Is TV Licensing Harassing you? How to STOP TV Licence Officers visiting your address.

44.16 convictions for failure to pay TV license in the UK this according to Ministry of Justice statistics for the year ending June 2022, what is even more surprising are the following two statistics, firstly, that there were 47.6 122 prosecutions leading to 44.1 6 convictions, which means that it was a much higher 92% conviction rate than one would expect from the TCE, but there is a very good reason for that, the good reason is the second astonishing statistic and that is that the Ministry of Justice data also shows that 81% of the people prosecuted did not plead guilty, which means that it results in a single Justice procedure that you do not want for reasons that I will explain in this video but also in this video a couple of others. questions that have come up via email over and over and comments over and over again, so I thought I'd

address

them there.

Those questions are firstly the television leave letters which amount to harassment and secondly is there any way anyone can put a

stop

to all these letters and any visit to

your

door now all those questions again I'll

address

them in this video, but first of all, if you're new to me, I'm Daniel Shens Smith, a bar from England and Wales, and I enjoy talking to you about the history if that wasn't obvious from the thousands of videos on my channel now, so please click the like button and subscribe because I spend many hours helping you understand the law and I would be very grateful.

Also, if you want to learn how to build wealth, I can humbly help you do that too on my new channel. Daniel Shens Smith. Linked in the description below as well as in my review. The secrets of the canal black belt are also linked below. You ask, then, first of all, why don't you want a single procedure of Justice? Well, in short, he has no say in the outcome because, if he wants, it is heard behind closed doors and he can be found guilty in his absence and fined in his absence. absence because you did not respond to the notice this will be heard by way of a single Justice procedure unless you respond now to avoid this you must respond to the charge notice within 21 days if you intend to plead not guilty which is It is very possible that he will do so for reasons that may become evident later in this video, but if he does not plead not guilty to this charge notice, it will most likely be heard through a single Justice procedure and, as I explained in The 92% of the time people are convicted of this crime, which is pretty high, I think, as a conviction rate, so you might want to plead not guilty if you're not actually guilty of this crime again, which I will explain in this video.

Next question, do these letters amount to harassment? One of the emails that came to me reached me and will remain anonymous. It describes in great detail the letters they received once they canceled their TV license fee payment. Now there is a way I can suggest to you. avoid this, which has had varying degrees of success by different people; However, this writer who canceled the direct debit of the TV license received his first letter from a compliance manager a few months later, now right off the bat it sounds quite serious, he wrote a compliance manager sent them a letter, the first letter of October 2022, which said that if they did not pay the television license fee by a date in November, a full investigation would be launched in that direction.

Another letter was received in November indicating that a law enforcement officer had been scheduled to visit. a visit and that a fine of up to £1,000 plus legal costs and compensation could be ordered if they were found guilty. December came and this time another letter arrived applying a code to

your

address saying this required a visit from television license enforcement

officers

in the same letter again it says there is a formal notification that the details have been passed to the law enforcement team who could visit the address at any time, any day, at night, weekends and whatever, and could again be subject to a fine of up to £1,000 and now being detained for another La The question that arises quite frequently is whether all this is a violation of data protection and the GDPR.

The simple answer is no, because there is an authority within the legislation to enforce the legislation itself and the offenses it contains and therefore there is a mechanism within the GDPR. to allow the data to be used for law enforcement purposes, more on that, more specifically in another video, we continue in this little story, on January 23rd another letter arrived with big bold red boxes saying that this time had opened an official notice that an investigation had been opened without any real information. details about what such investigation is, we will move on to investigative measures in a moment and whether there is any detection equipment available.

I'll talk about that a little later. However, this letter said that it was an official warning that they were conducting an investigation in that direction now one could feel intimidated by this and one could come to the conclusion that it was harassment because harassment is any course of conduct that occurs on at least two occasions, that is, conduct that is more than a reasonable person should be expected to endure and could amount to some form of alarm and distress and could be oppressive to the person on the receiving end ; However, this is all under the guise of legislation allowing TV licensees to abide by the legislation and enforce these offences, etc. argument, it is quite feasible for them to say that this is not harassment, they are simply acting within the scope of the legislation and, more importantly, there is apparently a mechanism to get out of this, which I will talk about in a moment, but this story continues in February. 23 another official notice, read carefully, is violating the communications act of 2003 and then cites what the requirements are.

I will return to March 23. Will it be there on April 6? This letter asks suggesting that there will be a visit on April 6 again. I will return to these visits in a moment as there is still no television license for this address April 23 saying that there has been no response to any of the letters May 23 another letter June 23 another letter on July 23 another letter on the 23 August another letter and on September 23 another letter with another code issued against the address and here we are with the email addressed to me asking if this is harassment. Now you could consider this quite oppressive or you could just say that these were reminder letters every month to encourage the person, if they need to, to pay for a TV license.

Now at this point in the video many viewers around the world might be wondering what the hell is a TV License and why does such a thing exist in the UK if you watch or record live TV or use the BBC I player and this may be on any device, your phone, your computer, your laptop, your tablet, whatever, or a traditional television or the A slightly more obscure crime within the law where, if you have installed the equipment for that purpose, it could be guilty of an offense if you do not have a TV license to watch, record live TV, view BBC I player on any device or if we have installed any equipment for that purpose now, many countries around the world have had this license before and are They have gotten rid of this license and there have been many different conversations about getting rid of the license here, but unfortunately this license prevails for the moment at least.

Is it likely not harassment? Although there is an argument that it could be, there is a mechanism to get away from it, which is to simply fill out the form and tell them that you don't need a television license at your address and having gone through that procedure myself. I can tell you that it works because they leave you alone because I don't watch or record live television. I don't use the BBC I player. I don't have time for that stuff and I haven't received letters like other people, so I can say that. you personally say this works for me, at least many people however have said this doesn't work and they still receive these letters month after month other people simply report that a few years later they get another reminder to say if it's still the case that it doesn't You need a license and they respond and say no I don't need it um thank you but I don't need a license and then a few more years go by but what about the detection equipment and its authorization and what about the visit to the property?

Now the question arises again and again: do they have detector vans? Now the official TV

licensing

website suggests yes, but any section where one asks will give us more information about these detection vans, such as how. Many requests have been made for authorization to use detection equipment and for what type of equipment, and have these requests been granted or rejected? The request for information. Ed in it has been exempt from disclosure under section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act, so how about another question on how? How many detector vans or other detection devices does the BBC have?

How often are detector vans used? How often are the devices used? What are the technical specifications of detector vans and detection devices? Well, you guessed it. The information requested is exempt from disclosure under section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act. How about we ask how much it costs to use such detection equipment, including staff costs? Well, again you guessed it. Details about information about the cost of using the detection equipment are exempt from disclosure under section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act. Freedom of Information Act How does the detection team work? TV Licensing says TV licensees have a variety of detection equipment at their disposal as part of an anti-ace strategy.

Only used in addresses that do not have a TV license, but more specific information. How does it work? Did you guess that it is exempt from disclosure under section 31 of the Freedom of Information Act? So what happens if one of these

officers

wants to show up? Enter your address to examine your equipment now to visit your property in the first instance. These agents rely on an implied right under common law to visit your property with lawful business and make their presence known, usually by ringing the doorbell or knocking on the door. In my opinion they could get into trouble if they walk around your property and start looking through the windows which could be a different story.

I would be arguing about that if I were his representative in court; However, as you may remember from a previous video I made a long time ago, which if I find it, I'll link to it in the description below, you can actually do that. remove this implied access right, you can remove it generally, and you can remove it specifically. I would recommend, if you wish, not to be disturbed, at least without a court order. I'll come back to that in a moment if you want to remain calm. write to the TV license removing their implied right of access to your property, meaning they can no longer visit it without your consent.

Another way to enforce this is to have a locked gate at the end of your drive, if you have one, because the implied right of access does not. it doesn't extend beyond a closed door, obviously they would have to somehow get through the closed door first, usually by jumping over it or even I would say that if it's just closed they shouldn't open it because that would be opening it. an entry onto your property for which you have not given permission now In the relatively rare scenario in the grand scheme of things where a warrant has been issued to access your property, you have a duty to provide reasonable assistance to the officer now.

I've covered that in previous videos, my suggestion in those cases has to be to comply with the law, which is to provide the reasonable assistance that the legislation provides now, of course, most of the videos I've seen where people resist the visits with a court order usually results in the law enforcement officer and any police who are present leaving the premises without further problems, which is not to say that there is nothing further down the line, such as prosecution for failure to provide reasonable assistance as required by legislation, but This comes down to one big question: how could an officer obtain enough evidence to obtain a warrant in the first place without

visiting

your property?

Gathering evidence that you are using the television equipment to watch or record live television or the BBC I player without entering your property, frankly that sounds a bit absurd because unless they use this fancy M detection equipment to detect that you are watching or recording live television or using bbci player, how would they get the evidence in the first place to get the order to visit your address if the order to visit your address is to get evidence to then prosecute you in court.Also, the TV

licensing

website explicitly states that they have never used the detection equipment test in court so far, but if that provided evidence for the order, surely that would be providing evidence for a prosecution not because at least if from a legal perspective if there is a prosecution there has to be a disclosure process which would include any evidence that meets the disclosure test, which is an ongoing duty of disclosure on the prosecution officer the disclosure officer any material that is used to the prosecution any material that could reasonably undermine the prosecution case or assist the defense case is releasable also any unused material must be made available to any defense advocate now if no evidence from the detection team has ever been used in court, presumably it has never been mentioned by either the prosecutor or the defense lawyer, which seems a bit strange to me, it might suggest that I don't know, but it might suggest that there is none, although it is equally possible that it is simply It has never been mentioned by the prosecutor, a defense attorney, whether as used footage, unused footage or anything else, but what I can tell you in closing is this if you don't watch or record.

Live TV or use the player BBC I or have you ever installed the equipment on your premises for that purpose, then generally speaking you generally don't understand that it's not legal advice, you don't need a TV

licence

, but if you are being chased for a TV license and still it is. then they served you with a charge notice for failing to obtain a television license, if you believe you are not guilty or follow advice and you are informed that you are not guilty based on the information you gave to your legal counsel, then you should plead not guilty because If you ignore the charge notice, you will end up being one of the 92% of people prosecuted and end up convicted either for not responding at all or for fear of pleading guilty.

Now judging by the email I received today, the person was clearly in some distress and many people could be in distress and therefore I know that many people have told me that they are pleading guilty for fear of being prosecuted. or who plead guilty when prosecuted for fear of being convicted now, at this final point in the process. In closing, it is worth noting that non-payment of the television license is a non-registrable crime, which means that it is not a full-fledged criminal record, as it could be understood otherwise, which means that it does not appear In a standard DBS check the average fine is about the same as you would pay for a TV

licence

, usually not enough although it can be up to $000 plus costs etc but the vast majority of The convictions, apparently, are those that do not respond, which seems to be over. 80% that do not respond and of the remaining percentage I believe that a good part are those who plead guilty out of some type of fear or perhaps they are genuinely guilty but I firmly believe that you should not plead guilty for something you did not do now, although you may It may not seem worthwhile to seek legal advice instead of pleading guilty or simply paying for the television license.

I still firmly believe that he should not plead guilty for something he did not do. do and you shouldn't pay for a license for something you don't need, so if you found this video useful, please like and subscribe to the channel, check out my other channels link below and as always, Thank you very much for your time and watching it means a lot to me because you watch this channel and I will see you next time.