Me too. My older sister pays it by direct debit. She NEVER watches live TV. We’ve explained it to her many times but she has always paid it and is too scared to cancel the DD. Shameful.
One of my partners siblings paid out of fear. As far as I know, they don't watch "live" TV, but they got scared after someone turned up at the flat after a lot of threatening letters. They said it's just £15 a month, so they bit the bullet and set up a direct debit to pay it. It angers me that the BBC are extracting money from people who don't need a licence by threat. That £15 a month could be going towards something more important.
I do. I know I most certainly don't need it. But yeah, the racketeering got my wife. Problem is I can't convince said dear wife that we don't need it, as in her view, if we were to be prosecuted, we'd lose...
I rarely watch live broadcasts and would happily cancel and never watch live content ever again. But it’s not worth the hassle of getting these thugs on my doorstep. #feartax
Same I used to declare I didn’t need one but not going to tell them every 2 years, they can spend money sending letters and “investigating” all they like
@@factsdontcareaboutyourfeel7204 I'm a hotelier. I bought hotel-type TV licences for nearly 30 years until I removed the last TV. I've received HUNDREDS of letters, many addressed to individual rooms. I've only 12 rooms, but the fookers think I've got Room 21, Room 22, Room 23 and so on. I'm looking forward to them visiting my premises so that I can tell them to Foxtrot Oscar.
A friend of mine's son is a police officer over in Canada and he recently got promoted to the anti-fraud office over there. As part of his training the instructor actually used the UK's TV licensing system (as shown here by Daniel in all its glory) as a "simple" introduction to how online forms can use ambiguous questions and deliberately sparse information in order to "trick" the completer into filling it in incorrectly. Go figure...
And how do you avoid paying for CBC/Radio Canada? Answer: you don't, you pay $33 per year whether you have a tv or not through taxation. BBC corruption is amateur compared to Canada
The BBC prosecuted 😂 It's a money cow, the very definition of the gravy train. Once the voice of the nation is now a sad remnant of the good old times. It needs to be defunded, pronto.
I was at Reading Magistrates Court and overheard the licence prosecutor discussing prosecuting people for watching RUclips on the basis that it COULD receive live broadcasts. These people are bent as hell and only interested in the money. #DEFUNDTHEBBC
Ah yes the old "Well they are not watching TV but they COULD DO!" argument... Yes, they do try that a lot and many magistrates are already aware of it - and now REFUSE that argument! These days most Magistrates require that a TV license officer has WITNESSED a "Culprit" actually viewing license able content... The same as Magistrates want to know for sure a TV is being used for the purposes of actually viewing a TV Station... With Most TV's being Smart TV's these days - Simply having a TV connected to The internet is no longer enough to justify a prosecution. In almost all cases that actually get to court - Either the Defendant does not respond, they have allowed a TV License officer in their home and been caught or they have talked to them at the door and inadvertently made a confession! The vast Majority of Magistrates are now very aware of the "They could be..." argument and no longer accept it... The do still try it though! #DefundtheBBC
@@Phoenix2312 When you say 'These days most Magistrates require that a TV license officer has WITNESSED a "Culprit" actually viewing license able content', do they need a video showing the officer witnessing the act, or does the judge just take the license officers word for it?
They BBC and others paying millions to Gary Lineker, Holly Willoughby, Schofield but trying to charge everyone and even elderly. In EU some countries just plug in and watch TV !!! De Fund BBC
Ah but youtube and any other app is through the internet and THEY KNOW THAT they are just trying their luck . I have no intention of filling that form in A because im blind so they can shove it and B i dont have to so if they come to my door they probably wnt find me in since i work and even if i am they will be told they are on private property so leave or im letting the dogs out 😂
I used to work for TV Licensing customer service. WOW! What a complex conundrum! People would call and ask if they needed one if they knocked two houses into one? The questions I had to ask (and I had to go and ask an actual knock on the door agent, because my manager didn't know) was 'is there an adjoining path? Is there only one front door? Who has access? etc etc. The most important comment I got from the agent when I asked about his powers of entry was 'People don't know, but we have no powers of entry. If they refuse entry we say we'll go and get a police officer, but the only thing he can do, if he actually comes, which many won't, is to make sure there's no breach of the peace, nothing else'. But it's used as a threat, which itself should be illegal. We are taught to fear authority and when it's used as a tool by 'officials' we feel weak and can be overcome with a sense of 'they are big and powerful, and I'm just me'. This is totally wrong. If you are genuinely not watching stuff needing a license, they have no power over you,
it is, but mainly as to gain evidence to prosecute the person must have engaged with the salesman and told them they watch live TV - something SO easily avoided....
It doesn't let you go back from this page, once you have submitted the answers, if you change the answers etc. The workaround is to open an incognito window and press never for everything! You will then get an email to confirm you don't need a license.
People should be made aware that, there is no legal requirement to inform TV licencing that you no longer require a TV licence. When I gave up watching TV, I simply did not renew my licence. Ok, so I got a few letters (ignored) for a while, but I no longer get them.
And what would that someone have done? Other than try to bully or coerce The Legal Occupier to pay for something they neither want, need, nor are legally compelled to pay for?
I have done the same you dont need to inform the BBC of anything as you are sovereign, they will send you threatening letters just ignore them & they will send someone around, do as i did tell him to sod off & refuse to give your name or declaration of anything, they have no right.
Repeat after me…… If you don’t watch or record live TV or use BBC iPlayer, you DON’T need a TV license. For information: you are NOT legally obliged to complete this questionnaire; it’s voluntary. Happy new year everyone 🎉
I had a look at this form a few weeks ago and I felt it was purposely designed to be ambiguous and misleading. Also the negative responses alternate which is very sneaky.
I don't think it's so much "purposely designed to be ambiguous and misleading" as desperately trying, and failing, to find wording which explains the increasingly ambiguous legal situation in a way the public can understand.
@@PastPresentedConsidering the amount of money involved, you'd think they could get this questionnaire reviewed, clarified and corrected by legal experts. The truth is that they don't want to because too many people would realise how easy it is to legally avoid the licence.
@@AC-um2mk If you've watched previous BBB videos on TV Licensing, you'll be aware that even he is not sure how the law should be interpreted- because the reality of how "live TV" services (not actually a term used in the legislation) are delivered, and by what sort of organisations, keeps changing.
@@PastPresented I have not watched many, maybe 1 or 2. Generally BBB videos are on the long side for me. I get your point but surely with 10's of thousands of cases going through every year couldn't a small proportion generate some case law precedents which might give some clarity? If not, why not? As with many many aspects of modern life, it is my belief that ignorance, confusion and fear are key strategies for controlling the people. Knowledge, clarity and confidence are the enemies of those who seek to rule by division.
@@AC-um2mk If you were a TV Licencing goon with a quota to meet, your best bet would be to familiarise yourself with the five main channels' (plus CBeebies) daytime TV schedules (which are, of course, designed to be roughly the same every weekday, year in, year out). Armed with a list of unlicensed properties, stroll along streets of terraced houses with little or no private space between you and the front windows. Your prosecutions would all be based on people you spot viewing those main channels.
The issue you've covered is exactly why I didn't renew my declaration. The form is wrong. I imagine they mislead on purpose and should be brought up on it?
When I lived in uni student accommodation, every single person in every single flat got one of these at the start of the academic year. That's at least 300 letters. Most ignored them but a few asked the accommodation managers what to do. They told us to ignore the letters and that they would not allow any inspector access to any flat to check.
If they have a warrant, they are coming in and it's the law that you provide them reasonable assistance. To fail to provide that, is in itself, an offence.
They need evidence for a warrant. In most cases, evidence is collected during the doorstep 'grilling' where less-informed members of the public believe that these goons have powers. Just ask who they are and say no thanks as you shut the door.
@@S.Trades They would have to catch someone in the act of watching though as simply have a TV plugged into an aerial is not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the TV was used to listen to digital radio and netflix.
@@ditch3827 they are NOT allowed to look through a window to 'catch' you watching TV.. tho, there is youtube vids that actually state that this is what happened (but this is against their own guides of operations) the only way they can get evidence is by a non lisenced occupier saying the wrong thing at the door its THEN that they get warrents... however.. not all warrents are legit.. some are just signed by the 'enforcement officers' line manager and have no legal basis until you allow them into your house. .at which point it becomes legal (under something like 'contract law'and consentual conversations etc) there are stories, once in the house (using warrent or otherwise) of them plugging their own aeriel wires into the wall socket and the TV, then RE-TUNING de-tuned TV's and using THAT as evidence that you were recieving live TV programming and getting successful prosecutions as a result.. even going as far as, when the occupier tried to stop this proceedure, the goon stated that the occupier was trying to interfere with the investigation claiming that its a criminal offence to stop them from re-tuning a TV
@@ditch3827the digital radio defence is an interesting one but incredibly risky. Technically there's no difference between having a DAB or Internet radio connected to an aerial and showing the same static image with audio that's displayed on a TV screen tuned to a radio station. However in order to receive radio channels on a TV you generally have to do a scan of your local transmitter that also broadcasts TV stations, making the set 'capable' of receiving them unless there's some way to then delete all but the audio channels. And does that static image count as 'live TV'? It's never been tested in a court of law. The key term in the legislation is 'installed'. You don't have to be *watching* TV to be prosecuted, simply having equipment 'installed' to be capable of receiving live broadcasts is the crime. It's a very, very grey area and not one I'd be inclined to want to fall back on given the ignorance of magistrates on tech matters and their tendency to side with the Government. Probably safer just to cut off all aerial plugs/ fit blanking plates to wall outlets and buy a standalone DAB radio, until this legislation gets repealed.
I'm in Australia at present. Many people are watching "live" BBC TV through iPlayer snd VPN's. None have TV licenses and none get letters from TV Licensing. Very unfair that they get away with it while those of us in the UK are hounded through the courts.
@@Leo99929 Yes from a business perspective they could but not legally as the BBC don't always own the world rights to all the programmes they transmit. The media companies stitch the world up - remember the DVD Zones and how they used that to control prices?
@@barrieshepherd7694 That only applies content they show under licence so they could do a reduced catalogue. Netflix licences content too. Also, they could pay for international licences, if it works for Netflix then it could work for other services like the BBC.
@@Leo99929 Maybe but currently it would be outside of their Charter I suspect. Add to that once a media owner knows the BBC would distribute the programme world wide the prices would go up and we would probably not get the programme in the UK because the BBC could not afford them. I think they should just make more effort to block overseas access 😎😎😎😎 I don't like my Aus friends gloating that they watch the BBC for free!
@@Leo99929 I think Britbox is owned by BBC and ITV jointly. It costs us $10 per month (in Australia) but only has some of the BBC content. For the rest still need sideloaded iPlayer and VPN. But you are right. They could do non-exclusive licensing for everything and make more money from overseas viewers.
Will never happen. A family friend many years ago got promoted to Judge and one time at a family do I asked him what do Judge's fear the most? "Oh one thing," he said, "the public learning the law."
I haven't owned a tv for a couple of decades, it hasn't stopped the steady flow of threatening and intimidating mail that regularly falls through my letter box. The amount of money they are spending on harassing random people on masse is very offensive!!!
There is another ambiguity in that it asks if you or anybody in your household does any of these things but it does not make explicit that you have to be watching it in your property. If I go next door and watch TV, so I do watch TV but not on my property and I would assume my neighbor has bought a TV licence which should cover my watching TV on his/her property.
@@paulhillman400 indeed but that is not the point which is that it is unreasonable for TVL expect you to make a declaration about something you cannot know.
Taking it all literally you could tick yes to all of those and still not need a licence because you watch TV in a pub or in a neighbours house which is licensed, would be fun to hear that one out in court, A P Herbert's misleading cases and all that.
@@OMGAnotherday i remember years ago I received a letter saying I should tell them if I didn't --have-- need (edit) a licence but the letter didn't say how to tell them. All tick boxes and contact information were related to needing and paying for a license. I was certain it was designed on purpose back then and from what you say sounds like they are at it again
I think the biggest issue is the ambiguity of the "TV channels". I.e. when you pointed out about channel 4 and you can log in to watch a show with pre-roll ads, if you look at question 4 the channel 4 logo is different, thats because that logo represents the online portion whereas the logo in the example for question 1 is for Channel 4 the TV channel not the online service
Thank you so much! I recently filled in the online form. I answered 'never' to all of the questions, even though I occasionally watch a Channel 4 programme on catch up. I have always read that the programme had to be 'live' and I never watch anything live. I don't have a TV, and I loathe and detest the BBC with a passion. I have not heard back yet...I wait with bated breath!
If you do get a visit, remember that they are just sales people, with no more authority than your next door neighbour's Jack Russell Terrier, you just say no thank you, and close the door. That's the end of the matter, don't engage in any conversation with them.
I've stuck the last 'Do Not Ignore' letter which was hand delivered to my address advising that the current occupant needs a TV licence (to the front door, telling them not to knock again & there is no licence required), It is visible through the glass in the door, to anyone who stands in front of my house!!
I have not had a TV licence for over 20 years (nor do I require one). They send a threatening letter about once every few months - it goes straight in the bin. NEVER go to their website and fill the form in, it's an attempt to get you to incriminate yourself.
Dan. I have acquired a TV Licence Staff Handbook. Some of it is redacted but lots of useful stuff. Including 100% proof that they pay commissions to staff visiting who "sell" (bribe, blackmail) TV Licences.
What would it take for some large proportion of these 44k/y convictions to be found unsafe? Surely there's enough money involved & ambiguities in TV licensing for a law firm to take an interest? Could we see something akin to the PPI scandal?
@@praetorian65 The way it works is that the Capita agent tricks someone into admitting that they did watch live TV and that triggers the single justice process, which then, as you say, people ignore which then leads to the fine. But it does need a confession of some sort to start the process off which is why it is so important to have no communication with Capita at all.
The wording is deliberately vague because the BBC is fully aware it's unable to compete on a level playing field. It's an antiquated business model and due to it's political bias, it's lost the support of the British public.
I think a large scale appeal should be organised by the people who have been found guilty. The other thing that is concerning is the idea that if you don't reply you can be found guilty, with the problems of post being delivered to the wrong address or not delivered at all how can this be a reliable method to confirm guilt?
Some years back I had a sister with learning disabilities living in a supported living house, I didn’t realise she needed her own tv licence for her room, I just assumed it would be covered by the house as a whole as they had a tv in the main living room. After she received a letter from tv licensing so say someone had tried to visit her at the property I called them to buy a licence. I was worried she would have to back pay for the last 5 years but was basically told as long as she didn’t admit it to the person at the door she was okay.
You only need one licence per household.....you can have a T.V in every room if you wish.......you have been hoodwinked and scammed......you are one of the many who have fallen into the web of lies through fear that the BBC set for the unwary.
Good video but you should emphasise that there is no legal requirement to declare to the BBC you don't need a TV Licence. It is a logical absurdity to declare you don't need something and the only purpose of this is to trick someone into buying something they don't need.
As I have said. You don't get the local airport harassing you to find out if you have a pilots licence or a fishing licence. but the BBC seem to be a law unto themselves.
I still get emails saying ‘my direct debit has failed’ I cancelled my direct debit 5 years ago. That they feel they can lie and obfuscate is surely illegal? Also, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that I would want to watch on any of those channels. Absolutely delusional!
I gain the impression the TVLA and BBC don’t have lawyers advising on the drafting of their web pages. Or if they have, the lawyers are complicit in misleading the public.
Oh they have Lawyers... I can 1200% assure you of that! That is why the Website and its questions are MISLEADING - And Not Fraudulent! They are VERY DELIBERATLY WORDED... Skirting the line just enough not to be fraud!
I have noticed this on line form has become VERY CONFUSING , around 3 years ago it just asked you if you watched any live TV, thanks for making it CLEAR
You could argue that 'watching a TV on any channel' does not include On Demand. On Demand isn't via a channel it is via a web interface. Via a channel would by it's nature be 'live'.
You left out the fact that you have NO obligation to fill in their form, you don't need to tell them anything. IF they come calling, ask for ID, then say "no thanks" and shut the door. They then must leave, they have NO powers, they boost their ego by claiming to be "enforcement officers"..They are NOT, they are SALESMEN...nothing more.
I harrased them by email and phone for over a year and got them to categorically explain to me what i need a license for. They kept trying to throw it back to me. I simply said "You are the agency telling me i need one, what do i need one to view". They finally sent me the bullet list.
Why can they require a license for material that is produced and streamed from abroad? Isn’t that tantamount to theft on their part, as they are selling a product they don’t own?
You are misunderstanding the reason for the licence. The licence is for you to own and install television receiving equipment capable of receiving a live broadcast signal. It does not mean you actually have to watch anything BUT if you watch a live broadcast on it from anywhere without a licence you are guilty.
@@125brat I have equipment that is capable of receiving a live broadcast signal as, I suspect, do many people. It doesn't mean we are all watching live TV.
If you’ve paid you are 6 months in advance, cancel your payment , watch for 6 months legally, then ignore them there after. Goons at the door, “no thanks “ close the door job done.
Speaking as a veteran member of the television broadcasting world, I have a problem with the frequently occurring word "live". We only referred to the word "live" when a program was beamed directly from the studio to air. such as a news bulletin. Most content was pre recorded and edited before it was aired, so we never referred to it as "live" So most TV you see isn't actually live in my view.
I think is live in the sense that the signal is live - they could interupt or change what is beeing shown if there was a need - eg breaking news. where as you cant do that with on demand ?
@@fishevans6417unfortunately, the meaning of a “live broadcast” now just means the channel is sending the signal continuously, in a broadcast manner, and the receivers are displaying it in real-time. It has become not so much a definition, as the opposite of “on-demand” where the viewer controls the start time and can pause or skip through the content. Live doesn’t mean the action you’re seeing is actually happening in real time anymore. Therefore, the distinction made by the Tv licensing people is much more difficult to pin down, and I think they like it that way!
I am SO glad you covered this!! I had to declare no license needed after three shitty letters from the bbc. I don’t watch tv. I watch YT on my phone and that’s it. The final options on the questionnaire DO NOT allow you to say that as you have to imply you have other devices!! It’s not even trying to hide how misleading it is.
The wording on the "no license needed" form is why i just ingore them. They can send a dozen harassment letters a year if they want, but i am not going to communicate with them in any way
I think you may be confusing watching any of these tv channels, with 4od apps or streaming, the question is do you watch c4 tv channel, not do you watch catch up on an app
I read it through the lens that channel and TV (not tv programme) specifically relate to the live broadcasts by definition, whereas on-demand means watching programmes from the same companies that operate the tv channels, but not via TV/channel.
Broadcast (live _[sic])_ TV means the _broadcaster_ chooses what and when to start and stream something for the viewer to "tune into" and watch - every viewer gets the same stream. On Demand TV means the _viewer_ chooses what and when to start and stream something - every viewer gets their own choice and stream. (Note that the "Red Button" is NOT On Demand as all you are doing is selecting a different stream that the _broadcaster_ has chosen to send at that time, along with any other viewer of that stream.) If two people decide to watch the same thing On Demand, the streaming service may combine those two into a single instance of the streamer for purposes of efficiency, but they are still On Demand as each viewer could decide to independently pause the stream and the streamer would, of necessity, split the streaming into two separate instances of the streamer. Being able to "pause and rewind live TV" is done by the receiving device buffering the broadcast stream, ie the receiving device is acting like a VCR, continuing to record whilst you pause or rewind the playback of the broadcast being recorded. The receiving device (set top box, cable box (TIVO), etc) is the device needing the licence.
@@rogerkangaroo6118 No, the OP is spot on. For decades, (and some of the older commenters should attest to this), we were told that the reason the BBC doesn't show adverts mid programming is because the license fee payers are paying not to have them. In more recent years this lie seems to have been changed, and now they run with "we don't need adverts, because of the unique way we're funded!; and all the while failing to tell us how they regularly sell shows that we have paid for, to streaming services or overseas channels : and not passing on the profits to those who have made this possible by reducing the license fee itself.
If you're watching on demand, you're not watching on a channel - you're watching on a streaming service (as the later question recognises). Plus some people may misunderstand 'live' to only mean sports events etc. I agree it could be worded better though and hope this whole palaver can be eradicated in the coming years as the BBC's future funding method is determined.
I don't tell the Police that I don't need a shotgun license, and they don't pester me with threat O grams. I don't tell DVLA that I don't need a driving license, and they don't send me threat O grams. So why do BBC/Capita pester me? and I don't see why I should fill out their form to see if I need a TV License. ESPECIALLY AS ITS NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT. I don't watch Live TV or BBC iPlayer and if they think different then let them try and prove it! Of course if they turn up at my door I will say "NO THANKS" and close the door, and there is nothing they can do about it. They can't even get a warrant because they need reasonable suspicion before a magistrate can issue one and not having a TV licence at my address isn't enough reason!
How can they just say you are guilty without seeing you watching live TV or you admitting it? It seems completely unenforceable otherwise yet a ridiculous amount of people get done for it. Doesn't seem right to me.
@@ditch3827 Well they clearly can unless you come to defend yourself. If you don't show up at court they just take it as if you don't contest the accusation and are thus guilty
It's because when the tv licence officers (tv licence sales people, in reality ) call at peoples houses, the occupants try to be clever and argue with the sales people, and that's meat and drink to them, because they are trained in how to trap people into admitting to watching live tv. If an officer (sales person ) knocks on your door, you should just say no thank you and close the door, and that's the end of it.
I think smart TV's should have software to only allow watching of non live programs. It should need a TV licence to unlock the software so you can. This would make things a lot simpler
they could easily do something like that, but they dont want to. They want The BBC or any live tv service as available as possible so as to make it easier for them to claim you need the license
It’s an interesting one, and I declared not needing a TV licence years ago, and when they threaten I just threaten back with cases of harassment. But…in the case of their first question, using 4 on demand as a counter argument, 4OD is not a channel. It’s an online service. The wording states channel, and it shows the channel 4 logo. It does lack the word “live”, but being a broadcast channel it can be reasonably assumed that it is live, or recorded from live. In my mind, any of the related TV services of that ilk are just like BBC iPlayer, and they make a very clear distinction between BBC and BBC iPlayer, so with respect to the above, you can reasonably assume that the channel 4 logo means the TV channel 4, not their 4OD service. To me that’s pretty clear. I agree though, that it’s a very grey area around what defines “TV”, and that the way TV licensing handles things is very archaic, threatening, and underhand. It needs to change and move with the times.
Is 4OD broadcast? A broadcast television programme service which requires a licence to receive is one in which the broadcaster chooses the time of broadcast and the viewer has no say in that timing, or what the broadcaster will stream at that time - they can only "tune in" and receive the stream of the broadcast television programme service, along with all the other viewers of the stream. An "On demand" service is one whereby the viewer chooses the time and the programme (from the "library") to watch, and it is then streamed to them, regardless of being streamed to any other viewer. (This is akin to selecting a video or DVD, putting in _your_ player and watching it - whoever created the tape or disc has no say over what time you watch that content.) The mechanism of the stream, whether transmitted through the air or via a cable (connected to a streaming service or the internet), is irrelevant to the definition: it is only the time and what, and who decides to start and can view/receive the stream that matters.
The questions are slightly different for me, number 5 is "*Can you confirm* that you and your household *never* watch BBC iPlayer?" with answers Yes / No. The rest of the questions are "Do you ever X?" and the last two are "Can you confirm you never X?". This feels like it's intentionally trying to confuse you, I was about to tick all "No".
Almsot all the 'documentation' (letters, online stuff, etc.) is rife with not just ambiguous but patently false statements, but those that start with 'the law says ..' and then go on to be incorrect are just awful and whoever is responsible should be taken to task.
Apparently there's a Legal Occupier living in my property for at least 10 years now. He gets some letters from TV License on a regular basis and then he (presumably it's him) files them in the bin 🤣
@@BBoaBrim that's what my 7yo daughter seems to think so! Sat in front of the TV telling me to get out of here when I want to turn off whatever brainwashing youtube channel she's watching that day 🤣
No for question 1 it says 'do you watch TV on any CHANNEL' 4OD is not a TV channel it is a website so the correct answer is 'never'. And again question 3 it asks if you watch TV on any TV SERVICE, a streaming service is not a Television service. A television service is broadcast television by any definition.
It's called Channel 4 and the logo is exactly the same as Channel 4 the live TV channel. So, yes I can watch TV (catch-up) on Channel 4 (Streaming App) and I do not need a licence.
It's like the BBC are tying to get on demand as part of the TV licence with that language. Like sneakily trying to normalise something without making it obvious
It's like taking a photo of someone without permission or them asking you to do so and then trying to say that they owe me payment for the photo, it's rediculous....
Remember working in a supermarket when i was at uni, anytime a customer bought a tv we had to fill out a tv licence declaration form with them, this was early 2000s and i presume it doesnt happen anymore but at the time it always struck me as odd, i wonder what law/act required it to be done then
I remember having to do this. With us handing over our email addresses in places such as Argos, Curry's, etc for a copy of our receipt, I would imagine the TV licencing would be notified automatically! Is anybody able to confirm if this is the case?
@@supermum2kids233 yes it was. My ex gf brought a TV from dixons and they asked for name, address etc for "the insurance purposes" so i told them to do one because your only asking for TV licensing but they said they can't sell it without the information and it wasn't going to them. So we gave my address but she didn't live with me. 1 week later a letter from TV licensing showed up in her name at my address
I had an inspector at my door here once. He saw the monitor in the background and he said I still needed a licence for a computer. He said it wasn't because I had watched television, it was because I could access it if I wanted to.
On Commission??? I did not know that. I didn't have a licence and did not buy one. I'm sometimes obliged to watch it visiting other people's houses, I see nothing worth time or money.@@robtheplod
After TV Licencing sent one of their thugs around to intimidate me, I am completely convinced this is just a modern-day hustle. I did note their latest questionnaire is more despicable than ever before, but what else would one expect? Knuckledusters next, I suppose. Notice they also demand you give them an email address before being able to submit the declaration. Their audacity knows no bounds.
@@aqmohra4 they are considered 'live' for the purposes of licence as its used to mean 'watching or recording at scheduled time of transmission' maybe 'live' is a bit ambiguous in this way but cant think of an alternative term, most tv programmes arent 'live' in the sense of being recorded and edited before transmission...maybe the licencing term should be 'watching or recorded at a channel defined scheduled time' as thats not what an on demand programme would be , itd be 'at a user selected time'
Indeed the website states that no licence is required to watch S4C on demand but also that (uniquely) a licence is required to watch BBC on demand. So 40D does not require a licence.
It's interesting that BBB chose 4 as an example, because there is no longer such a thing as 4OD! In an attempt to get ahead of the eventual shut-down of broadcast TV, Channel 4 have rebranded 4OD as: Channel 4, with the usual 4 logo. That really does make a total mess of the TV Licence questionnaire. The Licence should have been replaced with a more future-proof funding scheme years ago.
How about nobody paying or renewing the licenses and letting the system implode? If all licenses were to go to trial, then it would be impossible to charge anyone...
In an ideal world that would happen , but, I'm sure the BBC would then go to the government and force everyone by household to pay an additional "tax" on their council tax ( probably an increase of £200) per year. The BBC get their wedge and the government get a £30 out of the deal.....smiley faces all round and you can watch T.V for free! It would be interesting to see how much funding the BBC throw at all the licence recovery scheme....it's never made public.
Exactly, a long time ago I spotted this and refused to do their online no licence needed declaration because I wasn't prepared to lie to get past their incorrect wording. Yes I do watch TV on a TV service, but I still don't need a licence because it's NOT live (which they don't specify). I cancelled my direct debit and sent them an email instead, a few weeks later I got my refund.
If u watch tv on at service then it's live, therefore a licence is required live diesnt mean watching a football match as its played, not in this sense, it means broadcasted it can be repeats, new shows, or yes sports events, so a tv station is live like ch4, itv and 3ven the plus one services are still classed as live take freeview as example, every single freeview tv channel needs u to have the licence legally
I may have missed it but does the questionnaire make it clear that they are asking *only* about what you do at your home? Having just had to suffer the utter inanity of Christmas telly whilst visiting family over the last few days if I'm asked 'Do you or anyone in your household watch TV ...?' I would have to say that I do. (Yes, I know what they mean but there may be some who don't.)
No they dont! :) If they did... They would not be able to con Students into paying for a TV license when they can legally watch TV via any device in their Student Accommodation as long as it is NOT plugged into the Mains! (They are actually covered by their Parents TV license!)
@@martyndawson7484 That's one part, It also does not tell you that if you are a Student, You may not need a TV license if your parents have one... THEY KNOW there are work arounds... They know Students DO NOT NECESSARILY NEED A TV LICENSE... But they wont tell them that as it's about SALES! And yes, It is very hard to find that information on their website - its there... Dont get me wrong! It has to be or they would be breaking teh law - Then it would be fraud But even navigating to that page - You keep getting banners saying "Buy a TV license"
The absolute brazenness of the BBC to try to claim you need a license to watch non BBC content is an absolute joke. For them to say I need a license to watch Amazon prime, RUclips, now TV, ITV, channel 4 and 5 is absolutely disgusting.
And foreign broadcasts as well. What on earth is the rationale behind it? I've finally pulled the plug on them, my current licence expires in a few weeks. Had to cancel my virgin media tv service but they advised me I could get a "streaming box" from them so I'll look into that.
@@gmo4250The live broadcasts thing makes no sense. If the BBC made a live broadcast via RUclips, does that mean the whole planet needs a Uk TV license to watch it? No, of course not. Independent TV channels similarly, if their broadcasts are live or not, are funded by advertising - they get none of the license fee money. So why do we need a license to watch them? This is simply a racketeering scheme sponsored by the UK government.
@@MikeEvesworst advice ever. Just declare no license necessary, and you will get a letter every 2 years instead of all the terrifying visits people make RUclips channels from, where they tell everyone how terrified they are.
I’m giving up my bacon sandwich van patches in Luton and Rotherham, having lost a fortune and been beaten up regularly. This year it’s a new start for me, I’m starting as a TV license inspector in January. Wish me luck
Its one of the biggest and longest running scams ever concieved, how they are still allowed to get away with it I dont know. Perhaps this should be the next thing law firms should take up instead of accident claims😂
They get away with it because some people are still mug enough to go with it for a quiet life. Particularly elder people which is why they revoked the over 75 free license rule. And the blind still have to pay a surcharge.
Firstly when the TV licence began. Media was very different. People would gather around a wireless to listen to the latest play.. . As times marches ever forward, with the abundance of streaming/ internet offerings..the actual validity of a TV licence today is moot..... The TV licence should be part funded by the public say 30£s and part funded by subscriptions.. .. This way people won't watch drivel so they'll have to up their game... .. Personally I don't think the current content on the BBC reflects the entire population...so on that basis this should be challenged in court, to say why should I watch the BBC when I don't have any representation in any of the programs...
The thing that gets me is that a magistrate issues a warrent on the basis of little or wrong information. A TV license thug may visit an address and hear sounds from a TV that is from demand and issues a warrent request from this, or sees a TV in your window. This is not enough information for a warrent to be issued but they do. This is very concerning
Lol they aren't even allowed to look in your window without permission. If they admit to a court that they looked in your window without permission, they are admitting to trespassing.
I find it interesting that right at the end of the questionnaire they ask a further six questions about the main reason one does not need a TV licence. Strangely enough there is no option for still owning a tv set and not watching it anymore. If there is no option suitable for the answer, they ask for the the closest to the reason which is for playing games, which one might not do. Surely there are many people who will hang on to their tv set, just in case they might need it again in the future.
you have lots to learn grasshopper! the form is just get you to buy a licence and gather your contact details. Just cancel your DD and job done! plus no need to get rid of any TV's - you can fill your house with them - its what you use them for that counts!
This starts to answer the question I've had for ages. If i have sky or virgin do i need a license? I thought yes but as long as i only watch on demand on those services i don't it seems. BUT if i was taken to court how would either party prove it one way or the other? Does 'on the balance of probability' come into it? That seems like a vague legalese term that gets thrown around! Can they access virgin or sky records? I'm sure they have that data, GDPR?
I answered No to every question on the form except for the "do you watch SKY" question, and was told I needed a license, in spite of never watching anything from Savile's enablers.
The BBC should ask questions correctly. A while ago I was staying around a friends or family members place who had a tv licence. I went on BBC I Player and it asked do you have a tv licence instead of is this property covered by a tv licence. You would think a big organisation like the BBC would ask the correct question.
It bothers me that there are people paying the TV Tax out of fear when they don't need to !
all sanctioned by the UK Government - bad isnt it!!
Me too. My older sister pays it by direct debit. She NEVER watches live TV. We’ve explained it to her many times but she has always paid it and is too scared to cancel the DD. Shameful.
One of my partners siblings paid out of fear. As far as I know, they don't watch "live" TV, but they got scared after someone turned up at the flat after a lot of threatening letters.
They said it's just £15 a month, so they bit the bullet and set up a direct debit to pay it.
It angers me that the BBC are extracting money from people who don't need a licence by threat.
That £15 a month could be going towards something more important.
I do. I know I most certainly don't need it. But yeah, the racketeering got my wife. Problem is I can't convince said dear wife that we don't need it, as in her view, if we were to be prosecuted, we'd lose...
I rarely watch live broadcasts and would happily cancel and never watch live content ever again. But it’s not worth the hassle of getting these thugs on my doorstep. #feartax
I've been receiving threatening letters for years, I do not have a TV licence, I do not watch live TV and they can go do one…
Same here letters all the time for years like 10 years .. i dont watch anything 😢😢😢
Same I used to declare I didn’t need one but not going to tell them every 2 years, they can spend money sending letters and “investigating” all they like
I filled in the online form telling them I don't watch TV anymore and haven't had an issue in 6 years.
Me too.. I ignore their letters on purpose just so I can ignore the door when they come round
@@factsdontcareaboutyourfeel7204 I'm a hotelier. I bought hotel-type TV licences for nearly 30 years until I removed the last TV. I've received HUNDREDS of letters, many addressed to individual rooms. I've only 12 rooms, but the fookers think I've got Room 21, Room 22, Room 23 and so on. I'm looking forward to them visiting my premises so that I can tell them to Foxtrot Oscar.
A friend of mine's son is a police officer over in Canada and he recently got promoted to the anti-fraud office over there. As part of his training the instructor actually used the UK's TV licensing system (as shown here by Daniel in all its glory) as a "simple" introduction to how online forms can use ambiguous questions and deliberately sparse information in order to "trick" the completer into filling it in incorrectly. Go figure...
That doesn't prove he is corrupt?
And how do you avoid paying for CBC/Radio Canada? Answer: you don't, you pay $33 per year whether you have a tv or not through taxation. BBC corruption is amateur compared to Canada
@@S.Trades No, i think its more the technique
@@jp7963 Since the form can’t be filled in honestly I recommend not going anywhere near it!
@@S.Trades What? No, he'd be learning it so he could then educate the public not to fall for fraud in the future.
Surely the BBC should be prosecuted for a fraudulent claim?
The BBC prosecuted 😂
It's a money cow, the very definition of the gravy train.
Once the voice of the nation is now a sad remnant of the good old times.
It needs to be defunded, pronto.
I believe the Ameicans call it a class action law suit >: ] It'sa cookin'.
I agree but, as with many fraudsters, they rely on their victim audience falling in line without a fight.
And for treason
Even easier is get sponsorship from advertising and raise more funds than the licence fee
I was at Reading Magistrates Court and overheard the licence prosecutor discussing prosecuting people for watching RUclips on the basis that it COULD receive live broadcasts. These people are bent as hell and only interested in the money. #DEFUNDTHEBBC
Ah yes the old "Well they are not watching TV but they COULD DO!" argument... Yes, they do try that a lot and many magistrates are already aware of it - and now REFUSE that argument!
These days most Magistrates require that a TV license officer has WITNESSED a "Culprit" actually viewing license able content... The same as Magistrates want to know for sure a TV is being used for the purposes of actually viewing a TV Station... With Most TV's being Smart TV's these days - Simply having a TV connected to The internet is no longer enough to justify a prosecution.
In almost all cases that actually get to court - Either the Defendant does not respond, they have allowed a TV License officer in their home and been caught or they have talked to them at the door and inadvertently made a confession!
The vast Majority of Magistrates are now very aware of the "They could be..." argument and no longer accept it... The do still try it though! #DefundtheBBC
@@Phoenix2312 When you say 'These days most Magistrates require that a TV license officer has WITNESSED a "Culprit" actually viewing license able content', do they need a video showing the officer witnessing the act, or does the judge just take the license officers word for it?
@@rogerkangaroo6118I would hope they require some evidence beyond a statement from a TV licence inspector
They BBC and others paying millions to Gary Lineker, Holly Willoughby, Schofield but trying to charge everyone and even elderly. In EU some countries just plug in and watch TV !!! De Fund BBC
Ah but youtube and any other app is through the internet and THEY KNOW THAT they are just trying their luck . I have no intention of filling that form in A because im blind so they can shove it and B i dont have to so if they come to my door they probably wnt find me in since i work and even if i am they will be told they are on private property so leave or im letting the dogs out 😂
I used to work for TV Licensing customer service. WOW! What a complex conundrum! People would call and ask if they needed one if they knocked two houses into one? The questions I had to ask (and I had to go and ask an actual knock on the door agent, because my manager didn't know) was 'is there an adjoining path? Is there only one front door? Who has access? etc etc. The most important comment I got from the agent when I asked about his powers of entry was 'People don't know, but we have no powers of entry. If they refuse entry we say we'll go and get a police officer, but the only thing he can do, if he actually comes, which many won't, is to make sure there's no breach of the peace, nothing else'. But it's used as a threat, which itself should be illegal. We are taught to fear authority and when it's used as a tool by 'officials' we feel weak and can be overcome with a sense of 'they are big and powerful, and I'm just me'. This is totally wrong. If you are genuinely not watching stuff needing a license, they have no power over you,
That questionnaire is utterly misleading and should be classed as intentional fraud.
⬆️ THIS ⬆️
it is, and completely sanctioned by the Government - the BBC have an exception can you believe!!
Fraud, by definition, is intentional.
Why would you even bother filling it in. It's BS.
Laws are for us, not them.
TV licensing is a mess, the number of prosecutions is immoral
it is, but mainly as to gain evidence to prosecute the person must have engaged with the salesman and told them they watch live TV - something SO easily avoided....
But think of poor old Gary Lineker, struggling to get by on his meagre salary of £1.4 million.
It doesn't let you go back from this page, once you have submitted the answers, if you change the answers etc. The workaround is to open an incognito window and press never for everything! You will then get an email to confirm you don't need a license.
@@JupiterThunderGet a grip
@@robtheplodThe goons cam easily lie and make flase statements. You gotta be desperate and or a low life to be a TV licence "enforcer"
People should be made aware that, there is no legal requirement to inform TV licencing that you no longer require a TV licence. When I gave up watching TV, I simply did not renew my licence. Ok, so I got a few letters (ignored) for a while, but I no longer get them.
And what would that someone have done? Other than try to bully or coerce The Legal Occupier to pay for something they neither want, need, nor are legally compelled to pay for?
They have given up on me too. I suspect it had something to do with making police complaints about harassment.
@@tvguy61 they have, if they have a warrant
I have done the same you dont need to inform the BBC of anything as you are sovereign, they will send you threatening letters just ignore them & they will send someone around, do as i did tell him to sod off & refuse to give your name or declaration of anything, they have no right.
@@tvguy61 Think u are wrong there. There's other ways to get reasonable suspicion.
It’s deliberately made to be mis£leading to frighten people into buying the licence.
If it was for anything other than a TV license, this would be simply described as phishing.
Emails worded like that go straight to spam.
Repeat after me…… If you don’t watch or record live TV or use BBC iPlayer, you DON’T need a TV license.
For information: you are NOT legally obliged to complete this questionnaire; it’s voluntary.
Happy new year everyone 🎉
And they'd never know if you were anyway....
Even if you do use BBC iPlayer, you don't necessarily need one, so long as you watch S4C content (that is hosted on iPlayer) on demand.
Repeat after me:
In English, unlike American, "license" with an 'S' is a verb, and the noun is "licence" with a 'C'.
I had a look at this form a few weeks ago and I felt it was purposely designed to be ambiguous and misleading. Also the negative responses alternate which is very sneaky.
I don't think it's so much "purposely designed to be ambiguous and misleading" as desperately trying, and failing, to find wording which explains the increasingly ambiguous legal situation in a way the public can understand.
@@PastPresentedConsidering the amount of money involved, you'd think they could get this questionnaire reviewed, clarified and corrected by legal experts. The truth is that they don't want to because too many people would realise how easy it is to legally avoid the licence.
@@AC-um2mk If you've watched previous BBB videos on TV Licensing, you'll be aware that even he is not sure how the law should be interpreted- because the reality of how "live TV" services (not actually a term used in the legislation) are delivered, and by what sort of organisations, keeps changing.
@@PastPresented I have not watched many, maybe 1 or 2. Generally BBB videos are on the long side for me. I get your point but surely with 10's of thousands of cases going through every year couldn't a small proportion generate some case law precedents which might give some clarity? If not, why not? As with many many aspects of modern life, it is my belief that ignorance, confusion and fear are key strategies for controlling the people. Knowledge, clarity and confidence are the enemies of those who seek to rule by division.
@@AC-um2mk If you were a TV Licencing goon with a quota to meet, your best bet would be to familiarise yourself with the five main channels' (plus CBeebies) daytime TV schedules (which are, of course, designed to be roughly the same every weekday, year in, year out). Armed with a list of unlicensed properties, stroll along streets of terraced houses with little or no private space between you and the front windows. Your prosecutions would all be based on people you spot viewing those main channels.
The issue you've covered is exactly why I didn't renew my declaration. The form is wrong. I imagine they mislead on purpose and should be brought up on it?
@@tvguy61 but it wouldn't be any of their business, what you do or don't do.
excellent..... there is no requirement to contact the BBC at all... just cancel the Direct Debit.....
I don't need to sign anything, thanks. Go whistle (TV licencing).
When I lived in uni student accommodation, every single person in every single flat got one of these at the start of the academic year. That's at least 300 letters. Most ignored them but a few asked the accommodation managers what to do. They told us to ignore the letters and that they would not allow any inspector access to any flat to check.
If they have a warrant, they are coming in and it's the law that you provide them reasonable assistance. To fail to provide that, is in itself, an offence.
They need evidence for a warrant. In most cases, evidence is collected during the doorstep 'grilling' where less-informed members of the public believe that these goons have powers.
Just ask who they are and say no thanks as you shut the door.
@@S.Trades They would have to catch someone in the act of watching though as simply have a TV plugged into an aerial is not sufficient to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the TV was used to listen to digital radio and netflix.
@@ditch3827 they are NOT allowed to look through a window to 'catch' you watching TV.. tho, there is youtube vids that actually state that this is what happened (but this is against their own guides of operations)
the only way they can get evidence is by a non lisenced occupier saying the wrong thing at the door
its THEN that they get warrents...
however..
not all warrents are legit.. some are just signed by the 'enforcement officers' line manager and have no legal basis until you allow them into your house. .at which point it becomes legal (under something like 'contract law'and consentual conversations etc)
there are stories, once in the house (using warrent or otherwise) of them plugging their own aeriel wires into the wall socket and the TV, then RE-TUNING de-tuned TV's and using THAT as evidence that you were recieving live TV programming and getting successful prosecutions as a result.. even going as far as, when the occupier tried to stop this proceedure, the goon stated that the occupier was trying to interfere with the investigation claiming that its a criminal offence to stop them from re-tuning a TV
@@ditch3827the digital radio defence is an interesting one but incredibly risky.
Technically there's no difference between having a DAB or Internet radio connected to an aerial and showing the same static image with audio that's displayed on a TV screen tuned to a radio station.
However in order to receive radio channels on a TV you generally have to do a scan of your local transmitter that also broadcasts TV stations, making the set 'capable' of receiving them unless there's some way to then delete all but the audio channels.
And does that static image count as 'live TV'? It's never been tested in a court of law.
The key term in the legislation is 'installed'. You don't have to be *watching* TV to be prosecuted, simply having equipment 'installed' to be capable of receiving live broadcasts is the crime.
It's a very, very grey area and not one I'd be inclined to want to fall back on given the ignorance of magistrates on tech matters and their tendency to side with the Government.
Probably safer just to cut off all aerial plugs/ fit blanking plates to wall outlets and buy a standalone DAB radio, until this legislation gets repealed.
I'm in Australia at present. Many people are watching "live" BBC TV through iPlayer snd VPN's. None have TV licenses and none get letters from TV Licensing. Very unfair that they get away with it while those of us in the UK are hounded through the courts.
They could do a subscription on demand service like Netflix which charges up to £216 per year and is globally available.
@@Leo99929 Yes from a business perspective they could but not legally as the BBC don't always own the world rights to all the programmes they transmit. The media companies stitch the world up - remember the DVD Zones and how they used that to control prices?
@@barrieshepherd7694 That only applies content they show under licence so they could do a reduced catalogue.
Netflix licences content too. Also, they could pay for international licences, if it works for Netflix then it could work for other services like the BBC.
@@Leo99929 Maybe but currently it would be outside of their Charter I suspect. Add to that once a media owner knows the BBC would distribute the programme world wide the prices would go up and we would probably not get the programme in the UK because the BBC could not afford them. I think they should just make more effort to block overseas access 😎😎😎😎 I don't like my Aus friends gloating that they watch the BBC for free!
@@Leo99929 I think Britbox is owned by BBC and ITV jointly. It costs us $10 per month (in Australia) but only has some of the BBC content. For the rest still need sideloaded iPlayer and VPN. But you are right. They could do non-exclusive licensing for everything and make more money from overseas viewers.
This must be escalated, as TV Licensing is misleading people.
Many thanks for your videos and for this video.
The public at large need educating on the legalities of TV licences. They pay it out if fear by the look of it .
Will never happen. A family friend many years ago got promoted to Judge and one time at a family do I asked him what do Judge's fear the most? "Oh one thing," he said, "the public learning the law."
@@jp7963 the public are kept in a state of darkness for the benefit of the corrupt
@@gohrt9139 Exactly.
I haven't owned a tv for a couple of decades, it hasn't stopped the steady flow of threatening and intimidating mail that regularly falls through my letter box. The amount of money they are spending on harassing random people on masse is very offensive!!!
TV licence, such a con via people coming to your door. They need to be sorted so all is legally done.
Oh I also got the first like for once lol x
But it is all legally done…doesn’t mean the law is correct though.
ask your MP why they continue to grant BBC exceptions to do this..... watch them squirm!
The same ambiguity they use to confuse you into getting a license, is the same ambiguity they use to not get punished for being misleading.
If this was USA, would it be classed as extortion? A racket?
The USA chose to make people overpay for cable instead!
Government is a racket...they do it because they're the biggest, best armed gang - intimidation.
Extortion is spot on.
All government rule by extortion and are a racket ...
If this was in the US, the licensing goons would have been dropping like flies by now due to lead poisoning.
There is another ambiguity in that it asks if you or anybody in your household does any of these things but it does not make explicit that you have to be watching it in your property. If I go next door and watch TV, so I do watch TV but not on my property and I would assume my neighbor has bought a TV licence which should cover my watching TV on his/her property.
and how can you be expected to know whether or not your kids are watching live TV on their phones ?
@@ditch3827 If you don't know if your kids are watching tv on their phones, how would tv licensing know ?. The whole thing has become a nonsense.
@@paulhillman400Most kids don’t watch broadcast to. Booring!!!
@@michaelcatto8323 Most of the people I know, who are under 25 don't watch live tv either.
@@paulhillman400 indeed but that is not the point which is that it is unreasonable for TVL expect you to make a declaration about something you cannot know.
Taking it all literally you could tick yes to all of those and still not need a licence because you watch TV in a pub or in a neighbours house which is licensed, would be fun to hear that one out in court, A P Herbert's misleading cases and all that.
Beware, there are two questions you have to answer NO to. that's how they catch the unaware!
There might be explanatory text before the questionnaire, not sure
@@costascostas1760 No explanatory, its a yes or a no.
@@OMGAnotherday i remember years ago I received a letter saying I should tell them if I didn't --have-- need (edit) a licence but the letter didn't say how to tell them. All tick boxes and contact information were related to needing and paying for a license. I was certain it was designed on purpose back then and from what you say sounds like they are at it again
@@OMGAnotherday I answered no to all of them and it STILL said I need a license.
I answered Never to all questions yesterday (one month after your video was posted), and it said I need a TV licence.
A proper Tory system this is!
Same here. It has to be a mistake.
I had the same thing happen to me
I think the biggest issue is the ambiguity of the "TV channels". I.e. when you pointed out about channel 4 and you can log in to watch a show with pre-roll ads, if you look at question 4 the channel 4 logo is different, thats because that logo represents the online portion whereas the logo in the example for question 1 is for Channel 4 the TV channel not the online service
Thank you so much! I recently filled in the online form. I answered 'never' to all of the questions, even though I occasionally watch a Channel 4 programme on catch up. I have always read that the programme had to be 'live' and I never watch anything live. I don't have a TV, and I loathe and detest the BBC with a passion. I have not heard back yet...I wait with bated breath!
You don't need a tv licence to watch catch up services other than the BBC iplayer .
If you do get a visit, remember that they are just sales people, with no more authority than your next door neighbour's Jack Russell Terrier, you just say no thank you, and close the door. That's the end of the matter, don't engage in any conversation with them.
Thank you....I live in a secure building with a camera door bell. Just another form of protection from bullies!! @@paulhillman400
you just wasted your time and gave he BBC your contact details..... just cancel your DD
U say u watch a programme on ch4, then that's live licence is required, u can't watch anything on a live TV channel
I've stuck the last 'Do Not Ignore' letter which was hand delivered to my address advising that the current occupant needs a TV licence (to the front door, telling them not to knock again & there is no licence required), It is visible through the glass in the door, to anyone who stands in front of my house!!
I have not had a TV licence for over 20 years (nor do I require one). They send a threatening letter about once every few months - it goes straight in the bin. NEVER go to their website and fill the form in, it's an attempt to get you to incriminate yourself.
Hi Dan !
Why can’t you take them to court and sort this out for people once and for all?
Maybe he hasn't got £50,000 to waste.
Best thing is to not fill in any forms and ignore.
Perfect advice. Nothing is easier than doing nothing.
Capita being ambiguous in their questions?! Surely not!
Dan. I have acquired a TV Licence Staff Handbook. Some of it is redacted but lots of useful stuff. Including 100% proof that they pay commissions to staff visiting who "sell" (bribe, blackmail) TV Licences.
What would it take for some large proportion of these 44k/y convictions to be found unsafe?
Surely there's enough money involved & ambiguities in TV licensing for a law firm to take an interest?
Could we see something akin to the PPI scandal?
A miracle as they are all based on confession.
A barrister?
People are convicted for not having a licence, not paying for one they don't need.
@@ditch3827 Most are actually based on not pleading at all, so ignoring it.
@@praetorian65 The way it works is that the Capita agent tricks someone into admitting that they did watch live TV and that triggers the single justice process, which then, as you say, people ignore which then leads to the fine.
But it does need a confession of some sort to start the process off which is why it is so important to have no communication with Capita at all.
The wording is deliberately vague because the BBC is fully aware it's unable to compete on a level playing field. It's an antiquated business model and due to it's political bias, it's lost the support of the British public.
I think a large scale appeal should be organised by the people who have been found guilty. The other thing that is concerning is the idea that if you don't reply you can be found guilty, with the problems of post being delivered to the wrong address or not delivered at all how can this be a reliable method to confirm guilt?
If they don't know your name they can't prosecute you..!!
Some years back I had a sister with learning disabilities living in a supported living house, I didn’t realise she needed her own tv licence for her room, I just assumed it would be covered by the house as a whole as they had a tv in the main living room.
After she received a letter from tv licensing so say someone had tried to visit her at the property I called them to buy a licence.
I was worried she would have to back pay for the last 5 years but was basically told as long as she didn’t admit it to the person at the door she was okay.
You only need one licence per household.....you can have a T.V in every room if you wish.......you have been hoodwinked and scammed......you are one of the many who have fallen into the web of lies through fear that the BBC set for the unwary.
What's the chance of her not admitting it?
Good video but you should emphasise that there is no legal requirement to declare to the BBC you don't need a TV Licence. It is a logical absurdity to declare you don't need something and the only purpose of this is to trick someone into buying something they don't need.
Exactly
As I have said. You don't get the local airport harassing you to find out if you have a pilots licence or a fishing licence.
but the BBC seem to be a law unto themselves.
I still get emails saying ‘my direct debit has failed’
I cancelled my direct debit 5 years ago.
That they feel they can lie and obfuscate is surely illegal?
Also, there is nothing, absolutely nothing that I would want to watch on any of those channels.
Absolutely delusional!
Those are scam emails, definitely not from TVL.
I gain the impression the TVLA and BBC don’t have lawyers advising on the drafting of their web pages. Or if they have, the lawyers are complicit in misleading the public.
Oh they have Lawyers... I can 1200% assure you of that! That is why the Website and its questions are MISLEADING - And Not Fraudulent! They are VERY DELIBERATLY WORDED... Skirting the line just enough not to be fraud!
In addition, there are an awful lot of crap lawyers - speaking as a retired solicitor!!!!
If I were to put my money on it, Id go with the latter.
@@njfish89 A Lawyers job is to find the best way of "interpreting the law" for the benefit of their client...
They dont care. I spoke with the BBC data protection officer who gave me false information, so if they dont know then none of them do!
I have noticed this on line form has become VERY CONFUSING , around 3 years ago it just asked you if you watched any live TV, thanks for making it CLEAR
They are getting desperate at this point.
You could argue that 'watching a TV on any channel' does not include On Demand. On Demand isn't via a channel it is via a web interface. Via a channel would by it's nature be 'live'.
You left out the fact that you have NO obligation to fill in their form, you don't need to tell them anything. IF they come calling, ask for ID, then say "no thanks" and shut the door. They then must leave, they have NO powers, they boost their ego by claiming to be "enforcement officers"..They are NOT, they are SALESMEN...nothing more.
The BBC TV Licence is the most unfair and unjust Tax there is and must be ABOLISHED.
I harrased them by email and phone for over a year and got them to categorically explain to me what i need a license for. They kept trying to throw it back to me. I simply said "You are the agency telling me i need one, what do i need one to view". They finally sent me the bullet list.
Why can they require a license for material that is produced and streamed from abroad? Isn’t that tantamount to theft on their part, as they are selling a product they don’t own?
The Gov't can configure the law however they like.
You are misunderstanding the reason for the licence. The licence is for you to own and install television receiving equipment capable of receiving a live broadcast signal. It does not mean you actually have to watch anything BUT if you watch a live broadcast on it from anywhere without a licence you are guilty.
@@125brat I have equipment that is capable of receiving a live broadcast signal as, I suspect, do many people. It doesn't mean we are all watching live TV.
@@125brat basically this. its not intuitive to people that the license fee is legitimately nothing more than legal theft. it is a genuine tyranny.
@@williamevans9426 What's the point in asking? There's no real logic to it. It's just the way it is.
Surely they can be sued for mis-selling.
If you’ve paid you are 6 months in advance, cancel your payment , watch for 6 months legally, then ignore them there after. Goons at the door, “no thanks “ close the door job done.
It says you need a TV licence even if you answer no to all the questions
Yeah, same for me. Absolute bullshit.
That means you don't have patience to read those questions.. Question 5 & 6 answers are "yes". They are tricky in making questions..
Speaking as a veteran member of the television broadcasting world, I have a problem with the frequently occurring word "live". We only referred to the word "live" when a program was beamed directly from the studio to air. such as a news bulletin. Most content was pre recorded and edited before it was aired, so we never referred to it as "live" So most TV you see isn't actually live in my view.
I think is live in the sense that the signal is live - they could interupt or change what is beeing shown if there was a need - eg breaking news. where as you cant do that with on demand ?
@@fishevans6417unfortunately, the meaning of a “live broadcast” now just means the channel is sending the signal continuously, in a broadcast manner, and the receivers are displaying it in real-time. It has become not so much a definition, as the opposite of “on-demand” where the viewer controls the start time and can pause or skip through the content. Live doesn’t mean the action you’re seeing is actually happening in real time anymore. Therefore, the distinction made by the Tv licensing people is much more difficult to pin down, and I think they like it that way!
I am SO glad you covered this!!
I had to declare no license needed after three shitty letters from the bbc. I don’t watch tv. I watch YT on my phone and that’s it.
The final options on the questionnaire DO NOT allow you to say that as you have to imply you have other devices!! It’s not even trying to hide how misleading it is.
you didnt have to declare anything.... you chose to converse with them. save time and just cancel your Direct Debit, job done!
The wording on the "no license needed" form is why i just ingore them. They can send a dozen harassment letters a year if they want, but i am not going to communicate with them in any way
I use the letters (I have well of a hundred) as a reminder of how much I'm saving, by not having a licence.
The first question there, my interpretation was that it did not include onDemand services as those would be TV services rather than TV Channels.
Isn't there a law against obtaining money by deception? That's what that questionnaire feels like to me.
your MP allows the BBC to do this - ask them.....
I cannot imagine a government system where I need to get legal advice just to live in peace.
I think you may be confusing watching any of these tv channels, with 4od apps or streaming, the question is do you watch c4 tv channel, not do you watch catch up on an app
I read it through the lens that channel and TV (not tv programme) specifically relate to the live broadcasts by definition, whereas on-demand means watching programmes from the same companies that operate the tv channels, but not via TV/channel.
Broadcast (live _[sic])_ TV means the _broadcaster_ chooses what and when to start and stream something for the viewer to "tune into" and watch - every viewer gets the same stream.
On Demand TV means the _viewer_ chooses what and when to start and stream something - every viewer gets their own choice and stream.
(Note that the "Red Button" is NOT On Demand as all you are doing is selecting a different stream that the _broadcaster_ has chosen to send at that time, along with any other viewer of that stream.)
If two people decide to watch the same thing On Demand, the streaming service may combine those two into a single instance of the streamer for purposes of efficiency, but they are still On Demand as each viewer could decide to independently pause the stream and the streamer would, of necessity, split the streaming into two separate instances of the streamer.
Being able to "pause and rewind live TV" is done by the receiving device buffering the broadcast stream, ie the receiving device is acting like a VCR, continuing to record whilst you pause or rewind the playback of the broadcast being recorded. The receiving device (set top box, cable box (TIVO), etc) is the device needing the licence.
I was always under the impression that the reason why we had to pay for a licence was because the BBC did not show ads
I think you have it the wrong way round. The do not show ads because they are funded by the license.
@@rogerkangaroo6118 They do show ads all the time though
The BBC tech page is full of ads
@@rogerkangaroo6118 No, the OP is spot on. For decades, (and some of the older commenters should attest to this), we were told that the reason the BBC doesn't show adverts mid programming is because the license fee payers are paying not to have them. In more recent years this lie seems to have been changed, and now they run with "we don't need adverts, because of the unique way we're funded!; and all the while failing to tell us how they regularly sell shows that we have paid for, to streaming services or overseas channels : and not passing on the profits to those who have made this possible by reducing the license fee itself.
Another excellent presentation, it's all a massive confidence trick by TV licensing/Capita.
If you're watching on demand, you're not watching on a channel - you're watching on a streaming service (as the later question recognises). Plus some people may misunderstand 'live' to only mean sports events etc. I agree it could be worded better though and hope this whole palaver can be eradicated in the coming years as the BBC's future funding method is determined.
This!
I filled mine out and chose all the answers needed to declare none needed .
It still came back as we think you need a tv license
I don't tell the Police that I don't need a shotgun license, and they don't pester me with threat O grams. I don't tell DVLA that I don't need a driving license, and they don't send me threat O grams. So why do BBC/Capita pester me? and I don't see why I should fill out their form to see if I need a TV License. ESPECIALLY AS ITS NOT A LEGAL REQUIREMENT. I don't watch Live TV or BBC iPlayer and if they think different then let them try and prove it! Of course if they turn up at my door I will say "NO THANKS" and close the door, and there is nothing they can do about it. They can't even get a warrant because they need reasonable suspicion before a magistrate can issue one and not having a TV licence at my address isn't enough reason!
Question one implies that if I ever watch TV at somebody else house I still need a TV licence.
How can they just say you are guilty without seeing you watching live TV or you admitting it? It seems completely unenforceable otherwise yet a ridiculous amount of people get done for it. Doesn't seem right to me.
The can't
@@ditch3827 Well they clearly can unless you come to defend yourself. If you don't show up at court they just take it as if you don't contest the accusation and are thus guilty
@@olorin3815 True but then, as with any FPN or similar, if you don't refute it then that is taken as an admission of guilt.
It's because when the tv licence officers (tv licence sales people, in reality ) call at peoples houses, the occupants try to be clever and argue with the sales people, and that's meat and drink to them, because they are trained in how to trap people into admitting to watching live tv. If an officer (sales person ) knocks on your door, you should just say no thank you and close the door, and that's the end of it.
Everyone who has a tv watches it live at some point, therefore just buy a license and stop the nonsense!
We’ve just had one and answered no to all the questions and it still says we need a tv licence?
I got that too, It makes no sense. I don't even have a TV other than old CRT ones for games.
I think smart TV's should have software to only allow watching of non live programs. It should need a TV licence to unlock the software so you can. This would make things a lot simpler
I don't think non-BBC channels would be too happy with that! After all, it's not their fault if people watch "live TV" without a Licence.
Ridiculous
they could easily do something like that, but they dont want to. They want The BBC or any live tv service as available as possible so as to make it easier for them to claim you need the license
you worry too much...... whatever you watch the BBC will not know.
I think you've just cracked it
They have deliberately mis worded the question to scare people into paying for something they do not need.
It’s an interesting one, and I declared not needing a TV licence years ago, and when they threaten I just threaten back with cases of harassment.
But…in the case of their first question, using 4 on demand as a counter argument, 4OD is not a channel. It’s an online service. The wording states channel, and it shows the channel 4 logo. It does lack the word “live”, but being a broadcast channel it can be reasonably assumed that it is live, or recorded from live.
In my mind, any of the related TV services of that ilk are just like BBC iPlayer, and they make a very clear distinction between BBC and BBC iPlayer, so with respect to the above, you can reasonably assume that the channel 4 logo means the TV channel 4, not their 4OD service. To me that’s pretty clear.
I agree though, that it’s a very grey area around what defines “TV”, and that the way TV licensing handles things is very archaic, threatening, and underhand. It needs to change and move with the times.
Is 4OD broadcast?
A broadcast television programme service which requires a licence to receive is one in which the broadcaster chooses the time of broadcast and the viewer has no say in that timing, or what the broadcaster will stream at that time - they can only "tune in" and receive the stream of the broadcast television programme service, along with all the other viewers of the stream.
An "On demand" service is one whereby the viewer chooses the time and the programme (from the "library") to watch, and it is then streamed to them, regardless of being streamed to any other viewer. (This is akin to selecting a video or DVD, putting in _your_ player and watching it - whoever created the tape or disc has no say over what time you watch that content.)
The mechanism of the stream, whether transmitted through the air or via a cable (connected to a streaming service or the internet), is irrelevant to the definition: it is only the time and what, and who decides to start and can view/receive the stream that matters.
How is it possibly legal to need a TV licence in any scenario.
8:50 you may not watch much YT but you sure make a lot for it, which I truly thank you for 🙂
The questions are slightly different for me, number 5 is "*Can you confirm* that you and your household *never* watch BBC iPlayer?" with answers Yes / No. The rest of the questions are "Do you ever X?" and the last two are "Can you confirm you never X?". This feels like it's intentionally trying to confuse you, I was about to tick all "No".
Almsot all the 'documentation' (letters, online stuff, etc.) is rife with not just ambiguous but patently false statements, but those that start with 'the law says ..' and then go on to be incorrect are just awful and whoever is responsible should be taken to task.
"On any channel" in the first question does imply "live" in my head.
Apparently there's a Legal Occupier living in my property for at least 10 years now. He gets some letters from TV License on a regular basis and then he (presumably it's him) files them in the bin 🤣
@Pawelnotts he lives at your house too? Guy must be minted i get his letters too
Are you then the Illegal Occupier? 🤣
@@BBoaBrim that's what my 7yo daughter seems to think so! Sat in front of the TV telling me to get out of here when I want to turn off whatever brainwashing youtube channel she's watching that day 🤣
@@pawelnottswhy are you crying?
@@shaunpatrick8345 because I'm cutting onions ❤️
No for question 1 it says 'do you watch TV on any CHANNEL' 4OD is not a TV channel it is a website so the correct answer is 'never'. And again question 3 it asks if you watch TV on any TV SERVICE, a streaming service is not a Television service. A television service is broadcast television by any definition.
It's called Channel 4 and the logo is exactly the same as Channel 4 the live TV channel. So, yes I can watch TV (catch-up) on Channel 4 (Streaming App) and I do not need a licence.
It's like the BBC are tying to get on demand as part of the TV licence with that language. Like sneakily trying to normalise something without making it obvious
It's like taking a photo of someone without permission or them asking you to do so and then trying to say that they owe me payment for the photo, it's rediculous....
Remember working in a supermarket when i was at uni, anytime a customer bought a tv we had to fill out a tv licence declaration form with them, this was early 2000s and i presume it doesnt happen anymore but at the time it always struck me as odd, i wonder what law/act required it to be done then
Mickey Mouse at 10 Downing Street must own a hell of a lot of TVs ;)
I remember having to do this. With us handing over our email addresses in places such as Argos, Curry's, etc for a copy of our receipt, I would imagine the TV licencing would be notified automatically!
Is anybody able to confirm if this is the case?
I wonder what Mickey Mouse did with all those tellies he bought 20 years ago?
More fool you for giving any details to these people. @@supermum2kids233
@@supermum2kids233 yes it was. My ex gf brought a TV from dixons and they asked for name, address etc for "the insurance purposes" so i told them to do one because your only asking for TV licensing but they said they can't sell it without the information and it wasn't going to them. So we gave my address but she didn't live with me. 1 week later a letter from TV licensing showed up in her name at my address
They need to change the word "live", to the term "realtime broadcast"
They told me it was statutory obligation and I could not opt out of paying for a TV licence if I owned a property.
Who did?
@@waynegoldpig2220 TV licensing.
@@waynegoldpig2220 No one did, we all know that's not how it works.
@@waynegoldpig2220 there aren't half some strange people knocking around on YT.
@@paulhillman400 Indeed.
I had an inspector at my door here once. He saw the monitor in the background and he said I still needed a licence for a computer.
He said it wasn't because I had watched television, it was because I could access it if I wanted to.
Your first mistake was opening the door to them.
that salesman is on commission so any excuse! he's wrong by the way..... did you cancel you licence?
On Commission??? I did not know that.
I didn't have a licence and did not buy one. I'm sometimes obliged to watch it visiting other people's houses, I see nothing worth time or money.@@robtheplod
After TV Licencing sent one of their thugs around to intimidate me, I am completely convinced this is just a modern-day hustle. I did note their latest questionnaire is more despicable than ever before, but what else would one expect? Knuckledusters next, I suppose.
Notice they also demand you give them an email address before being able to submit the declaration. Their audacity knows no bounds.
not worth contacting them with all that rubbish, just cancel your direct debit.......
Be polite and "Never confirm or deny anything" to the BBC.
"On any channel" wouldn't apply to 4OD as the app and website aren't a channel. It means tuning into the channel as it's being broadcast.
What if its channel 4 on normal TV but the show is not live? Say for example you are watching a soap which is obviously not live?
@@aqmohra4 If it's a live broadcast, then you need a licence.
@@aqmohra4 they are considered 'live' for the purposes of licence as its used to mean 'watching or recording at scheduled time of transmission' maybe 'live' is a bit ambiguous in this way but cant think of an alternative term, most tv programmes arent 'live' in the sense of being recorded and edited before transmission...maybe the licencing term should be 'watching or recorded at a channel defined scheduled time' as thats not what an on demand programme would be , itd be 'at a user selected time'
Indeed the website states that no licence is required to watch S4C on demand but also that (uniquely) a licence is required to watch BBC on demand. So 40D does not require a licence.
It's interesting that BBB chose 4 as an example, because there is no longer such a thing as 4OD! In an attempt to get ahead of the eventual shut-down of broadcast TV, Channel 4 have rebranded 4OD as: Channel 4, with the usual 4 logo. That really does make a total mess of the TV Licence questionnaire.
The Licence should have been replaced with a more future-proof funding scheme years ago.
Merry Christmas to you too... and a happy new year
How about nobody paying or renewing the licenses and letting the system implode? If all licenses were to go to trial, then it would be impossible to charge anyone...
In an ideal world that would happen , but, I'm sure the BBC would then go to the government and force everyone by household to pay an additional "tax" on their council tax ( probably an increase of £200) per year.
The BBC get their wedge and the government get a £30 out of the deal.....smiley faces all round and you can watch T.V for free!
It would be interesting to see how much funding the BBC throw at all the licence recovery scheme....it's never made public.
@@andrewdoran4572 Then they'll have to admit it's literally government funded and untrustworthy.
If they refused to watch the BBC you would have a point but how many would use I as an opportunity to get BBC TV without paying for it ?
Exactly, a long time ago I spotted this and refused to do their online no licence needed declaration because I wasn't prepared to lie to get past their incorrect wording. Yes I do watch TV on a TV service, but I still don't need a licence because it's NOT live (which they don't specify). I cancelled my direct debit and sent them an email instead, a few weeks later I got my refund.
If u watch tv on at service then it's live, therefore a licence is required live diesnt mean watching a football match as its played, not in this sense, it means broadcasted it can be repeats, new shows, or yes sports events, so a tv station is live like ch4, itv and 3ven the plus one services are still classed as live take freeview as example, every single freeview tv channel needs u to have the licence legally
I may have missed it but does the questionnaire make it clear that they are asking *only* about what you do at your home? Having just had to suffer the utter inanity of Christmas telly whilst visiting family over the last few days if I'm asked 'Do you or anyone in your household watch TV ...?' I would have to say that I do. (Yes, I know what they mean but there may be some who don't.)
No they dont! :) If they did... They would not be able to con Students into paying for a TV license when they can legally watch TV via any device in their Student Accommodation as long as it is NOT plugged into the Mains! (They are actually covered by their Parents TV license!)
It deliberately does not specify that it refers to viewing only n your own home.
@@martyndawson7484 That's one part, It also does not tell you that if you are a Student, You may not need a TV license if your parents have one...
THEY KNOW there are work arounds... They know Students DO NOT NECESSARILY NEED A TV LICENSE... But they wont tell them that as it's about SALES!
And yes, It is very hard to find that information on their website - its there... Dont get me wrong! It has to be or they would be breaking teh law - Then it would be fraud But even navigating to that page - You keep getting banners saying "Buy a TV license"
If you select never for all , it still say you need a tv license, fk License
The absolute brazenness of the BBC to try to claim you need a license to watch non BBC content is an absolute joke. For them to say I need a license to watch Amazon prime, RUclips, now TV, ITV, channel 4 and 5 is absolutely disgusting.
It's not the BBC, it's the UK Government through legislation. It is a licence to receive live broadcasts (and use BBC iPlayer for BBC content).
And foreign broadcasts as well. What on earth is the rationale behind it? I've finally pulled the plug on them, my current licence expires in a few weeks. Had to cancel my virgin media tv service but they advised me I could get a "streaming box" from them so I'll look into that.
Just ignore them
@@gmo4250The live broadcasts thing makes no sense. If the BBC made a live broadcast via RUclips, does that mean the whole planet needs a Uk TV license to watch it? No, of course not. Independent TV channels similarly, if their broadcasts are live or not, are funded by advertising - they get none of the license fee money. So why do we need a license to watch them? This is simply a racketeering scheme sponsored by the UK government.
@@MikeEvesworst advice ever. Just declare no license necessary, and you will get a letter every 2 years instead of all the terrifying visits people make RUclips channels from, where they tell everyone how terrified they are.
I’m giving up my bacon sandwich van patches in Luton and Rotherham, having lost a fortune and been beaten up regularly.
This year it’s a new start for me, I’m starting as a TV license inspector in January.
Wish me luck
Its one of the biggest and longest running scams ever concieved, how they are still allowed to get away with it I dont know.
Perhaps this should be the next thing law firms should take up instead of accident claims😂
They get away with it because some people are still mug enough to go with it for a quiet life. Particularly elder people which is why they revoked the over 75 free license rule. And the blind still have to pay a surcharge.
Firstly when the TV licence began.
Media was very different.
People would gather around a wireless to listen to the latest play..
.
As times marches ever forward, with the abundance of streaming/ internet offerings..the actual validity of a TV licence today is moot.....
The TV licence should be part funded by the public say 30£s
and part funded by subscriptions..
..
This way people won't watch drivel so they'll have to up their game...
..
Personally I don't think the current content on the BBC reflects the entire population...so on that basis this should be challenged in court, to say why should I watch the BBC when I don't have any representation in any of the programs...
It's not a scam.
The thing that gets me is that a magistrate issues a warrent on the basis of little or wrong information.
A TV license thug may visit an address and hear sounds from a TV that is from demand and issues a warrent request from this, or sees a TV in your window.
This is not enough information for a warrent to be issued but they do.
This is very concerning
Lol they aren't even allowed to look in your window without permission.
If they admit to a court that they looked in your window without permission, they are admitting to trespassing.
One of the longest cons EVER!
The first question is purely about live TV, it doesn't mean 'on demand' services.
I find it interesting that right at the end of the questionnaire they ask a further six questions about the main reason one does not need a TV licence. Strangely enough there is no option for still owning a tv set and not watching it anymore. If there is no option suitable for the answer, they ask for the the closest to the reason which is for playing games, which one might not do. Surely there are many people who will hang on to their tv set, just in case they might need it again in the future.
you have lots to learn grasshopper! the form is just get you to buy a licence and gather your contact details. Just cancel your DD and job done! plus no need to get rid of any TV's - you can fill your house with them - its what you use them for that counts!
Wouldn't even bother telling them you don't need one
This starts to answer the question I've had for ages. If i have sky or virgin do i need a license? I thought yes but as long as i only watch on demand on those services i don't it seems. BUT if i was taken to court how would either party prove it one way or the other? Does 'on the balance of probability' come into it? That seems like a vague legalese term that gets thrown around! Can they access virgin or sky records? I'm sure they have that data, GDPR?
I answered No to every question on the form except for the "do you watch SKY" question, and was told I needed a license, in spite of never watching anything from Savile's enablers.
The BBC should ask questions correctly.
A while ago I was staying around a friends or family members place who had a tv licence. I went on BBC I Player and it asked do you have a tv licence instead of is this property covered by a tv licence.
You would think a big organisation like the BBC would ask the correct question.