Is this legal?

[monkeybiter]

Chems,

If you are taking a vehicle off the road, no longer can you just leave it uninsured and in the garage.

You are obliged to declare it off-road, or you must insure it.

Tax not insurance.

Re. the OP; I had the same issue with these bullying letters to my late father's house, after he moved to be nearer me. I telephoned them to complain about the nature of the letter and the potential distress caused to older and more frail people. Surprise surprise they weren't interested and the letters continued. I learnt my lesson and just ignored them.
If I did ever find myself in the position of not needing a TVL and I received one of these I would just ignore it, because as an individual you'll never change it. I'd love to get that visit that Steve Maskery did, so much fun and righteous indignation.

 

[Benchwayze]

Ok Biter.
Suit yourself. Perhaps they relinquished the law in the last few months.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12614090

This is even clearer..

http://moneyfacts.co.uk/guides/insuranc ... -the-road/

:wink:

 

[Richard T]

An ex girlfriend of mine lived in a non tv household and the threats were constant. This was in the '90s so computers were no means of needing a licence.

They were invited in when they called, which was often, just for the satisfaction of showing that there was indeed no telly. But they never gave up. The letters kept coming and the visits kept happening. It was the policy at the time to assume that every household had a telly and anyone who said they didn't was lying. It sounds like it still is and must be more so now with all the different means of seeing BBC programmes.

This must cost them an awful lot of money - we need a licence fee to pay for this fine service alone. ](*,)

My advice would be to send a bill to the relevant dpt. demanding payment for something that they are using of yours ... just make something up - a left handed scrangle dongler or a empathetic cheese strangler - whatever, and adopt an attitude of assumption of guilt on their part. Keep the letters going, threaten court, accuse them of lying etc. Every time you get some ludicrous threat from them, send one back. Demand that they claim non - use, then carry on anyway. :twisted:

 

[monkeybiter]

Ok Biter.
Suit yourself. Perhaps they relinquished the law in the last few months.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/12614090

My mistake, your are correct.

 

[Benchwayze]

I almost got caught too!

You even have to check your vehicle is on a list of Insured vehicles...
When you renew each year, it can take a week or so before the register is updated, and the Police won't always accept your word!


http://www.askMID.com

 

[Chems]

Chems,

If you are taking a vehicle off the road, no longer can you just leave it uninsured and in the garage.

You are obliged to declare it off-road, or you must insure it.

Such is the Democracy in which we live.

(Well said nanscombe, btw!)

Yes yes, that is what I was refering to. You are doing the uninsured in the garage bit at the moment in relation to your TV license. Only get in a twist if after you've told them you don't need a TV license they get annoyed. Nothing unreasonable about letting them know a car isn't on the roads anymore or you don't need a TV license.

 

[monkeybiter]

To continue the analogy, the difference is his garage is empty. The burden of proof should be on the accuser not the person who is innocent but assumed guilty.

 

[DrPhill]

To continue the analogy, the difference is his garage is empty. The burden of proof should be on the accuser not the person who is innocent but assumed guilty.

Well put.

To push the analogy to it's extremes: I have no car. I have not had a car for 15 years. There is no record of me having a car at this address. There is no record of me having owned a car for 15 years. Why should I be threatened with court action because I refuse to sign a piece of paper saying that I have no car. (To be factually correct substitute each occurrence of 'car' with the word 'television'. I do have a car and comply with all uk vehicle regulations). Why would anyone think it reasonable to expect me to have to make such a declaration?

To make the car analogy more accurate, what if you were regularly asked by the DVLA to declare that you do not have an unlicenced vehicle? Note that this is different to asking you why you have not bought a licence for the car of which you are or were registered as owning, but as a 'trawling exercise' to scare up more revenue? What if the wording implied that if you owned a pushbike you may still need to by a car licence if you used the bike as a car? What if you were confused about the legality of what you were doing, and were scared of being taken to court? Would you feel a little peeved.

 

[Chems]

Its a petty outlook to take really, we are a society and we all have our parts to play. More people have TVs and need a license than do not (I guess) so it seems only cost effective that the small majority of people should take 2 mins to either phone up or go online and let the guys know they don't need a license. This whole burden of proof outlook is very childish over something so straight forward.

Seen as playtime has obviously begun I'll just take my leave from this thread . . .

 

[Steve Maskery]

But Chems, perhaps you didn't read my earlier post. You can tell them you don't have a TV and they do not believe you. It makes no difference. They just carry on.

As an aside, the other bug-bear of mine is trick-or-treat. It's demanding money with menaces. I'm not talking about your own kids putting on a black had and having fake blood running out their mouth, I'm talking about total strangers who are taller than I am coming to the door in masks which hide their identity and demand I give them something or they will do something unpleasant to me or my property. It is just harassment and many people who are older, frailer or less alert than I am can be terrified by threats like this.

It's simply wrong, both TVL and TOT.

BTW I've received a letter today threatening the bailiffs, for a penalty charge that is not mine. Sigh.

 

[Dusty]

Got to say I had this about 5 years ago , My dad bought a house to renovate , we did it over a 4 year period and had all the usual letters telling us that after an investigation one of their vans detected a tv being used at the property with out a liscence , it had been gutted for about 2 years so we just ignored it , and we did with many more subsequent letters , then we had one saying an inpection officer had visited and could not access the property , we phoned them and invited them in at their convenience , they duly arrived whilst I was working there ( well engineered for the humour value ........I let him in and took great delight when I showed him the lounge which had a pile of hardcore on the floor as did every room as we had gunned up all the floors to lower them and insulate , I then pointed out the house did not have any electrics except for one socket next to the meter , and I even made a £1000 wager with him if he could find the aerial .........he left un amused that we had "wasted " his time .......and me to with him having wasted our time ...

If an inspection officer had just looked through the windows on the legendary surprise visit he would of noticed the house was inhabitable, as per on the council tax system .

How I see it is that if they want to play call my bluff , then I play games , costs me nothing , . It is a principal thing .

cheers

 

[devonwoody]

Here is a conundrum, if you have no TV license and have a computer and somehow you end up at the utube website without even the intention of doing so and get a flash of a TV show being displayed, have you therefore watched TV in your home?

 

[Steve Maskery]

No. In this context it is watching TV programmes as they are being broadcast. Catchup TV like iPlayer is not licensed in the same way.

 

[devonwoody]

No. In this context it is watching TV programmes as they are being broadcast. Catchup TV like iPlayer is not licensed in the same way.

Well it wont be long :wink:

Actually I am completely shocked that computers are not taxed like the bbc license.

 

[DrPhill]

Actually I am completely shocked that computers are not taxed like the bbc license.

Historically speaking, it would be the expected move. Any new form of communication has attracted the interest of the government - first for control, then for revenue. Pamphlets, then books, the press, radio, tv. So licencing/taxing computers or the interweb would be consistent.

I am not advocating this - far from it - just saying that it would be historically consistent. Then people would be complaining 'I do not have a computer, never have had, so why do I have to declare this fact?'. Though I doubt that they would be posting such a comment here.

 

[SBJ]

I've had this before in houses that we've renovated. Constant threatening letters, to the point of bullying. I refused to phone them on a point of principal that I didn't have to prove that I was innocent.

Having read this thread, I realise what a plank I must have looked to everyone that I told the story too. Just phone them DrPhil, then return to being indignant if it continues.

 

[andersonec]

Some months ago we got a letter from them saying we did not have a licence and must buy one, phoned them and said we've got one and here's the licence number, few weeks late another letter arrived and said we had not responded etc, phoned them and said we have a licence and here's the number, few weeks later another letter threatening us with court, phoned them and said when will the hearing be and we would be glad to meet them in court, letters stopped.

Andy

 

[RogerS]

Stick to your guns, Dr Phill. If you Google this you will see that you are not alone.

And if you can't get to sleep then try this website dedicated to your problem! http://www.lime-marmalade.net/

Actually some interesting wrinkles. Here's a couple of questions for you.

1) If you use a computer to watch live streaming-video BBC programmes, do you need a TV licence ?

2) If you use a computer to watch live streaming-video foreign programmes, do you need a TV licence ?

The answer is Yes to both.

 

[PeterBassett]

The TV licence fee is an anachronism which should be repealed and TV watching should be free to all. There is no justification anymore for TV licence fees. The BBC is now a business just like other commercial TV stations so why do we need a licence.
Al

Disagree with this entirely. We pay a license fee to keep the BBC ran stations advert free and I for one and vastly grateful for that. Have you watched the other stations? Let me give you a breakdown.

A 1 hour show starts on the hour.
2 minute introduction to the show showing what the show will show you.
At the 5 minute mark we break to commercial for 5 minutes.
There on in we break for commercial ad breaks every 10 minutes. Each break is five minutes.

A content packed 1 hour show is actually less than 40 minutes long.

The other stations are an utter bag of *****.

 

[RogerS]

The TV licence fee is an anachronism which should be repealed and TV watching should be free to all. There is no justification anymore for TV licence fees. The BBC is now a business just like other commercial TV stations so why do we need a licence.
Al

Disagree with this entirely. We pay a license fee to keep the BBC ran stations advert free and I for one and vastly grateful for that. Have you watched the other stations? Let me give you a breakdown.

A 1 hour show starts on the hour.
2 minute introduction to the show showing what the show will show you.
At the 5 minute mark we break to commercial for 5 minutes.
There on in we break for commercial ad breaks every 10 minutes. Each break is five minutes.

A content packed 1 hour show is actually less than 40 minutes long.

The other stations are an utter bag of dung.

+1

You missed Channel 4's ability to stretch a 30 minute programme out to the hour slot by repeating for two minutes after each commercial break excerpts from what went on before in the programme...a sort of commercial reprise.