Video Summary

Understanding TV Licensing: A Personal Challenge to "Further Action" Threats

A legal professional has shared their experience of receiving a letter from TV Licensing, despite consistently declaring that they do not require a license. This situation highlights common questions about TV licensing obligations and the process of challenging perceived unwarranted pressure.

The Basis for a TV Licence

In the UK, a TV Licence is legally required to watch or record live television broadcasts on any channel or device. It is also needed to download or watch any BBC programmes on BBC iPlayer. However, a license is generally not required for watching on-demand content from other streaming services like Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, or YouTube.

A History of Declarations

The individual in question has a long history of filing voluntary declarations with TV Licensing, stating that they do not watch or record live TV and do not use BBC iPlayer. For many years, this process was uneventful, with the only correspondence being reminders when a declaration was due to expire.

However, a recent sequence of events has led to a more confrontational stance. After receiving an email about an expiring declaration in October, the individual initially chose not to re-file. Following a reminder letter, they submitted a new declaration online. Despite this, a subsequent letter arrived, threatening "further action" if they did not get in touch.

Challenging the "Investigation"

The individual views this latest letter as an unwarranted threat. They assert that they are not legally obliged to contact TV Licensing and intend to re-file their declaration again. If the letters persist, they indicate a willingness to pursue legal action, considering such persistent correspondence as harassment and unnecessary threats of legal proceedings.

Observations from the letter include an address of "Dear Sir/Madam," which differs from previous personalised correspondence, suggesting a potential change in TV Licensing's database or system. The letter also states the property is listed as "unlicensed," a fact the individual confirms has been the case for many years.

As a proactive measure, the individual is considering issuing a "withdrawal of implied right of access" to prevent TV Licensing representatives from visiting their property, arguing there is no legitimate reason for a visit given their consistent declarations.

The Legal Weight of an "Enforcement Notice"

A significant concern for the individual is the potential receipt of an "enforcement notice." They explain that in law, an enforcement notice carries a specific and serious meaning, typically implying that something is enforceable by a court order. Sending such a notice without a pre-existing court order, they argue, would be unlawful.

Drawing on personal legal experience, where a 'stay of enforcement' was obtained during an appeal process, the individual highlights the legal gravity of enforcement actions. They state that if TV Licensing were to send an enforcement notice without proper legal grounds, they would seek a court declaration that this constitutes harassment and an unlawful threat of litigation.

Refusal to Pay and Future Steps

The individual remains firm in their refusal to pay the £174.50 TV Licence fee for a service they do not use. They reiterate that they do not watch live television, preferring on-demand content from platforms like YouTube and Netflix. The situation is anticipated to escalate, with the individual prepared to take legal steps if TV Licensing continues to issue what they perceive as unfounded threats or an unlawful enforcement notice.

*

Disclaimer: This article explains the issues discussed in the video and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals should seek independent legal counsel for specific situations.

Transcript

I've received a letter from TV Licensing, but I am not someone who's going to be intimidated. For many years, I've filed a declaration stating I do not need a TV license because I do not watch or record live TV and do not use BBC iPlayer. I've never had trouble, visits, or letters, other than expiry notices for this voluntary declaration.

In October, I received an email about my declaration expiring. Initially, I didn't file a new one, but after a reminder letter, I logged in online and submitted it, expecting no further contact for a year or two. However, I then received another letter stating, "Please get in touch to avoid further action."

I view this as a threat. I do not have to get in touch. If I voluntarily file a declaration online and continue to receive such letters, I will consider it harassment and take legal action. I am not intimidated and do not need a TV license.

The letter was addressed "Dear Sir/Madam," which is unusual as previous correspondence had my name. This suggests a possible change in their system or database. The letter states, "your property is now listed as unlicensed on our database." My property has been unlicensed for a long time, as I haven't needed a license for many years.

I might use a "withdrawal of implied right of access" template from my website to prevent visits, as I've filed declarations and believe there's no reason for them to visit.

The letter reminds me it's against the law to watch or record live TV without a license. I reiterate that I do not watch or record live TV, nor do I use BBC iPlayer. I don't have pay TV services like Sky, and on-demand streaming services like Amazon Prime Video do not require a license. I also dispute the claim that a license covers "everything on BBC iPlayer," noting S4C as an exception, though I don't use iPlayer anyway.

The letter states, "It's our duty to ensure that everyone who needs a license has one. So, we've started an investigation into your property." I plan to file my declaration again. If these letters persist, I will consider them harassment and unnecessary threats of legal proceedings.

The letter advises to "Buy a license" or "visit" if recently moved. I refuse to buy a license as I don't need one. I haven't recently moved and have made declarations for years. I also express suspicion about the name "Louise Short" on the letter, as it differs from previous correspondence.

I will not be buying a license and will likely make the declaration again. However, if they send an "enforcement notice," I will go straight to court for a declaration that this is a form of harassment and an unlawful threat of litigation. An "enforcement notice" has a specific legal meaning, implying enforceability by a court order. Sending such a notice without a valid court order would be unlawful. I recently obtained a stay of enforcement in a personal legal case, illustrating the legal weight of such notices.

I will probably file my declaration again, as I am not going to pay £174.50 for something I don't need. I don't watch live TV; on-demand services like YouTube or Netflix are perfectly adequate. If TV Licensing sends an "enforcement notice," I will consider it a serious declaration and an unqualified threat of litigation that doesn't exist, which could amount to harassment.