky you may get a visit from them again with the police with a warrant. If you ignore that lot you may be taken to court for non payment of the fee. Ignore that and get a judgement against you. Ignore that...then the bailiffs call. Only so much ignoring you can do, y'know.
@@xdc1776 the 11th edition of Black’s Law Dictionary has finally been published-with the decades-old error officially corrected. Quoting Jurisprudence, Black’s Law Dictionary correctly reads: “So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights or duties.”
There is an exact copy of the warrant in our article here: tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2014/11/tv-licensing-search-warrants-prevention.html Believe it or not, these warrants are normally typed by Capita TV Licensing (or the police, RSPCA or whoever) and sent to the court for consideration and authorisation. There is no standard prescribed format for the appearance of a warrant, so different variations are possible.
@@simonyoungglostog At the current time it might not even have a signature, but it will have been authorised by the named magistrate. The majority of warrants - and that's police warrants too - are being dealt with remotely due to coronavirus.
I note that warrants issued to TVL are specifically to search for , examine & test TV equipment. This means they are NOT ALLOWED TO conduct an INTERVIEW while on the premises ? I also note that such warrants are issued under the Communications act 2003 & are nothing to do with warrants issued to the police, so are not covered by PACE. ie the TVL agent doesn't have any police powers, inc. interviewing under caution.
No. They are allowed to interview whilst on the premises, although they tend to imply that the interview is more "pressing" because of the warrant, which is not true. PACE still applies, and you can therefore decline interview, ask for legal advice and/or go "no comment" as you see fit. The only issue is that TVL could still prosecute on the basis of the findings of the warrant by using a witness statement.
@@sudokuanimation1316 I have read both PACE & the Communications act. With regard to PACE it specifically refers to warrants issued TO the POLICE. TVL gets their warrants under the Communications act AND this warrant isn't issued to the police it's issued to TVL (agents), the police are allowed to be present under the conditions of the (TVL) warrant but their presence confers no police powers on them (unlike PACE/police warrants) My understanding is only the reasons for issue stated on the warrant can be carried out, in this case - search for , examine and test TV receivers.
@@9crutnacker985 Are we still talking about interview under caution? That is permitted, and it is governed in England & Wales by PACE. The warrant is authorised under S366 of the Comms Act. Here's a TVL Warrant video that shows the process in full, maybe with a few questions raised:- ua-cam.com/video/E05aChJs5cg/v-deo.html
@@sudokuanimation1316 I was specifically talking about the warrant. There is nothing in the Comms act about TVL having rights to interview under caution. All PACE has to say about interview under caution is in relation to police officers. As far as I have been able to find out TVL agents have no more 'right' to do this than you or I (assuming you're not a police officer). #blackbeltbarrister
@@9crutnacker985 S.67(9) of PACE says this: "Persons other than police officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders shall in the discharge of that duty have regard to any relevant provision of a code". The caution and the interview do not require any particular authority, nor do they convey any authority. The requirements are for rules of formality and fairness that (in theory) are supposed to lead to fair treatment of suspects, but also protect prosecutors from allegations of unfairness at trial. AFAIK, a person being interviewed by TVL can simply decline - and that applies with or without a warrant.
I'm a little crazy tbh, if someone attempted to enter my home in what I feel to be an agressive manner I may hurt someone, mental health is never taken into account though so I'd get in trouble even though the actions of these people carrying out their job all be it a slimy one would trigger my PTSD at which point I'd not be in control of myself, I would say they wouldn't deserve what they had inadvertently caused and I'd regret hurting anyone, but at least you can opt out online to avoid this or be polite and deal with it asap I suppose.
I have three old TVs which I intend to use the screens and part of the circuitry in other pieces of equipment. These TVs have not been switched on for a long time, and because of that and the age of the components, especially the Electrolytic Capacitors, Powering-up these TVs could damage them. If a Licence Inspector insists on powering-up these TVs, and it damages them, who is responsible for the repair/replacement?
If you have no aerial connected to the tv and it is not plugged into the mains they can’t plug it in and switch it on. Owning a tv eu being in possession of a tv is not a crime.
It is a worry. Ive been paying my licence fee for months when i dont watch tv. I stopped using BBC and anything that warrants a licence ages ago. I have had a letter but it has the wrong address on it. This was posted through the door about four days after i logged on line that i didnt need one. Its worrying.
@ BlackBeltBarrister A topic idea for your next video. Why is compulsory to "Register to vote"? My borough was harassing me with letters / door to door, saying that is an offence to not register. Voting should be a right, I don't want the government to force me to "register" to vote.
I think the most confusing thing about the TV license, for me, is how 'TV' (i.e. the content, not the device) is defined. At what point does someone creating content qualify as 'TV'? Is it when they do it with a certain frequency, when they employ e.g. editors, when they register themselves as in the business of livestreaming?
W/ all of the innovations for video content (eg streaming), they should do away with the "TV licence" business model. Apart from being unfair (you pay the same whether you make 1K/month or 100K/month), it's just unworkable. There are lots of other solutions for funding the BBC.
If you do not watch TV there is trick (that will cost you). Send your TV set to the service or a technician and tell them to remove the RF demodulator.
My tv has never been connected to anything other than a playstation and when the tv licence bloke came round I let him turn it on to check, and Eastenders appeared on screen. It's never occurred before or since, but I was taken to court and had to pay. Most odd.
Your legal system is actually screwier than ours. I have no idea how this whole thing survives the public consent test. Illegal or not, any number of people i know from a wide range of political backgrounds would react with rage, and likely violence depending on whose home, at the idea of a private home search on behalf of a tv network.
I'm gonna buy one, I'm gonna buy one, OK? By rights, I would not be requiring one this year on if the old rules still existed, being 75 now. Why don't you launch a campaign, like you did with the NHS records thing, for the over 75s! If it was successful you'd be the hero of all the elderly folks.
Many here are referring to BBC TV Licensing* "Inspectors", as if they have some special legal status. They have no more legal authority than a double-glazing salesman. They are motivated by their commission (about £20 a go) for selling a licence. *TV Licensing is an operating arm of the BBC, which retains all responsibility for its agents, mostly Capita Services plc. It is not a separate official body as is widely believed.
Not had a licence since 1987 as I do not have a television. If they get a search warrant and find no tv I would question how they got the warrant. Did they lie? Do I have a case for harassment getting letters every month since 1987?
When a warrant is issued by a “court” what does that mean? As I understand it a “court” doesn’t have to held in a courthouse with magistrate sitting who can issue a search warrant, but apparently this is not the case and warrants are sent out from Bulk Mailing Centre in Nottingham where warrants are printed without an embossed court seal or a “wet” signature. Surely this unilateral charge in the law to suit TVL and the debt companies enforcement agents, who buy the debts for coppers cannot be right, because they are a third party with whom the tenants do not have a contract. The “assistance” given by the police to agents when they should only be there to keep the peace and not assist agents to collect money or gain entry.
In Law would there be any redress for anyone who has had a Search Warrant issued against them ( I believe some evidence is required by Magistrates to issue any Warrant?) but no evidence of needing a TV Licence is found (Legally owning TV but using it within the Law - Not requiring a TVLicence)? - This would make the original 'evidence' supplied to gain the Warrant as false?
In theory someone could be breaking the law and an agent might hear Eastenders live but be refused entry. When they come back later with a warrant the householder may have sold or moved the TV to other premises.
To date i have found no record of anyone in the UK being fined the maximum amount of £1000 for not having paid the BBC 'Tax'....they have to 'build a case' against you to even get you to court. How can they do that if you don't permit access into your home where even then, they would have to Prove you do or have watched 'live broadcasts' ? even if they had a Warrant backed by the Police to enter they still have to prove you are or have been watching 'live' broadcasts....
As far as I know, you have to accept the warrant at face value unless something is clearly wrong on the document, ie dates etc, and challenge the evidence used to obtain it in court.
With regard to obstructing a warrant, would there be any consequences if you switched off the power to your property? Would they have the right to use your electricity? You won’t be physically stopping them from testing your television. You can invite them to bring their own generator in. If you turned your electricity off, would they be allowed to enter your fuse box to turn it on? You can’t reasonably search for a television in a fuse box? A fuse could always be taken out. Also, if they wanted to test your television, would disconnecting your broadband be an obstruction? Thoughts please.
Can we place charges if the goons want to switch the TV on , it requires using my electricity and my system is complicated (I'm a film editor) so would require my guidance. There's also a possibility that they would damage my system. They ought to be made to pay for the service and costs involved in demonstration. There is also the fact that I don't want a filthy goon on my carpets or in my home. The BBC ought to be shut down if it requires this sort of harassment and angering so many just so it can pay it's staff higher salaries than normal people dream of.
I don't need a licence, and I fill in a short online form every two years or so - My question is, surely, in this digital age, they know what everyone is watching, by observing remotely, don't they? Don't they monitor the signal?
Their Detector vans and hand held equipment don't tell them what your watching. There has NEVER been any conviction using either of these devices. Ashe stated. If you get a visit. Say "No thankyou",close door! Of course they will say your name,or ask who you are,but they are the ones visiting you. You ask them who they are. When they say TV goon,""Goodbye"! Door closes! Don't worry,or be afraid. 500 people a day are leaving the BBC. Just close door. It is that simple.
So what happens if a warrant (and search) is issued and no evidence of watching live TV is found? It seems a bit bullish to invade the home of someone (like me) who genuinely does not require a licence. I don't particularly wish to engage with them as that means my name/addess ends up on their database and as far as I'm concerned, as I've commited no offence, I see no reason why I SHOULD be on their database. Its none of their business who I am.
So few warrants are issued each year (around 100 in England and Wales, none in Scotland) that they are generally for repeat offenders. In the event of an actual 'no evidence' case, no fines could be applied. However, I'd then sue the crap out of Capita and get the magistrate, who issued the warrant audited.
@@Thurgosh_OG Will hold my ground then, as I have done for over 20 years. I'm against informing them I don't need a licence as (again) that means I'm on their database and any reprieve is short lived as they'll start harrassing me again. It forces me into a corner where I appear beligerent. Its a terrible model for raising revenue.
What would the situation be if you have TV licencing turn up with a warrant, but without uniformed police. And you refuse to let them in, on the grounds that you want to verify their identity or the authenticity of the warrrant? Are you within your rights to refuse them entry whilst you summon the police, or try to contact tv licencing? Or have you committed an offence right away? Thanks for the many interesting videos.
Warrants can be electronic, as in, on a mobile phone these days, so tricky to prove it's false. Contacting the police might help, if they are educated on warrants and don't just believe the 'warrant' is real, which would of course mean letting them in your house. if a TVL goon gets in, he WILL find evidence, even if he has to make it up. See ChillieJonCarne YT channel for lots of info about this.
I would assume compelling evidence might be said goon demanding one switches the TV on and if it goes straight to a live boradcast station that would indicate illegal use enough to convict? If they played with the remote and found the TV capable of receiving the signal, ie aerial or satbox still connected even if the TV is never used for live reception from either aerial or satellite dish, would still being capable of receiving live images be considered compelling evidence?
I would question the police having the power to force entry, their role is to prevent a breach of the peace. The warrant is issued to the tvl/capita employees. There is also, I believe legislation preventing police officers from assisting private companies in the execution of a warrant.
I don't have a TV but dare not let them know as I know I will be pestered. People can't believe that a person can live without one. Let sleeping dogs lie.
so I think think this what we should all take from this video, is the last 30 seconds at10:00, "be because there is a difference between recordable offenses and non-recordable offenses but as always" it's not recordable so it is just a fine? right? then most important part at 10:07, "neither this video or anything else you read online should be taken as formal legal advice" so should you say this when the nock on your door, ( your not speaking without formal legal advice, thank you good-bye, then close door)? then at 10:12, "you should speak to your own lawyer even before answering any questions of tv licensing agents or even police officers whether or not under caution because you have the right to legal representation and to speak to a lawyer before doing so" so how would this work in the real world, with the tv licensing (thugs, being help by the police breakdown your, door, the interior of your house, home (castle,) with or without paper work" with then intent of finding what they are looking for:- most TV, will new TV's will auto Tune, if asked when tv, is selected, even with out an aerial connected, there are going to be some ghostly very snowy cannels received, than we have their iPlayer, its on the internet, you typed in to a web-browser address line, if you have the inter-net, you have iPlayer, also, unless your outside the UK? used or not? then at 10:26, "understand the criminality of tv licensing" searching
But most people have a satellite dish - usually Sky I suppose - so, if a person has a satellite dish, is that an indicator to the BBC "inspectors" that the owner of the property with one, needs to have TV licence?
What about just Watching UA-cam do you need a TV License for old non BBC History programmes seeing as my Old Plasma TV is no longer working it’s a minefield of Technical Legal Rabbit holes which I find quite daunting and intimidating my 2year non Licensing Requirement is due for another Re-Visit peace of mind from you Mr Blackbelt Barrister
is it allowed/reasonable to request that the be police be present should TV licencing show up with a warrant? and then waiting outside (to prevent any adjustment of evidence) with them until said police arrive? because it has been reported that the agents will state they have a "warrant" which has been proven to be untrue/fake...
This is the best and most articalute explanation of the enforcement aspect of TV licensing I've seen. I stopped watching television 8 years ago when I sold my set and I don't watch TV programs of any kind, live or catchup, as I really don't enjoy mainstream entertainment. But I do get the threatening letters and it really worries me, although I've never had TV licensing attend my premises. I'm a very honest person so this has been fantastic in allaying my fears, so thank you very much for this series.
ty for the videos. I appreciate a UK Barrister being around to inform UK people instead of just US law being everywhere.
He's not a UK barrister. He operates in England and Wales only. There are different penalties in Scotland.
@@gavinpotts6747 I think you're reading way too much into a comment, my friend.
@@mozzjones6943 No he cannot operate anywhere in Scotland unless he is qualified in Scots Law and has been accepted by the Law Society of Scotland. I know because a family member works for Los and confirmed that.
@@mozzjones6943 read your own post. You state it doesn't matter where in the UK he operates. My reply was that he can't. By the way how have you helped me?
@@gavinpotts6747 One would think that Scotland would do away with the need of a BBC licence .Just goes to show that Scotland is just as bad as England / Wales when it comes to money grabbing
I ceased buying a TV licence in 2006 and don't miss live TV at all. A massive saving of over £2,000 so far. Another reason for stopping is my protest at ridiculous salaries to presenters, and more recently, the use of offensive language on entertainment programs broadcast at 1830, weekdays on Radio 4. Occasional hotel stays and looking through a TV magazine, allowed me to confirm my view! I only view items on UA-cam, or similar free to view internet based content, and I buy DVD videos 10 for £1 from charity shops or occasional sets from online suppliers (DVDs don't get erased). I watch my choice of interesting channels such as this. Thanks for another great video.
I recently stumbled across your channel.A true gem of a find. Absolutely amazing! Such detailed and concise, videos, from a legal expert.(no more ambiguity of trawling through dubious content) Thank you so much, for putting this content out there.🙂💯👍
Thank you for your valued upload. Liked. These days I don't use the BBC at all on any device and you can 'opt out' from a TV license on the appropriate web site and give reasons if you so wish. This was duly done. However, they still threaten to fine me but that issue rests with them. I will not be forced to pay for something that I don't use anymore.
You still need a licence if you watch sky sports
Not having a TV licence should not be a crimial offence, but a badge of honor
If you don't require a licence, you ignore all the Threatograms and don't say anything to any Goons who might come knocking, how can they possibly have any 'evidence' to get a search warrant?
This is why ignoring the Threatograms and saying absolutely nothing to any Goon (apart from perhaps "No thanks") is vital.
"Threatograms" and "goons" are the predictable indicators of a TV Licence agitator. You should try to be more imaginative.
@@Nickcooper625 Please elaborate.
What do you mean by 'TV Licence agitator'?
If somebody is legally licence-free, are you saying that my original post is wrong?
@@hughmungo-sarce7557 He's probably one of those people who are unable to conceptualise how a human being could possibly do without broadcast TV and thinks anyone who doesn't have a licence is a criminal.
I wrote to my MP about 3 years ago accusing them of harrasing me and my MP wrote to the BBC and they backed off, but they have been harrasing me again so I am ignoring them now as the likelihood of them gaining entry is minimal. They do not play by the rules.
One of the most informative channels on UA-cam I've learned quite a lot watching your videos. Thankyou.
I always remember when my (now Wife) and I rented our first flat, the TV licensing people turned up on the doorstep within days. They were very perturbed when my other half presented them with a TV license bought at the Post Office that same day. What or who tipped them off to check though? The next day, I had a Police Officer at the door, wanting to check a Gun License. I have never owned a gun. Very bizarre.
Missed my own premier again due to work, sorry!
Lol
Thanks for all that you do. I have never seen a "Warrant", could you please explain or show what they look like and what is needed for them to be lawful? I wouldn't know a warrant if it slapped me in the face.
It was excellent, as ever. Thank you for your hard work. I recommend your channel to everyone. Keep up the good work, you are a force for good!
@@simondjangothe4349 Thank you so much! I am very much on a mission now - First stop, 100k, then, 1M - mission to help 1M people!
@@BlackBeltBarrister you have at least 1 disciple spreading the gospel. You take care BBB👍
Great and comprehensive explanation! Your contribution to public knowledge is much appreciated... and pro bono I might ad ! Thank you!
Glad it was helpful!
Due to the BBC and other TV channels constantly churning out repeats and crap I stopped watching TV I needed a licence for. So, on January 10th 2021 I made a 2-year declaration that I no longer needed a TV licence. I then cancelled my direct debit and considered the issue closed. Despite making the declaration I have received 7 letters from Capita so far.
Im sick of this tv licence. I dont watch bbc I dont watch it live. I dont want it.....yet I feel pressured to get one !!!! They need to be more clear about who needs one
I don’t understand the hostility around TV licensing, I have not required a TV license for over 10 years, informed the required department, had one visit where I was friendly and open, didn’t even want to enter the premium to check, and then every two years I just reconfirm that I don’t require a licence, done no hassle no visits. Being obstructionist just implies that you have something to hide.
What is a legal enforceable warrant? There are loads of videos where they arrive with with court paperwork saying that it is a warrant where the house holder Denys them entry because the so called warrant was signed by a court official and not a magistrate for judge.
It would be nice to get clarification of this.
A bonafide judge would never put his name and signature on the piece of crap tvla call a warrant .
The only time a warrant allows entry to a private property is when it is signed by a judge standing under his/her common law oath.
@@GH-lo8vl However, these days that warrant can be electronic, i.e. a document on a phone. Difficult to verify if it's real, especially if the police are also present and believe it to be real.
@@Thurgosh_OG - If the police have to ask you to come in, they're asking because they know the warrant isn't enforceable without your consent -
ua-cam.com/video/g-Fn4BiHekk/v-deo.html
@@Thurgosh_OG If it's on a phone, how can they provide you with a copy?
Two questions: Where do the embassies/consulates get their information from? I.e. will you be refused a US visa for your holiday in Florida if you've been convicted of watching live TV without a licence?
The video mentions the testing of equipment. If I have stopped watching TV and put my TV set in a cupboard, it would presumably show live TV if it was switched on; that doesn't prove that I watch live TV. Similarly if I use the TV as a monitor for my computer, it is still capable of showing live TV, expecially if an aerial is attached. Testing the equipment to show that it is capable of showing live TV does not prove that the owner has broken the law.
The tv licensing are a private company so why would the police help them force entry into a property, the police should only be there to keep the peace and nothing else.
That is a very good point. My experience of the police is only as a victim of crime. To be precise my partner and I were illegally evicted from our rented property. We were not at fault, we're not in arrears of rent or council tax nor had we damaged the property. In fact we had paid for a gas safety inspection which the landlord is legally required to have carried out yearly. There had been no Section 21 notice to quit issued and the landlord and his cronies illegally broke into our home and locked us out. We called the police but on arrival they actively supported the landlord and his clearly intoxicated associates in evicting us. They were clearly being instructed by a sergeant who held the belief that tenants had absolutely no rights in law. I was assaulted by one of the landlord's associates while calling the police and insulted by one of the PCs that attended.
To cut a long story short Staffordshire Police Service apologised in writing after I lodged an official complaint but it was hollow and showed the police care little for the law.
Unfortunately, at the time I didn't have the money to launch a legal case against the police or the landlord but learned a few things.
1. The police care nothing for the law.
2. The police view the people they allegedly serve through a highly discriminatory class and status based lens. I now own a beautiful Grade 2 listed picturesque property in a well to do area and the police are suddenly deferential and subservient minions as they clearly perceive me as wealthy and well to do.
The law means nothing in the UK unless you have the time and means to drive and implied a case.
I am now a relatively 'law abiding' person who has no respect, trust or confidence in the law, the police or the judiciary.
This is how a private company coops the police as, effectively, enforcers when neither has any business with you.
The police no longer get involved with tv licensing goons with a warrant.
@@leeenglandland2978 That's good to hear but I don't trust them anyway. The standard PC drone has no understanding of the law and, under the control of it's superiors is a menace to anyone who comes into contact with them.
Please don't misunderstand me, I'm someone who would very much like to trust and have faith in the police. I'm not someone who dislikes them because they impede my criminal activities. I have never had more than a speeding ticket in my distant youth. The two occasions on which I desperately needed their help they treated me as a criminal and try took away and lost my property. I am hugely out of pocket and they have created yet another person who does not trust nor support them.
@@PurityVendetta They protect wealth, not people
It's a bit more complicated than that. TV Licensing is acting on behalf of the BBC, which is the statutory Licensing Authority. Under the legislation (section 366 of the Communications Act 2003) the warrant is granted to "one or more people authorised by the BBC", which is where TV Licensing comes into it. There is a BBC authority list that gives the name of every TV Licensing employee authorised to apply for/execute a warrant granted under this legislation. The legislation allows for them to be accompanied by a police constable. It also allows them, technically speaking, to force entry to the premises if necessary - HOWEVER, it is TV Licensing's own policy never to force entry. If there is no response when an attempt is made to execute the warrant, they will simply leave and (might) try again some other time. The warrant is only valid for one month.
Brilliant I stopped watching BBC and live TV 20 years ago . I stopped paying once I found out you could cancel it . Will they give me my money back
Depends on how long ago you cancelled. Also, you'll only get back the bit of the year left, that you'd paid in advance.
Its simple: No contact, no contract. Don't speak to them, don't sign anything ask them to leave then close the door. Also most convictions are because the person was pressured or coerced into signing a document saying that they don't have a licence and watch TV. Thats then used to convict them as a signed confession.
I think I have experienced "Culture Shock." Having been brought up in a country where signals broadcast over the airways are free, I find the TV License appalling.
Scrambling the signal being broadcast and selling the decode that changes on a monthly basis would be much more cost effective.
welcome to socialism and state run propaganda oh i mean TV, also i think UA-cam needs to kick off government run organisations like the BBC that rely on demanding money in this sort of manner.
The license is on behalf of the BBC, 8 TV stations, 40 radio stations and no advertising. Ignore the comment from Thuggee.
@@Quebecoisegal ignore? Because they're telling the truth? The sooner the vile organisation is gone the better. I see no reason why poor old Doris has to go without heating to contribute paying someone a million pounds to play records on the radio. Left wing biased propaganda that holds a monopoly and doesn't have to compete for funding (socialism).
It the right thing to do, so you can bet that it won't happen'
The cost of a TV would go up if unscrambling software for free to air TV had to be built in. That and the subscription cost could make it dearer than a TV licence
Could you go into a bit more detail on the warrants? What are they allowed to search and what counts as obstructing? Do we have to share computer passwords? Do we have to log in for them?
👍
@@BlackBeltBarrister Can you also go into if a computer is covered under the search warrant?
@@BlackBeltBarrister Hi Blackbelt Barrister - Responding to the above - I don't believe not aiding TV Licensing during an enforced warrant of entry is an obstructable offence - Are not computers covered by GDPR? No one is lawfully required to assist BBC perpetrators to build a case against themselves - Is not the onus upon the BBC perpetrators to prove their case without the assistance of the tenant/householder? Should the warrant have the name of the tenant/householder upon it? Or is it against the property only? - Thank You
If they get a warrant, use force entry, but I genuinely don't need TV licence, should they pay for damages they caused with the force entry and possible missed salary if need to be home until the door is repaired?
Also, what evidence they can give to the court to get the warrant if they don't have evidence that someone is watching TV without a licence?
This force entering someone's home without an actual evidence sounds dodgy.
@@juditvoros8933 Have heard of cases wherein BBC goons have lied to magistrates without providing evidence and the magistrate/s rubber stamp the warrant so to speak which in itself has to be unlawful....
I told the TV licence people I didn't need a license and hadn't watched TV for over two years due to being busy making gaming videos on UA-cam. The guy said it didn't sound like i needed a license and cancelled it. Within 6 weeks of my license running out one of their goons visited and put a note through the door saying he had visited to enquire why I felt I didn't need a license.
you need to register with tv licencing as 'No licence needed'.
@@justahumanbeing.709 Yeah, and give them your details so in futer, by mistake of course, they could charge you however they want😅
My stepdads parents once had the TV licensing people come round saying they didn't have a TV Licence. In fact they did, the confusion had arisen because the house had a name and a number, and the licence was in the house number not the name.
They should do a bit more housekeeping on their address database before sending people out willy nilly to accuse people of not having a licence
@@davidspear9790 I completely agree
The Rehabilitation Act was 1974 not 1975, the exceptions are 1975. A minor point of law from a former barrack room lawyer ;-) Great series please keep up the work of explaining the law in simple terms.
Thank you so so much. I was panicking about my DBS!
I had letters for a year to "The Occupier" until I declared and then I did the online declaration.
Two weeks later I had a capita agent at my door armed with my name wanting in to prove it.
Just ignore the letters. They do nothing. I've not paid in years. I don't watch iPlayer. My TV isn't connected to the aerial (that came with the house, and I ain't taking it down coz the next person who lives here might want it). I don't even watch the BBC YT channels.
They need your legal fiction name for contract, if they send to THE OCCUPIER, then there's no contract and nothing they can do, as in all contract law, there must be acceptance by both parties, all LEGAL STATUTES are governed by contracts.
A great channel, pal.
Takes me right back to my law lectures 1991-1993 with Liz Williams QC.
I wish that you were around then. Maybe I would have pursued a career in financial law. Who knows?
Another great video. It would be interesting to see you review one of the many TV license warrant entry videos and get your take on it.
I had a TV Licencing letter a few days ago. There is one part of this letter that I have not noticed in any previous letter, and I am curious about it.
"As we still have no record of a TV licence at this address, by law we have no option but to continue with our investigation."
It is the "by law" bit that I question. What they seem to be saying is that, because I could (or could not) be braking the law They have no legal option but to investigate me... Not even the Police investigate someone just because that person might/could brake a law of one sort or another.
@Robert Stallard Thank you.
@Robert Stallard Pls can you point to the relevant wording? AFAICT the Licence Fee bit of the Charter is very general, and doesn't really cover enforcement.
@Robert Stallard Yes - that's the bit I was thinking of. I just wonder about how lawful it can be to mount a whole law enforcement activity (that is the most prolific prosecutor of women) without enabling legislation. Seems like a big issue. BBC Trust no longer with us, so I guess even that responsibility is a bit shaky?
There is no "Investigation". It's all made up.
Regarding obstruction, the following should be noted:-
(7) Where a person has the power by virtue of a warrant under this section to examine or test any television receiver found on any premises, or in any vehicle, it shall be the duty-
(a) of a person who is on the premises or in the vehicle, and
(b) in the case of a vehicle, of a person who has charge of it or is present when it is searched, to give the person carrying out the examination or test all such assistance as that person may reasonably require for carrying it out.
The requirement to assist only applies to the *examination and testing* , not the search.
It is not up to you, to show them where the equipment is, and if they happen to miss some equipment, that's their hard luck.
What constitutes them having 'reasonable suspicion' to be able to get a warrant?
You, in the lounge at night with your curtains open, watching live TV
Them, outside on the public pathway, looking in and making notes
TVL Warrants are extremely rare, and seem mainly to be used on people who have essentially claimed that they do not have to abide by the Licence law. TVL aren't supposed to gain evidence by looking through windows.
That is quite a specific question, so allow me to interject - they will usually only apply for a warrant in one of the following circumstances:
1. That an admission has been made by the occupier that unlicensed TV reception is taking place at the property;
2. That a TV Licensing agent has seen or heard unlicensed TV reception taking place at the property;
3. That unlicensed TV reception has been "detected" at the property (although the use of detection is very rare).
Furthermore, they need to be able to satisfy the court that access will not be granted without a warrant (e.g. they have tried to gain voluntary access, but have been refused).
It should be noted that the following alone are not sufficient grounds for a warrant, but they might support an application along with other evidence:
4. The presence of an external TV aerial or satellite dish;
5. Refusal to co-operate with TV Licensing;
6. The sight of TV listings magazines etc. at the unlicensed property.
There is a lot more information about this on our blog and in our free ebook: tv-licensing.blogspot.com/p/free-book.html
@@tvlicensingblog or if the licensing inspector disappears in the presence of lime and a shovel…
@@Beastriderpav hmm... *Lightbulb moment*
TV licensing should compensate householders if a search warrant is granted and executed when there is no evidence that a crime has been committed. If the householder has declared they do not require to be licenced and a warrant is sought in order to confirm this is fact the amount awarded should be higher. I live in a small rural community in the western highlands where everyone knows everyone's business so a warrant being carried out would cause issues and embarrassment. They have been in my property twice and was then exempt for the fee if they don't believe me this time that's there problem. Waiting on an enforcement officer due soon.
What a ridiculous country we live in. It is a subscription not a license. You should not be going to court for not paying a TV subscription
Great content Daniel.
If you don't have a TV licence, switch off the sound whenever you open the door - or switch to a recording - and have a radio playing by your door.
The only time I have ever had a visit from the the TV licence people was when I didn't have a TV. "Oh do come in."
I understand that many 'live' programs are broadcast with a several seconds delay. This is to enable any infringements such as naughty words can caught and bleeped out. Therefore, are we technically watching a recording?
Love the videos and am really grateful for you taking the time to help people out like this. It is such a shame that while growing up and going through the school system, that these law clarifications and revelations are not taught to the children as part of a "Life Skills" lesson plan.
Here is a quick question for you...... If a married couple do not buy a TV licence when they should, which one is prosecuted or are they both prosecuted for the offence / crime? Just curious really???
Keep up the great work and stay safe,
Joe
@ Joe's Model Kits: Excellent point, Joe. As the late Peter Burns from Dead Or Alive said 'Kids need to learn how to handle life not what to do with the decimal point'.
Back in the 90s I was paying an amount of money to pay off my TV License, I couldn't afford the payments and asked for them to be reduced(£70.00 was left to pay).
They refused to lower my payments and took me to court.
I explained to the Judge my financial circumstances and that I'd given up smoking purely for financial reasons, he was impressed by this and lowered my debt to £40.00 also allowing me to pay off the debt at the reduced rate that I'd asked for.
I'll never forget the Judge because he was fair and could see that it wasn't that I refused to pay but that I wasn't able to afford the high payments they wanted at that time.
The official website is laid out and worded in a confusing manner that could quite possibly be done to mislead people into thinking they might need one when they don't.
Thanks for this series of videos. Very informative.
In Australia we don’t have TV licences but for minor offences police can seize all of your computers and cameras as evidence and take them away which would be a major inconvenience. You will get them back but I bet that would take months and they won’t be gentle with them.
Australia has been in the forefront of NWO brutality
If you go to prison for not paying the fine, guess what they give to you as a part of the punishment - why! it is free television. You could not make it up. They condone your original offence!
It's not free, someone else pays for the licence..
@@WasNotWas999 The taxpayer funds it. It is free to the prisoners. It is not difficult to understand that.
@@icdgyixify99 you don't say... I thought it was free...
@@WasNotWas999 Thinking is clearly something that you should leave to others.
I enjoy watching you, and I take in as much as I can to not only learn but to understand. Back in 1998 I had a tv which didn’t work, therefore I did not need a license, some time and letters received I told the tv licensing that I did have a tv but not working, and at that time I could not afford the repair let alone a new tv. Anyway they came with a warrant and a police officer two tv licensing men. They turned my tv on and got no picture not even a grainy one. Anyway I was taken to court, three times I pleaded not guilty and it was Adjourned because neither of the tv officials attended the court even though they submitted an affidavit saying the tv was fully working, the police officer didn’t turn up either, on the forth court appearance still no one came and I was found guilty and find £150 needless to say I didn’t pay, yes you’ve guessed it back to court again none payment of fine, to this day I still have the letter from the court dated 23rd June 1998 and signed by Ms Whyte, (my appeal was allowed). I also have two letters from Russell Jones and Walker, dated 9th July 1998 saying the enquiry officer in respect of this matter is on long term sick leave, and they’re not going to oppose the appeal, in my experience they can be very Uneconomic with the truth. And how many times have they did this and got away with it. MY FINE WAS Squashed done away with abandoned. And I can supply you copy’s if you wish. Please keep doing what your doing it helps more than you know.
I've gone through life without worrying about these goons. I don't pay for a tv license nor do I need one, because I don't watch live TV or record it. Mostly catch up on free to view.
Yet to have a visit from an inspector but if I do I won't be speaking to one as these are just sales agents. No thank-you goodbye.
It used to be compulsory if you have a TV you need a licence but it's not the case today
Loving the video's mate, appreciate your time. Maybe you could cover car insurance claims and the right to withdraw claims after filed.
I never realise how bad our justice system is in this country. I believe in innocent until proven guilty beyond a shadow of a doubt. More and more times you have to prove your innocence in this country.😢😠😡still loving the videos👍😁😊
Thanks for an interesting video. What I don’t understand is if they are in your property what are they actually looking for? Owning a tv is lawful, presumably having the aerial plugged in is lawful. So what evidence are they looking for?
They are looking for evidence that the equipment is configured for receiving TV broadcasts, and also any recent recordings of TV broadcasts.
@@sudokuanimation1316 Hi. I get the recent recordings is a giveaway but even if your tv is configured to receive live broadcasts surely doesn’t prove you do actually watch it.
I would presume that they are mainly hoping that you crumble and say something incriminating. Even having a TV plugged into an aerial socket is not proof that you have been watching live TV.
Its issued as a permission to watch live TV and iPlayer in your home .its the activity or taking part in watching that's licensed not owning TVs
They're looking to stitch you up. If one comes knocking on your door. Close the door in their face. Investigation closed. Nothing good comes from interacting with TV License goons.
Imagine if your local window cleaner decided you needed to pay him £200 a year for clean windows, whether he cleans your windows or not. Would it be acceptable if he then threatened to fine you £1000 if you didn't pay the £200 but had clean windows, using threats of kidnap to coerce payment?
No, I can't imagine such a ridiculous comparison.
The DVLA don't send someone around to my house to see if my car is in the driveway if I declare it SORN - and there's far more money at stake there - as far as TV licensing are concerned - if they send someone to my property - they'll first be politely asked to leave - and if that fails - then I'll use reasonable force to eject them. End of!.
From what i understand, if YOU dont talk to them or let them in, they couldnt get a warrant and when they visit , you just SHUT the door, Investigation over and no possible warrant or charges can occur.
NOW- what if they look through your window and see you watching LIVE tv without licence. Can you claim in court TRESPASS and have charges withdrawn? or can they gather the warrant that way and come back and force way in?
Another great video, thank you. Please can you do a video on the recent changes to the offensive weapon laws around possession of items inside your home?
What’s changed? Thanks
@@experiment54 it is now illegal to own certain items such as throwing stars and zombie knives, even in your own home. Be good to drill down a bit more into the particulars such as exactly which items and the penalties
@@SnowySleet thanks for the info. Will research some more.
No one has ever been convicted wen they simply ignored them
Is that true? You can't "ignore" Police with a warrant.
@@bobrew461 true but if u ignore them they have no evidence so can't get a warrant lol 😆
@@Ashs-mini-vlogs
What about bailiffs then? I know they can't break in like a Sheriff, but if a careless person leaves a window open...?
@@bobrew461 that's got nothing to do with TV l
@@Ashs-mini-vlogs
Of course it has! If you don't pay the fee without cancelling first, they will send the "salesmen" round. If you keep ignoring them and you are unlucky you may get a visit from them again with the police with a warrant. If you ignore that lot you may be taken to court for non payment of the fee. Ignore that and get a judgement against you. Ignore that...then the bailiffs call. Only so much ignoring you can do, y'know.
What does a lawful warrant look like? I've seen TV Licensing people claim they have a warrant.
@@xdc1776 the 11th edition of Black’s Law Dictionary has finally been published-with the decades-old error officially corrected. Quoting Jurisprudence, Black’s Law Dictionary correctly reads: “So far as legal theory is concerned, a person is any being whom the law regards as capable of rights or duties.”
There is an exact copy of the warrant in our article here: tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2014/11/tv-licensing-search-warrants-prevention.html
Believe it or not, these warrants are normally typed by Capita TV Licensing (or the police, RSPCA or whoever) and sent to the court for consideration and authorisation. There is no standard prescribed format for the appearance of a warrant, so different variations are possible.
@@tvlicensingblog Will the signature be a real signature or a stamp/photocopy?
@@simonyoungglostog At the current time it might not even have a signature, but it will have been authorised by the named magistrate. The majority of warrants - and that's police warrants too - are being dealt with remotely due to coronavirus.
@@tvlicensingblog correct me if I'm wrong but this warrant allows only to test tv set not other kind of display/device?
Brilliant thanks.
I note that warrants issued to TVL are specifically to search for , examine & test TV equipment. This means they are NOT ALLOWED TO conduct an INTERVIEW while on the premises ?
I also note that such warrants are issued under the Communications act 2003 & are nothing to do with warrants issued to the police, so are not covered by PACE. ie the TVL agent doesn't have any police powers, inc. interviewing under caution.
No. They are allowed to interview whilst on the premises, although they tend to imply that the interview is more "pressing" because of the warrant, which is not true. PACE still applies, and you can therefore decline interview, ask for legal advice and/or go "no comment" as you see fit. The only issue is that TVL could still prosecute on the basis of the findings of the warrant by using a witness statement.
@@sudokuanimation1316 I have read both PACE & the Communications act.
With regard to PACE it specifically refers to warrants issued TO the POLICE.
TVL gets their warrants under the Communications act AND this warrant isn't issued to the police it's issued to TVL (agents), the police are allowed to be present under the conditions of the (TVL) warrant but their presence confers no police powers on them (unlike PACE/police warrants)
My understanding is only the reasons for issue stated on the warrant can be carried out, in this case - search for , examine and test TV receivers.
@@9crutnacker985 Are we still talking about interview under caution? That is permitted, and it is governed in England & Wales by PACE. The warrant is authorised under S366 of the Comms Act.
Here's a TVL Warrant video that shows the process in full, maybe with a few questions raised:-
ua-cam.com/video/E05aChJs5cg/v-deo.html
@@sudokuanimation1316 I was specifically talking about the warrant. There is nothing in the Comms act about TVL having rights to interview under caution. All PACE has to say about interview under caution is in relation to police officers. As far as I have been able to find out TVL agents have no more 'right' to do this than you or I (assuming you're not a police officer). #blackbeltbarrister
@@9crutnacker985 S.67(9) of PACE says this: "Persons other than police officers who are charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders shall in the discharge of that duty have regard to any relevant provision of a code".
The caution and the interview do not require any particular authority, nor do they convey any authority. The requirements are for rules of formality and fairness that (in theory) are supposed to lead to fair treatment of suspects, but also protect prosecutors from allegations of unfairness at trial.
AFAIK, a person being interviewed by TVL can simply decline - and that applies with or without a warrant.
My Nan wants to know what happens when the old bill smash down the front door and she hasn't got her teeth in and her curlers are still in. Thanks
Ask her to call me!
@@BlackBeltBarrister I think she's fallen in love with you. Do you take cash? 😂
I'm a little crazy tbh, if someone attempted to enter my home in what I feel to be an agressive manner I may hurt someone, mental health is never taken into account though so I'd get in trouble even though the actions of these people carrying out their job all be it a slimy one would trigger my PTSD at which point I'd not be in control of myself, I would say they wouldn't deserve what they had inadvertently caused and I'd regret hurting anyone, but at least you can opt out online to avoid this or be polite and deal with it asap I suppose.
I have three old TVs which I intend to use the screens and part of the circuitry in other pieces of equipment. These TVs have not been switched on for a long time, and because of that and the age of the components, especially the Electrolytic Capacitors, Powering-up these TVs could damage them. If a Licence Inspector insists on powering-up these TVs, and it damages them, who is responsible for the repair/replacement?
Remove the mains plugs from redundant equipment. Thes Goons cannot connect them to the mains, therefore there is no danger.
If you have no aerial connected to the tv and it is not plugged into the mains they can’t plug it in and switch it on.
Owning a tv eu being in possession of a tv is not a crime.
@@experiment54 nor is having a TV plugged in with the aerial in the back. Unless you are watching TV when they come in, there is no crime.
@@MikeEves people have been done in the past so upto you bro. Set your tv up to be capable of receiving live broadcasts if you like. It’s your life.
If you do make a declaration, you do still get hounded!
It is a worry. Ive been paying my licence fee for months when i dont watch tv. I stopped using BBC and anything that warrants a licence ages ago.
I have had a letter but it has the wrong address on it. This was posted through the door about four days after i logged on line that i didnt need one. Its worrying.
@
BlackBeltBarrister A topic idea for your next video. Why is compulsory to "Register to vote"? My borough was harassing me with letters / door to door, saying that is an offence to not register. Voting should be a right, I don't want the government to force me to "register" to vote.
I think the most confusing thing about the TV license, for me, is how 'TV' (i.e. the content, not the device) is defined. At what point does someone creating content qualify as 'TV'? Is it when they do it with a certain frequency, when they employ e.g. editors, when they register themselves as in the business of livestreaming?
W/ all of the innovations for video content (eg streaming), they should do away with the "TV licence" business model. Apart from being unfair (you pay the same whether you make 1K/month or 100K/month), it's just unworkable. There are lots of other solutions for funding the BBC.
If you do not watch TV there is trick (that will cost you). Send your TV set to the service or a technician and tell them to remove the RF demodulator.
My tv has never been connected to anything other than a playstation and when the tv licence bloke came round I let him turn it on to check, and Eastenders appeared on screen. It's never occurred before or since, but I was taken to court and had to pay. Most odd.
Proves the theory that it's best just to close the door on them and don't say anything other than "No thanks.".
@@EricTViking Absolutely.
Great video very useful information keep up with the good work
Your legal system is actually screwier than ours. I have no idea how this whole thing survives the public consent test. Illegal or not, any number of people i know from a wide range of political backgrounds would react with rage, and likely violence depending on whose home, at the idea of a private home search on behalf of a tv network.
You in the US?
@@Si_Mondo yup. There's definitely different public expectations in place. We, of course, tolerate other completely insane things.
The easiest way to not say the wrong thing, is to say nothing at all, not even hello or goodbye.
Moral of the story is simple " Do not talk to them EVER " .
I'm gonna buy one, I'm gonna buy one, OK? By rights, I would not be requiring one this year on if the old rules still existed, being 75 now. Why don't you launch a campaign, like you did with the NHS records thing, for the over 75s! If it was successful you'd be the hero of all the elderly folks.
"You see anybody who has a genuine business with the occupier" shurely a "salesman" (tv licence enforcer) doe's not have a genuine reason???
#DefundtheBBC
Many here are referring to BBC TV Licensing* "Inspectors", as if they have some special legal status. They have no more legal authority than a double-glazing salesman. They are motivated by their commission (about £20 a go) for selling a licence.
*TV Licensing is an operating arm of the BBC, which retains all responsibility for its agents, mostly Capita Services plc. It is not a separate official body as is widely believed.
Would 28 letters from BBC licencing , when told in writing that no Television is owned, constitute harassment, over a period of 16 years?
Not had a licence since 1987 as I do not have a television. If they get a search warrant and find no tv I would question how they got the warrant. Did they lie? Do I have a case for harassment getting letters every month since 1987?
When a warrant is issued by a “court” what does that mean? As I understand it a “court” doesn’t have to held in a courthouse with magistrate sitting who can issue a search warrant, but apparently this is not the case and warrants are sent out from Bulk Mailing Centre in Nottingham where warrants are printed without an embossed court seal or a “wet” signature. Surely this unilateral charge in the law to suit TVL and the debt companies enforcement agents, who buy the debts for coppers cannot be right, because they are a third party with whom the tenants do not have a contract. The “assistance” given by the police to agents when they should only be there to keep the peace and not assist agents to collect money or gain entry.
In Law would there be any redress for anyone who has had a Search Warrant issued against them ( I believe some evidence is required by Magistrates to issue any Warrant?) but no evidence of needing a TV Licence is found (Legally owning TV but using it within the Law - Not requiring a TVLicence)? - This would make the original 'evidence' supplied to gain the Warrant as false?
In theory someone could be breaking the law and an agent might hear Eastenders live but be refused entry. When they come back later with a warrant the householder may have sold or moved the TV to other premises.
To date i have found no record of anyone in the UK being fined the maximum amount of £1000 for not having paid the BBC 'Tax'....they have to 'build a case' against you to even get you to court. How can they do that if you don't permit access into your home where even then, they would have to Prove you do or have watched 'live broadcasts' ? even if they had a Warrant backed by the Police to enter they still have to prove you are or have been watching 'live' broadcasts....
Thank you very much for your video! What happens if the "evidence" provided by the agents to obtain the warrant is plaily made-up by them?
As far as I know, you have to accept the warrant at face value unless something is clearly wrong on the document, ie dates etc, and challenge the evidence used to obtain it in court.
With regard to obstructing a warrant, would there be any consequences if you switched off the power to your property? Would they have the right to use your electricity? You won’t be physically stopping them from testing your television. You can invite them to bring their own generator in. If you turned your electricity off, would they be allowed to enter your fuse box to turn it on? You can’t reasonably search for a television in a fuse box? A fuse could always be taken out. Also, if they wanted to test your television, would disconnecting your broadband be an obstruction? Thoughts please.
Can we place charges if the goons want to switch the TV on , it requires using my electricity and my system is complicated (I'm a film editor) so would require my guidance. There's also a possibility that they would damage my system. They ought to be made to pay for the service and costs involved in demonstration. There is also the fact that I don't want a filthy goon on my carpets or in my home. The BBC ought to be shut down if it requires this sort of harassment and angering so many just so it can pay it's staff higher salaries than normal people dream of.
I don't need a licence, and I fill in a short online form every two years or so - My question is, surely, in this digital age, they know what everyone is watching, by observing remotely, don't they? Don't they monitor the signal?
Their Detector vans and hand held equipment don't tell them what your watching. There has NEVER been any conviction using either of these devices. Ashe stated. If you get a visit. Say "No thankyou",close door!
Of course they will say your name,or ask who you are,but they are the ones visiting you. You ask them who they are. When they say TV goon,""Goodbye"! Door closes!
Don't worry,or be afraid. 500 people a day are leaving the BBC. Just close door. It is that simple.
So what happens if a warrant (and search) is issued and no evidence of watching live TV is found? It seems a bit bullish to invade the home of someone (like me) who genuinely does not require a licence. I don't particularly wish to engage with them as that means my name/addess ends up on their database and as far as I'm concerned, as I've commited no offence, I see no reason why I SHOULD be on their database. Its none of their business who I am.
So few warrants are issued each year (around 100 in England and Wales, none in Scotland) that they are generally for repeat offenders. In the event of an actual 'no evidence' case, no fines could be applied.
However, I'd then sue the crap out of Capita and get the magistrate, who issued the warrant audited.
@@Thurgosh_OG Will hold my ground then, as I have done for over 20 years. I'm against informing them I don't need a licence as (again) that means I'm on their database and any reprieve is short lived as they'll start harrassing me again. It forces me into a corner where I appear beligerent. Its a terrible model for raising revenue.
Exactly what counts as "evidence" of watching broadcast TV? Surely owning equipment that could receive broadcast TV doesn't count?
What would the situation be if you have TV licencing turn up with a warrant, but without uniformed police. And you refuse to let them in, on the grounds that you want to verify their identity or the authenticity of the warrrant? Are you within your rights to refuse them entry whilst you summon the police, or try to contact tv licencing? Or have you committed an offence right away?
Thanks for the many interesting videos.
Say nothing, shut the door, get on with your life. There is nothing they can do.
Warrants can be electronic, as in, on a mobile phone these days, so tricky to prove it's false. Contacting the police might help, if they are educated on warrants and don't just believe the 'warrant' is real, which would of course mean letting them in your house. if a TVL goon gets in, he WILL find evidence, even if he has to make it up.
See ChillieJonCarne YT channel for lots of info about this.
@@Thurgosh_OG "if a TVL goon gets in, he WILL find evidence, even if he has to make it up. "
Hence why you should video everything.
Thanks you are the man, I just checking out the Canon Powershot G7 X Mark II Digital Camera you use looks like a little great camera.
I would assume compelling evidence might be said goon demanding one switches the TV on and if it goes straight to a live boradcast station that would indicate illegal use enough to convict?
If they played with the remote and found the TV capable of receiving the signal, ie aerial or satbox still connected even if the TV is never used for live reception from either aerial or satellite dish, would still being capable of receiving live images be considered compelling evidence?
I would question the police having the power to force entry, their role is to prevent a breach of the peace. The warrant is issued to the tvl/capita employees. There is also, I believe legislation preventing police officers from assisting private companies in the execution of a warrant.
I don't have a TV but dare not let them know as I know I will be pestered. People can't believe that a person can live without one.
Let sleeping dogs lie.
The crime is that there is nothing worth watching anymore.
Plenty more crimes at the bbc, some slightly more sinister than their crap shows.
so I think think this what we should all take from this video, is the last 30 seconds at10:00, "be because there is a difference between recordable offenses and non-recordable offenses but as always" it's not recordable so it is just a fine? right?
then most important part at 10:07,
"neither this video or anything else you read online should be taken as formal legal advice"
so should you say this when the nock on your door, ( your not speaking without formal legal advice, thank you good-bye, then close door)?
then at 10:12,
"you should speak to your own lawyer even before answering any questions of tv licensing agents or even police officers whether or not under caution because you have the right to legal representation and to speak to
a lawyer before doing so" so how would this work in the real world, with the tv
licensing (thugs, being help by the police breakdown your, door, the interior of your house, home (castle,) with or without paper work"
with then intent of finding what they are looking for:- most TV, will new TV's will auto Tune, if asked when tv, is selected, even with out an aerial connected, there are going to be some ghostly very snowy cannels received, than we have their iPlayer, its on the internet, you typed in to a web-browser address line, if you have the inter-net, you have iPlayer, also, unless your outside the UK? used or not?
then at 10:26,
"understand the criminality of tv
licensing"
searching
But most people have a satellite dish - usually Sky I suppose - so, if a person has a satellite dish, is that an indicator to the BBC "inspectors" that the owner of the property with one, needs to have TV licence?
The problem with making a NLN declaration is, it saves the BBC money, which I have no wish to do.
If I watch TV I'm usually in the pub, at home I haven't watched any live TV for over 10 years
What about just Watching UA-cam do you need a TV License for old non BBC History programmes seeing as my Old Plasma TV is no longer working it’s a minefield of Technical Legal Rabbit holes which I find quite daunting and intimidating my 2year non Licensing Requirement is due for another Re-Visit peace of mind from you Mr Blackbelt Barrister
Thankyou so much,
🙏
Superb channel BBB thank you. If they ever catch me I’ll hire you.
is it allowed/reasonable to request that the be police be present should TV licencing show up with a warrant? and then waiting outside (to prevent any adjustment of evidence) with them until said police arrive?
because it has been reported that the agents will state they have a "warrant" which has been proven to be untrue/fake...