OT Totally, and a little bit rude... The side effects of fixing empty buildings...

4 views
Skip to first unread message

Tim S

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 4:18:53 PM1/13/09
to
... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.

Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
get reminders each month.

But this one really p*ssed me off;

http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg

[address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
there aren't...]

So I sent them this:

(very very unsuitable for work and kids)

http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg


Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.

I'm normally such a reasonable person (ha!)

Cheers

Tim

PS

Am I going to prision now?

Mike Dodd

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 4:23:57 PM1/13/09
to
Tim S wrote:

> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg

ROFL!

The Medway Handyman

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 4:28:57 PM1/13/09
to

Bloody brilliant!


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk


Tim S

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 4:35:16 PM1/13/09
to
The Medway Handyman coughed up some electrons that declared:

Yes - it's really in the postbox as of now.

Based on my experience working in the JobCentre, I expect the staff will pin
it to the wall in the tearoom, along with the other best 10 of the
month ;->

What I really would like is for their enforcer to show up in person, whilst
I'm wearing my steelies and have a wide variety of lethal powertools to
hand.

Hugh Jampton

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 4:40:48 PM1/13/09
to
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:18:53 +0000, Tim S wrote:

> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg

I like it :-)

Unfortunately 99.9% of the population are totally addicted to the Idiot's
Lantern and find it impossible to believe that there are still some of us
who never watch it :-(
--
Regards,

Hugh Jampton

Tim S

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 4:53:58 PM1/13/09
to
Hugh Jampton coughed up some electrons that declared:

I watch it when I wish to achieve selective vegetative degeneration, and I
have a bloody licence at the address where the TV is - which makes me
doublepluspissedoff.

Must be one of those days. Can't get my domain registrar to unlock my domain
so I can get my ISP to take it over. Two polite phone calls have had me
assured it would be actioned today. Not...

Last email threatened them with a cron job auto-emailing a support ticket in
to them every 5 minutes until it's done, if they don't sort it out
tomorrow. I will too...


Bob Eager

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 4:55:59 PM1/13/09
to
You forgot to say that you won't be calling their revenue sharing 0844
number, and was the purpose of the letter to gather that revenue...
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Bob Eager

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 4:56:52 PM1/13/09
to

Give them a deadline, and say that after that you're going to Nominet.
That tends to do it..

Tim S

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 4:58:52 PM1/13/09
to
Bob Eager coughed up some electrons that declared:

> Give them a deadline, and say that after that you're going to Nominet.
> That tends to do it..
>

Yes - an excellent tactic. Before or after I mail-bomb them?

d...@gglz.com

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 4:59:29 PM1/13/09
to
Whilst it's tempting, the most effective tactic is to chuck their
letters straight in the bin.

In case anyone doesn't know, TV Licensing is a private company with no
special legal powers of any sort.

If someone came round your door demanding to inspect your toaster,
you'd probably send them packing.

TV Licensing is in exactly that position. But they pretend otherwise.

So give them nothing, nada, not your name, not the time of day. Don't
give them the tiniest scrap of information about yourself, your home
or any other qustion they may ask.

Tim S

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 5:04:06 PM1/13/09
to
Bob Eager coughed up some electrons that declared:

> You forgot to say that you won't be calling their revenue sharing 0844


> number, and was the purpose of the letter to gather that revenue...

It would be worth the money to give them a verbal rendition of my letter :)
I'd have to do it from work - my colleague would make an excellent duo for
this sort of thing - he's an expert in berating idiot suppliers to their
ears.

Though I suspect the gentle sarcasm may be lost on the Indian bloke at the
other end.


Tim S

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 5:09:05 PM1/13/09
to
d...@gglz.com coughed up some electrons that declared:

Agree generally.

The only special info they have is a list of current licenses and a list of
reception apparatus sold by the bigger traders (you did tell the bloke your
correct address when you paid cash for that telly, didn't you?).

It's Customs & Excise you need to worry about - they do have special powers
that make the police look gay, for a limited and specific set of suspected
infringments.

Dave Baker

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 5:25:13 PM1/13/09
to

"Tim S" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:496d057c$0$512$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...

> ... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need
> a
> licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>
> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
> get reminders each month.
>
> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>
> [address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
> there aren't...]
>
> So I sent them this:
>
> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>
>
> Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.

You're right it won't do any good. I think the only thing that briefly stops
them sending their shitty letters out is having one of their plebs visit and
confirm there's no tv but they'll start sending the letters again a few
months later in case you've bought one since. I haven't had a tv license for
about five or six years now. I didn't renew it immediately one year as the
tv had broken and I bought a new one a few months later after I got the tv
fixed. Then the swines sent me a letter saying they'd backdated the new
license to when the old one ran out hence losing me the cost of the months I
hadn't needed one for. I said to myself that's the last time the pricks get
any of my money and it has been. They send a standard shitty letter about
once every six weeks and a recorded delivery one so they can get a signature
from the occupant about once a year but so far none of their plebs have come
round. I'm hoping one will eventually so I can tell him he's a private
individual with no rights of access who's trespassing now so piss off
because there's something on the telly I want to watch.

The ONLY way you can get done for not having a license is let one of them
inside to get the evidence which you have absolutely no need to do unless
they have a warrant which they never will. It costs them too much. Basically
it's a voluntary tax which I've decided I can manage quite happily without
paying.
--
Dave Baker

PS - if it went to court the thing on the telly I wanted to watch was either
1) My goldfish, cos that's where his bowl is, because he's been looking a
bit off colour recently.
or
2) A pre-recorded tape or dvd which you don't need a license for anyway.


OG

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 5:37:47 PM1/13/09
to

"Tim S" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:496d057c$0$512$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...

If you've only sent the one letter probably not, but there is a risk if you
were to send another letter along the same lines.

Seriously.

I read somewhere that someone who wrote a couple of sarky letters of
complaint to a company got investigated by NECTU, the police unit set up to
investigate groups such as animal rights extremists and the like who
undertake campaigns of harassment against shareholders and employees. I
don't have evidence to hand for this, but I think I read about it in Private
Eye.

Tim S

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 5:43:59 PM1/13/09
to
OG coughed up some electrons that declared:


> I read somewhere that someone who wrote a couple of sarky letters of
> complaint to a company got investigated by NECTU, the police unit set up
> to investigate groups such as animal rights extremists and the like who
> undertake campaigns of harassment against shareholders and employees. I
> don't have evidence to hand for this, but I think I read about it in
> Private Eye.

</Me tears up letter proclaiming a holy jihad upon Crapita, with bombs and
virgins and everything>


geoff

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 5:39:13 PM1/13/09
to
In message <496d057c$0$512$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>, Tim S
<t...@dionic.net> writes

>... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
>licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>

>http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>

I got exactly the same and strangely enough, my reply to them was
exactly the same as yours, with the exception of the all the words
preceding "fuck off"

They are quite welcome to attempt to gain entrance to my factory at
their own expense

At the end of the day, its just scare tactics and you should complain to
your MP about their immoral bullying tactics


--
geoff

John Rumm

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 5:50:59 PM1/13/09
to
Tim S wrote:

> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
> get reminders each month.

You have my sympathies, I experienced this twice in recent times... no
amount of telling the buggers seems to serve any purpose. In the end I
found that dropping them straight into the bin was the most effective
and least irritating way of dealing with them.

> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg

Usual fare, the presumption of guilt, and lots of non specific threats...

> So I sent them this:
>
> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg

LoL!


I thought my last attempt before giving up in disgust was reasonably
sarky, but I like your's better!

got a copy somewhere... oh yes:

"Sent via email 30/11/06 – reference number : EM0002445143

Dear Sir,

Re: my mothers property at [redacted]

As you seem keen to point out on a frequent basis, the above mentioned
property is unlicensed. By way of clarification I would like to point
out that this is not an oversight, and it is by intention.

The reason for this is that (as I explained before in my letter of 2nd
March 2006) due to my mothers poor health, the property is currently
unoccupied. It is now highly probable the property will remain
unoccupied until it is sold.

I would appreciate it if you could therefore desist in sending further
letters.

I would also like to take this opportunity to register my complaint as
to the tone and style of the letters that you have sent. In particular
the language seems designed to intimidate and harass, and would be
perceived by many as threatening.


Yours faithfully,"

etc.

Got a stock reply "we have updated our records and should not contact
you again for 3 months, however after that bla, bla". 1 week later, more
snottygrammes.

Had the same happen when I moved out of the last place (I was planning
some refurb prior to selling it) - transferred the license here (via
their web site that delightfully requests that you tell them within 14
days of moving into your new address, and has validation on the data
entry form that prevents entering any moving date that is not at least
three weeks into the future!

I then just binned all the letters.

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

Pete Verdon

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 6:05:29 PM1/13/09
to
Tim S wrote:

> Last email threatened them with a cron job auto-emailing a support ticket in
> to them every 5 minutes until it's done, if they don't sort it out
> tomorrow. I will too...

Sounds rather silly. It's not as if they can't block it leaving you
"shouting at an empty room", and you do actually need to work with these
people. Unlike the TV Licensing tossers - ineffective spleen-venting as
you say, but the last two lines were absolute classic :-)

Pete

Tim S

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 6:11:36 PM1/13/09
to
Pete Verdon coughed up some electrons that declared:

> Tim S wrote:
>
>> Last email threatened them with a cron job auto-emailing a support ticket
>> in to them every 5 minutes until it's done, if they don't sort it out
>> tomorrow. I will too...
>
> Sounds rather silly. It's not as if they can't block it leaving you
> "shouting at an empty room", and you do actually need to work with these
> people.

Yep - more of a jest, but their sysadmin might see a hint of humour in it :)


Tim S

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 6:14:53 PM1/13/09
to
Tim S coughed up some electrons that declared:


BTW - it's their fault anyway for not having a "so long and thanks for all
the fish" button on the control panel. I can do everything else without
human contact.

ABTW - do you remember Alan Ralsky? - they totally mail-bombed him, with
great effect.


geoff

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 6:14:54 PM1/13/09
to
In message <IbSdnS3IpqRwh_DU...@posted.plusnet>, John Rumm
<see.my.s...@nowhere.null> writes

>Tim S wrote:
>
>> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
>> get reminders each month.
>
>You have my sympathies, I experienced this twice in recent times... no
>amount of telling the buggers seems to serve any purpose. In the end I
>found that dropping them straight into the bin was the most effective
>and least irritating way of dealing with them.
>
>> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>
>Usual fare, the presumption of guilt, and lots of non specific threats...
>
>> So I sent them this:
>> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>
>LoL!
>
>
>I thought my last attempt before giving up in disgust was reasonably
>sarky, but I like your's better!
>
I think its just wasted on them

My next reply will be

"you are correct, the above address has no TV licence

Come on if you think you're 'ard enough"

Several years ago I explained that it was an engineering works, there
was no TV, stop wasting my licence payers money and got a letter of
apology

So now I give them no information, just wind them up to the best of my
abilities

make them play your game, don't play theirs


--
geoff

Dave

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 6:17:10 PM1/13/09
to
Dave Baker wrote:

> They send a standard shitty letter about
> once every six weeks and a recorded delivery one so they can get a signature
> from the occupant about once a year

They would find me in the pub at delivery time, having a pint of real
ale :-)

> but so far none of their plebs have come
> round. I'm hoping one will eventually so I can tell him he's a private
> individual with no rights of access who's trespassing now so piss off
> because there's something on the telly I want to watch.

I love that line and if the wife goes before me, the television will be
for DVD's and the vast number of videos that we have built up, only.

Dave

John Rumm

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 6:26:32 PM1/13/09
to
geoff wrote:

>> I thought my last attempt before giving up in disgust was reasonably
>> sarky, but I like your's better!
>>
> I think its just wasted on them
>
> My next reply will be
>
> "you are correct, the above address has no TV licence
>
> Come on if you think you're 'ard enough"
>
> Several years ago I explained that it was an engineering works, there
> was no TV, stop wasting my licence payers money and got a letter of apology
>
> So now I give them no information, just wind them up to the best of my
> abilities
>
> make them play your game, don't play theirs

It might be fun to send them a letter pointing out that <inert criminal
activity of your choice> is illegal and they could get fined if
caught... Mention you might be turning up to inspect their premiss etc.

Frank Erskine

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 6:46:08 PM1/13/09
to
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:18:53 +0000, Tim S <t...@dionic.net> wrote:

>... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
>licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>
>Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
>get reminders each month.
>
>But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
>http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>

Oh - that's one I haven't got from them. There must be numerous
concoctions of threats issuing from that firm.

My pride and joy must be a _pink_ bit of paper entitled 'Summary of
communications sent to this address', telling me that I have been
warned... , that I have been encouraged... , that I have been made
aware... , that I have been advised... and that I have also
received...

I was told months ago that if I didn't buy a licence immediately,
legal action would be taken - I'm still awaiting a summons to the
local magistrates' court.
I'm looking forward to it, in fact :-)

Why don't they actually do what they occasionally threaten and bring
round their powerful detection apparatus? Actually they've visited a
couple of times, both when I've been out (I wonder if they wait around
the corner until their culprit drives away...)


I don't see why I should have to write to them, paying for a postage
stamp, or phoning them on an 0844 number, when I have no connection
with them.

--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland

Frank Erskine

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 6:56:04 PM1/13/09
to
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 13:59:29 -0800 (PST), "d...@gglz.com"
<d...@gglz.com> wrote:

>Whilst it's tempting, the most effective tactic is to chuck their
>letters straight in the bin.
>
>In case anyone doesn't know, TV Licensing is a private company with no
>special legal powers of any sort.

Actually they do have delegated legal powers, but it all has to be be
done by specific legislation (exactly as it does in the case of a
government body), but people tend to jump to attention if a government
body's person knocks on the door...

--
Frank Erskine

Frank Erskine

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 7:19:44 PM1/13/09
to
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:39:13 +0000, geoff <ra...@kateda.org> wrote:

>In message <496d057c$0$512$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>, Tim S
><t...@dionic.net> writes
>>... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
>>licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>>

>At the end of the day, its just scare tactics and you should complain to

>your MP about their immoral bullying tactics

It's a total waste of time complaining to my MP unless it's a matter
of foreign 'rights'...

--
Frank Erskine
Sunderland

jo...@jjdesigns.fsnet.co.uk

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 7:34:38 PM1/13/09
to

Tim S wrote:

> ... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
> licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>

> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
> get reminders each month.
>
> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>

> [address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
> there aren't...]
>

> So I sent them this:
>
> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>
>

> Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.
>
> I'm normally such a reasonable person (ha!)
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> PS
>
> Am I going to prision now?

Warms the cockles of me heart to know there's still real people out
there.
Nice one!

ARWadsworth

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 8:09:03 PM1/13/09
to

"Tim S" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:496d057c$0$512$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
> ... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need
a
> licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>
> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
> get reminders each month.
>
> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>
> [address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
> there aren't...]
>
> So I sent them this:
>
> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>
>
> Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.
>
> I'm normally such a reasonable person (ha!)
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> PS
>
> Am I going to prision now?

http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm


will show every letter you will receive.

I saved 12 months worth of letters from the TVLA and wrote on them using a
big marker pen "UNWANTED JUNK MAIL RETURN TO SENDER" I then posted all 12
into a postbox. Every letter was sent back unopened and I wrote sarcasic
comments against the "Notice of impending action", "Action Required
Immediately"
I also included in this postbox frenzy a reply form from a TVLA investigator
that actually had the cheek to call at my house when I was at work. This was
my first step to free contact with the TVLA bastards as they gave me a
prepaid envelope. I drew a knob on it and told them to suck it.

I did receive a letter asking me not to return the unopened letters and I
now have been removed from their mail list. As they (TVLA) do not know my
name they claim that they can still send someone round. I did write back and
ask them to "bring it on" but no one has called back.

The Legal Occupier AKA Adam


Tim S

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 8:15:22 PM1/13/09
to
ARWadsworth coughed up some electrons that declared:

>
> "Tim S" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
> news:496d057c$0$512$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>> ... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need
> a
>> licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>>
>> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
>> get reminders each month.
>>
>> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>>
>> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>>
>> [address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
>> there aren't...]
>>
>> So I sent them this:
>>
>> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>>
>> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>>
>>
>> Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.
>>
>> I'm normally such a reasonable person (ha!)
>>
>> Cheers
>>
>> Tim
>>
>> PS
>>
>> Am I going to prision now?
>
> http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm
>
>
> will show every letter you will receive.

Most of those look vaguely familiar...

> I saved 12 months worth of letters from the TVLA and wrote on them using a
> big marker pen "UNWANTED JUNK MAIL RETURN TO SENDER" I then posted all 12
> into a postbox. Every letter was sent back unopened and I wrote sarcasic
> comments against the "Notice of impending action", "Action Required
> Immediately"
> I also included in this postbox frenzy a reply form from a TVLA
> investigator that actually had the cheek to call at my house when I was at
> work. This was my first step to free contact with the TVLA bastards as
> they gave me a prepaid envelope. I drew a knob on it and told them to suck
> it.

Nice move :)

Brass Monkey

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 8:45:45 PM1/13/09
to

"Tim S" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:496d3caa$0$512$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
Yes, they've sent me a few, also.

I virtually copied their letter and replied with -

ACTION REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY

IMPORTANT: Please respond to this letter by January 2009 to avoid your
details being passed on to the BBC, any form(s) of Watchdog or anyone else I
can think of who might be interested.

Your database lists these addresses as unlicensed. It is important you
realise that both premises are currently vacant. It is also important you
realise that I have already attended to the TV licensing for BOTH properties
around 6 weeks ago. Perhaps you might check your records before 'banging-off'
standard nasty letters?

We still own the properties and they are both empty.

I repeat

WE STILL OWN THE PROPERTIES AND THEY ARE BOTH EMPTY.

It is even more important that you realise that the tone of your
communication is extremely rude, condescending and downright unacceptable.
Please feel free to send your 'Enforcement Division' to the properties,
maybe you might find us sitting in the dark, on orange boxes watching
illegal TV.

The tone of your letters might cause one of two effects, either -

A fraudulent, non-paying viewer will be frightened for their life (don't
make me laugh)

or

A fully-paid-up legitimate viewer (such as myself) will become EXTREMELY
annoyed.

It would appear that your organization couldn't organise a ****-up in a
brewery.


Brass Monkey

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 8:54:01 PM1/13/09
to

"Brass Monkey" <a...@b.com> wrote in message
news:00374284$0$2166$c3e...@news.astraweb.com...

I should add, i've yet to receive a reply.


The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 9:31:23 PM1/13/09
to
Tim S wrote:
> ... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
> licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>
> Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
> get reminders each month.
>
> But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>
> [address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
> there aren't...]
>
> So I sent them this:
>
> (very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
> http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>
>
> Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.
>
> I'm normally such a reasonable person (ha!)
>
> Cheers
>
> Tim
>
> PS
>
> Am I going to prision now?

Hah. They did the same to me when I bought a TV for my mum.

the bloody shop sent *my* address to the TV people. As it happened, I
was in rented accom. pending the reconstruction of the house, so it was
highly amusing.

I figured the next tenant would get the men with detector vans.

gazz

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 9:32:14 PM1/13/09
to

>>>> "Tim S" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
>>>> news:496d057c$0$512$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...
>>>>> ... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't
>>>>> need
>>>> a
>>>>> licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.

i guess they dropped the bit on the old licences that if you watched on a
portable tv running on internal batteries then no licence was required?

they now mention computers and mobile phones, so it's no longer a licence to
watch something that actually recieves the signals i guess??

i my self never watch any bbc channels, utter shite on them, i dont listen
to any radio at all, but i have to have a licence to watch the proggies on
sattelite i do watch (mostly the discovery type chanels) which i pay for in
my sky subscription, and are paid for them selves by adverts and twatty
sponserships of the proggies etc.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 9:33:00 PM1/13/09
to

Just go to nominet.

The only downside is that they may still keep records active seen if the
domain is delegated elsewhere.

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 9:39:11 PM1/13/09
to
Oh don't do that. The fuzz these days are selected for total zero sense
of humour and political correctness.

If you send a letter like that you WILL get done for wasting police time.

Its like the last time I got done for speeding. I saifd precisely
nothing, until one bloke asked me waht I was thinking.

"I was thinking what a waste of time it si when you would be catching
terrorists"

"well, if we weren't here taking your details we would be"

My mouth fell open at that point, and I went back to a stony silence..

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 13, 2009, 9:59:08 PM1/13/09
to

Ah, but you MIGHT just watch a video clip online..

I have to say that they should just get a government grant and put the
thing on general taxes.

The days when only a minority had a radio or a TV are long gone.

Do you mean that pay TV still has adverts?

Appelation Controlee

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 2:25:28 AM1/14/09
to
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:46:08 +0000, Frank Erskine wrote:

-------------------8><


> Why don't they actually do what they occasionally threaten and bring
> round their powerful detection apparatus?

Because the effectiveness of said apparatus has more to do with it being
seen than what it detects?

Appelation Controlee

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 2:29:28 AM1/14/09
to
On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 01:09:03 GMT, ARWadsworth wrote:

-------------------8><


> http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm
>
>
> will show every letter you will receive.

I notice that these letters seem to suggest that you need a TV licence if
you use a computer at home...

Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics)

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 3:49:58 AM1/14/09
to
In article <176uZD2KcidF-p...@rikki.tavi.co.uk>, Bob Eager
<URL:mailto:rd...@spamcop.net> wrote:

> Give them a deadline, and say that after that you're going to Nominet.
> That tends to do it..

Oh for that to be a universal truth...

Vispa Internet are holding two of my domains to ransom. Nominet (rightly)
want paying for them to intervene, so being the stubborn git I am, the
domains are stuck until expiry.

--
AJL Electronics (G6FGO) Ltd : Satellite and TV aerial systems
http://www.classicmicrocars.co.uk : http://www.ajlelectronics.co.uk

Piers Finlayson

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 5:01:26 AM1/14/09
to
On 13 Jan 2009 21:55:59 GMT, Bob Eager wrote:

> You forgot to say that you won't be calling their revenue sharing 0844
> number, and was the purpose of the letter to gather that revenue...

I was terribly amuseed to receive a letter from the AA asking me to give
them a call on an 0870 number becauase they really wanted me to renew my
car insurance with them and they didn't have my number on file so couldn't
call me. And they were asking for 50% more on my car insurance than last
year even though I now have a year no-claims discount.

Piers Finlayson

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 5:23:44 AM1/14/09
to
I'm intrigued by the fact that most of you guys still get sent threatening
letters from TV licensing, even after complaining to them.

When we moved into this house in November 2007 (over a year ago), we
decided to get right of our TV - there's no reception here so the only
answer would be to use a dish (which in fact the previous occupants
installed). We decided not to waste our lives watching TV and spend our
time better occupied.

My saga therefore started with a request to a refund on our existing
license (from the old address). My wife (as the license was in her name)
sent a letter (written by me) to receive get the refund. Attached:


The Refund Centre
P.O. Box 410
Bristol
BS99 5HP

30 November 2007

Dear Sir or Madam,

I have recently moved house and have already notified you of you change of
address via the internet.

I am unable to receive TV broadcasts at this new address. I therefore
require a refund of any payments I have made towards the TV licence for any
period after 30 December 2007 (which is three months after the date my TV
licence became valid, in accordance with your policy of refunding any
unused three months portions of a TV licence).

I also require that you cancel my existing direct debit with which I have
been paying my TV licence. If you continue to debit money from this direct
debit I will seek an immediate refund from my bank under the direct debit
guarantee.

I have enclosed my existing TV licence with this letter. It is licence
number XYZ and expires on 30 Sep 2008.

I declare that I do not require a TV licence. I further declare that I
will not require a TV licence before the date of expiry of my existing TV
licence. Finally, I declare that the information contained within this
letter is correct to the best of my knowledge.

Yours faithfully,

We then later a standard threatening letter, so I called up TV licensing
and had a bit of a shout. The guy on the phone sounded quite nice and I
felt a bit mean, but I was quite cross. I followed the telephone call up
with this letter:


TV Licensing
Bristol
BS98 1TL

21 December 2007

Dear Sir or Madam,

I spoke to one of your customer service agents today, named Keith. He was
extremely helpful and polite. However, I wanted to confirm in writing what
I discussed with him.

As my wife’s letter to you of 20 November 2007 states, we do not require a
TV license.

I ask that you do not send your agents to our property to check whether we
need a license without a warrant, as entry will be refused.

I would also appreciate an acknowledgement to this letter, and a
confirmation that you understand my wishes. After this acknowledgement, I
ask that you send no more letters to this address – I do not wish to
continue to receive threatening letters from you.

Yours faithfully,

Much to my surprise I did receive a personalized response. I've typed it
up here, so forgive typos:


9 January 2008

Dear Mr Finlayson,

Thank you for your letter of 21 December, which has been passed to the
Customer Relations Department for my attention.

I was sorry to learn that you are unhappy with our enquiry process.

When we're advised that a TV isn't used at an address, we will update our
records to show this. We'll then visit to verify the situation there and
provided no TV is in use we'll not make further contact for up to four
years.

It is a regrettable fact that there are a surprisingly high number of
people who advise us that they do not use television equipment, but are
subsequently found to be doing so. May I assure you that we have no wish
to cause offence or to question your integrity, but as I'm sure you will
appreciate, we must act fairly and equitably in all cases and regret the
effect this has on honest people like you.

I should explain that Under the Common Law, a person has an implied right
of consent to enter upon a person's property as far as the front door and
to make their presence known while going about their lawful business. We
will continue our enquiries in accordance with this. Our officers have no
special powers of entry, but if we are not able to verify the situation at
an address we are not able to stop our enquiries.

I hope you will find this information helpful.

Yours sincerely,

XXX
Customer Relations


I was minded to send a follow-up letter specifically revoking the implied
right of consent to come onto my property for all agents of TV licensing.
However, given that I have no further correspondance from TV licensing in
the last year I have not (yet) done so. However, I do expect to start
receiving correspondance again at some point in the future.

Piers

Dave Baker

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 5:38:51 AM1/14/09
to

"Piers Finlayson" <ne...@packom.net> wrote in message
news:1putnfm1iu6qu.1l3azcsr09c7n$.dlg@40tude.net...

> I should explain that Under the Common Law, a person has an implied right
> of consent to enter upon a person's property as far as the front door and
> to make their presence known while going about their lawful business. We
> will continue our enquiries in accordance with this. Our officers have no
> special powers of entry, but if we are not able to verify the situation at
> an address we are not able to stop our enquiries.
>
> I hope you will find this information helpful.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> XXX
> Customer Relations
>
>
>
>
> I was minded to send a follow-up letter specifically revoking the implied
> right of consent to come onto my property for all agents of TV licensing.
> However, given that I have no further correspondance from TV licensing in
> the last year I have not (yet) done so. However, I do expect to start
> receiving correspondance again at some point in the future.
>
> Piers

Why does OE want me to install Chinese characters to properly display your
message?

Anyway, yes they are correct that in the absence of a sign at the boundary
of the premises saying "no entry to anyone without an appointment or
permission to enter" that an open gate is implied consent to enter. That
person must of course leave when asked to although trespass is not a
criminal offense unless damage is caused during it. Even stepping on a
flower or blade of grass can be considered damage as far as the courts are
concerned.

A letter revoking that right of entry should suffice but again as trespass
is not a criminal offense it has little impact. All you can really do is
call the police to make the person leave but you could do that anyway. You
can't actually sue for anything.
--
Dave Baker


Tim S

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 5:40:55 AM1/14/09
to
Andy Luckman (AJL Electronics) coughed up some electrons that declared:

> In article <176uZD2KcidF-p...@rikki.tavi.co.uk>, Bob Eager
> <URL:mailto:rd...@spamcop.net> wrote:
>
>> Give them a deadline, and say that after that you're going to Nominet.
>> That tends to do it..
>
> Oh for that to be a universal truth...
>
> Vispa Internet are holding two of my domains to ransom.

OK - put them on the universal blacklist.

> Nominet (rightly)

I don't think "rightly" comes into play. Nominet UK manage the public side
of .uk and if a registrar who is registered with them isn't playing ball I
think Nominet have a moral duty to sort it out, or strike the registrar off
is they are truely useless.

There's too much of the "subcontract out - oooh not our responsibility guv"
bollocks these days.

> want paying for them to intervene, so being the stubborn git I am, the
> domains are stuck until expiry.

Technically I'd have to appeal to Verisign for a .net domain - I think mail
bombing would be more productive.

I'll phone them first and give the supervisor a bollocking.

Tim

tony sayer

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 6:01:03 AM1/14/09
to
In article <496d057c$0$512$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk>, Tim S
<t...@dionic.net> scribeth thus

>... is that TV Licensing cannot cope with the concept that you don't need a
>licence when you don't have any TV apparatus.
>
>Long story short - told them the situation by phone and in writing. Still
>get reminders each month.
>
>But this one really p*ssed me off;
>
>http://www.dionic.net/tv/OfficialWarning.jpeg
>
>[address redacted so pikeys don't raid my house hoping for tools, which
>there aren't...]
>
>So I sent them this:
>
>(very very unsuitable for work and kids)
>
>http://www.dionic.net/tv/Reply.jpeg
>
>
>Won't do any good - but I needed some ventilation in the spleen area.
>
>I'm normally such a reasonable person (ha!)
>
>Cheers
>
>Tim
>
>PS
>
>Am I going to prision now?


If you really sent that then well done!, their a big bunch of
incompetent muppet's if ever there was one;!...
--
Tony Sayer



Broadback

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 6:07:54 AM1/14/09
to
I think you are lying through your teeth, everyone has a TV, even as
long ago as the '80s. I know this for a fact, as my son's class was
given the task at school of writing an essay on a TV program they had
watched in the last week. When my son asked what else he could write
about, as we have no TV, he was called a liar by the teacher. I went to
the school to remonstrate with said member of the intelligentsia who the
told me I was telling lies just to protect my son. So you see you Do
have a TV, you are just a liar!

Tim S

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 6:12:25 AM1/14/09
to
The Natural Philosopher coughed up some electrons that declared:

> Tim S wrote:
>> Bob Eager coughed up some electrons that declared:
>>
>>> Give them a deadline, and say that after that you're going to Nominet.
>>> That tends to do it..
>>>
>>
>> Yes - an excellent tactic. Before or after I mail-bomb them?
>
> Just go to nominet.

It would be Versign for me (.net).

Just to have the cannon balls ready, I've emailed Verisign to query what
arbitration procedures are available should I need them. I've learnt
previously not to waste time waiting around.

In the meantime, just been fobbed off by the registrar again. I'll call
later and get a supervisor.

So - name and shame time:

just-the-name.co.uk

Quick enough to take your money, not so quick when you want to leave...

Message has been deleted

Tim S

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 6:30:39 AM1/14/09
to
tony sayer coughed up some electrons that declared:

> If you really sent that

Really! In as far as it's in the hands of RoyalMail...

Tim S

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 6:32:23 AM1/14/09
to
clumsy bastard coughed up some electrons that declared:

> Broadback <w...@towill.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>So you see you Do
>>have a TV, you are just a liar!
>

> I was talking to a chap the other day who just has a B&W, I see that
> the licence costs under £50.
>
> "Detector vans cannot distinguish colour/monochrome sets
> Black and white licence holders may be visited at home"
>
> Can detector vans detect anything? I doubt it.

The technology exists to reconstruct the image from a CRT at a distance from
the re-radiated EM noise thrown off by the set - but I'm not sure if it's
either very precise, geographically, or whether they ever actually had the
kit.

Not sure about LCDs and plasmas - not such an obvious thing to do.

Message has been deleted

Andrew Mawson

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 6:40:32 AM1/14/09
to

"Tim S" <t...@dionic.net> wrote in message
news:496dcd47$0$511$5a6a...@news.aaisp.net.uk...

They used to detect the i/f oscillator with a directional aerial, and
probably do a similar thing these days.

AWEM

Tim S

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 6:40:19 AM1/14/09
to
Bob Eager coughed up some electrons that declared:

> On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:53:58 UTC, Tim S <t...@dionic.net> wrote:

> Give them a deadline, and say that after that you're going to Nominet.
> That tends to do it..
>

Hallejuya! I have the code. This domain will self destruct in 5 seconds.

Pays to be a stroppy bastard. I wish it weren't true - but so many times
I've been nice, waited 3 days, been nice again, etc. Just end up wasting
time and phone calls. Now I tend to operate 1 request, one nice followup
and then get stroppy from there.

The difference between just-the-name and Andrews and Arnold is:

If I email just-the-name, they ignore it and we get into this whole boring
routine.

If I email A&A, they will take a day to do it, but I've found I can rely on
them to do it all by themselves without further prodding, so I don't sit
around wasting time worrying that they won't.

Sometimes I wonder why I pay 30 quid a month for broadband and a bit of
DNS/domain service, but at times like this I remember why. The broadband
never throttles out either, well, not that I've noticed...

Cheers

Tim

Tim S

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 6:41:59 AM1/14/09
to
clumsy bastard coughed up some electrons that declared:

> Tim S <t...@dionic.net> wrote:
>
>>The technology exists to reconstruct the image from a CRT at a distance
>>from the re-radiated EM noise thrown off by the set - but I'm not sure if
>>it's either very precise, geographically, or whether they ever actually
>>had the kit.
>

> lets give them the benefit of the doubt and assume they stopped when
> houses were more likely to have a PC on than a TV.

Probably went blind after getting too many facefulls of sheepporn

ARWadsworth

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 7:10:56 AM1/14/09
to

"Dave Baker" <Nu...@null.com> wrote in message
news:gkkfc2$1rp$1...@news.datemas.de...


I have modified the sign in my window from "No salesreps, hawkers or bible
bashers. Thank you" to "No salesreps, hawkers or bible bashers. If you are
from the TVLA then FUCK OFF. Thank you"

Adam

The Natural Philosopher

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 7:14:19 AM1/14/09
to
clumsy bastard wrote:

> Broadback <w...@towill.plus.com> wrote:
>
>> So you see you Do
>> have a TV, you are just a liar!
>
> I was talking to a chap the other day who just has a B&W, I see that
> the licence costs under £50.
>
> "Detector vans cannot distinguish colour/monochrome sets
> Black and white licence holders may be visited at home"
>
> Can detector vans detect anything? I doubt it.
Not these days probably.

They used to detect the analogue IF frequencies but with everyone gone
digital..and RFI stuff being very hot, I doubt the average STB emits
enough to give meaningful results.

ARWadsworth

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 7:24:36 AM1/14/09
to

"Piers Finlayson" <ne...@packom.net> wrote in message
news:1putnfm1iu6qu.1l3azcsr09c7n$.dlg@40tude.net...
> I'm intrigued by the fact that most of you guys still get sent threatening
> letters from TV licensing, even after complaining to them.

> I should explain that Under the Common Law, a person has an implied right
> of consent to enter upon a person's property as far as the front door and
> to make their presence known while going about their lawful business. We
> will continue our enquiries in accordance with this. Our officers have no
> special powers of entry, but if we are not able to verify the situation at
> an address we are not able to stop our enquiries.
>
> I hope you will find this information helpful.
>
> Yours sincerely,
>
> XXX
> Customer Relations
>
>

Atotally different stand in my letter

"please note as you have not supplied your name, we are unable to withdraw
the common law right of way. TV Licencing needs to be able to identify an
individual to administer a withdrawl of the right to visit."

and further down

"should we receive a request from you that gives your name, is signed and
withdraws the common law right to approach your propery, this does not stop
TV Licencing reserving the right to use other methods of enquiry."

I suppose I could change my name for £10 to "The Legal Occupier" to piss
them off.

Adam


Message has been deleted

dennis@home

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 7:31:23 AM1/14/09
to

"Piers Finlayson" <ne...@packom.net> wrote in message
news:1putnfm1iu6qu.1l3azcsr09c7n$.dlg@40tude.net...

> I was minded to send a follow-up letter specifically revoking the implied


> right of consent to come onto my property for all agents of TV licensing.

I doubt if you can do that.
You could fit gates and lock them.

dennis@home

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 7:36:38 AM1/14/09
to

"clumsy bastard" <allt...@live.co.uk> wrote in message
news:hmirm4ph9icvjmqn1...@4ax.com...


> Broadback <w...@towill.plus.com> wrote:
>
>>So you see you Do
>>have a TV, you are just a liar!
>

> I was talking to a chap the other day who just has a B&W, I see that
> the licence costs under £50.
>
> "Detector vans cannot distinguish colour/monochrome sets
> Black and white licence holders may be visited at home"
>
> Can detector vans detect anything? I doubt it.

They can, if they /are/ detector vans and not just the dummies you usually
see.
Most (all?) TVs leak signals at the IF frequencies and crt tv/monitors leak
signals at video frequencies and it is quite possible to receive these
signals and display what is on your TV/crt monitor.

For one mod project we had to make sure all the monitors were screened so no
one could see what we were doing.

John Rumm

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 7:37:02 AM1/14/09
to
Tim S wrote:

> So - name and shame time:
>
> just-the-name.co.uk

> Quick enough to take your money, not so quick when you want to leave...

Do they not offer full DNS control? Otherwise you could change the tag
or name servers yourself...

--
Cheers,

John.

/=================================================================\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\=================================================================/

Tim S

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 7:39:55 AM1/14/09
to
John Rumm coughed up some electrons that declared:

> Tim S wrote:
>
>> So - name and shame time:
>>
>> just-the-name.co.uk
>
>> Quick enough to take your money, not so quick when you want to leave...
>
> Do they not offer full DNS control? Otherwise you could change the tag
> or name servers yourself...
>

Nameservers yes, tag no...

Cheers

Tim

John Rumm

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 7:45:48 AM1/14/09
to

That is obviously the intention, although usually if you deconstruct the
tangled language they use, they step back from actually saying it
outright. They have some weasel words about watching stuff while it is
being broadcast which itself is rather vague and opens up all sorts of
unintended consequences if interpreted literally.

Andrew Gabriel

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 7:50:25 AM1/14/09
to
In article <1putnfm1iu6qu.1l3azcsr09c7n$.d...@40tude.net>,

Piers Finlayson <ne...@packom.net> writes:
>
> I was minded to send a follow-up letter specifically revoking the implied
> right of consent to come onto my property for all agents of TV licensing.
> However, given that I have no further correspondance from TV licensing in
> the last year I have not (yet) done so. However, I do expect to start
> receiving correspondance again at some point in the future.

A distant family member has no TV.
A few years ago, they sent a letter to him to apply for one
with a return-paid envelope. There was a box to tick to say
you didn't have a TV, so I ticked that and sent it back.
They wrote back saying thanks, and they'd check again in 3
years.

3 years later, a similar letter came, except it had no option
to indicate you didn't have a TV, and no return-paid envelope.
There might have been a premium rate number, but that would
have been ignored, so they simply got no response. For several
years since, they keep writing and keep saying they'll come
around, but without providing a no-cost method (or just even
just a geographic phone number), they aren't going to get any
response, so they continue to waste their time/money.
No one has actually ever come around to check.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Onetap

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 7:55:56 AM1/14/09
to

Rod

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 8:01:48 AM1/14/09
to
> I suppose I could change my name for �G10 to "The Legal Occupier" to piss
> them off.
>
> Adam
>
>
Implication is that no legal body (e.g. company, partnership, etc.) can
withdraw that common law right as they do not have individual names.

Also, the wording suggests that *they* are withdrawing the common law
right where it is actually you.

--
Rod

Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious
onset.
Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed.
<www.thyromind.info> <www.thyroiduk.org> <www.altsupportthyroid.org>

John Rumm

unread,
Jan 14, 2009, 11:27:38 AM1/14/09
to
Andrew Gabriel wrote:

> 3 years later, a similar letter came, except it had no option
> to indicate you didn't have a TV, and no return-paid envelope.
> There might have been a premium rate number, but that would
> have been ignored, so they simply got no response. For several
> years since, they keep writing and keep saying they'll come
> around, but without providing a no-cost method (or just even
> just a geographic phone number), they aren't going to get any
> response, so they continue to waste their time/money.
> No one has actually ever come around to check.

You can email them now (via a form on their web site) - seems to work
just as well as a paper letter ;-).