How do I reply?

[french frank]

Had an email from TV Licensing yesterday asking me to confirm that I still didn't need a licence. There was an online form to fill in with several questions. One had me stumped:

Please let us know the main reason why you or your organisation don't need a TV Licence. (If there is more than one, please choose the most appropriate reason.)

• Only watch Blu-rays, DVDs or online purchases (eg films, TV series)

• Only watch on demand/catch-up TV (excluding BBC iPlayer) on any device such as a computer, laptop, tablet, phone etc

• Only watch on demand/catch-up TV (excluding BBC iPlayer) on a TV

• Only use a TV for games/consoles

• Covered by a TV Licence at another address

• No TV receiving equipment or devices at the address

I rejected the last one on the grounds that they'd sent me an email and I was replying online, so obviously had a computer. Opted for 'Only use a TV for games/consoles' (which I don't ). Could have chosen no. 1, though I don't have any equipment for playing them as the new Macs don't have DVD drives. There does seem to be an unwarranted assumption in there somewhere …

[Dave2002]

The assumption is presumably that you do watch TV sometimes - even if only in catch up mode. I think even BBC iPlayer now requires you to have a licence - though you could presumably watch ITV or other catchup services. The last of the options might have been the "correct" one to choose - "devices" is a catchall word which could apply to mousetraps, washing machines and loads of other stuff. If you don't have obviously designated TV equipment, I think it should have been safe to answer that way.

[jean]

It wouldn't. Look at question 2.

[french frank]

though you could presumably watch ITV or other catchup services

No, I don't think you can watch UK television at all. Slightly grey since you certainly can't plead that you 'only watch ITV' if you're watching live. The inclusion of watching catch-up was to close a licence loop-hole.

I judged the last one out as, quite clearly from the fact that I have email and was responding online, I'm at least very likely to have some sort of device on which I could, if I wanted to, watch television.

Having been visited twice in the last 20 years - and been indignant at having my privacy invaded for something so trivial that I do without it - I'm now quite ready to invite them in, offer them coffee and biscuits, escort them all over the house, pull down the Ramsey ladder so that they can look in the roof space, take them into the back workshop. The last person who was invited in was only too willing to take my word and hurry on to his next address. That was about 10 years ago.

[Cockney Sparrow]

I would use their complaint procedure that the questions do not admit "I don't watch any of the content of broadcast TV or streamed or streamed catch up" and only include options that give rise to an inference that there is at least the capability of such viewing. (This is the principle, I have a licence so I'm not checking the above line by line).

Or I would not answer the questionnaire but print it off. And add a box and statement to the above effect and strike out their questions as n/a. Hand it to the investigator when he comes and make him aware I had in my hand a copy of their complaints procedure having noted his i.d. document details. Personally I wouldn't let him in without a warrant. I can't imagine they would be able to justify getting a warrant in your case. (As I used to address civil courts I, personally might be tempted to request notice for any warrant application on the basis I would attend and represent to the (magistrates, I imagine) Court it would be unreasonable, and abuse of my rights to grant one, but if it saw fit to grant a warrant I would ask that the officer accompany me straightway to inspect my home.

I imagine the number of warrants they obtain are very low, they rely on people feeling obliged or intimidated into giving them entrance to the home. Make them go to the above lengths (AKA doing their job) and they will prefer to bother someone else (in public service its called effective use of resources - AKA as an easy hit).

[cloughie]

I would click the delete button!

[french frank]

I suppose my dilemma is that I'm law-abiding and don't want to be obstructive (still less belligerent ) to those who are only looking for law-breakers. I got an email reply after I'd filled in the form saying … hang on … no, my mistake, I thought they were going to send me a letter as well, but I got another email. I have this déjà lu feeling that I wrote to them last time, whenever that was, to say they didn't have a question that fitted my own circumstances … so, no change there … Maybe I am the sole person in the entire country, universe or whatever who doesn't find that medium of (very broad definition, including education) entertainment appealing.

[Zucchini]

But is it mandatory to reply?

[french frank]

But is it mandatory to reply?

That question? I could have tried not doing so, but they were radio buttons (coincidentally ) and usually when you miss out an answer, they send you back to complete it. Don't know why they didn't offer:

• Something else (please say what below as it is essential we know for our records)

[Dave2002]

I suppose my dilemma is that I'm law-abiding and don't want to be obstructive (still less belligerent ) to those who are only looking for law-breakers. I got an email reply after I'd filled in the form saying … hang on … no, my mistake, I thought they were going to send me a letter as well, but I got another email. I have this déjà lu feeling that I wrote to them last time, whenever that was, to say they didn't have a question that fitted my own circumstances … so, no change there … Maybe I am the sole person in the entire country, universe or whatever who doesn't find that medium of (very broad definition, including education) entertainment appealing.

However, you have declared that you have lied on the form, so where does that put you?

I sympathise!

[Serial_Apologist]

However, you have declared that you have lied on the form, so where does that put you?

I sympathise!

I often think the people who devise these online questionnaires have done their Kafka reading!

[eighthobstruction]

.....I suggest ff write a very nice (decent) letter to Mr Hall explaining the situation/dilemma.....

[Dave2002]

.....I suggest ff write a very nice (decent) letter to Mr Hall explaining the situation/dilemma.....

An email perhaps?

See what happens when emails go wrong - http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...inues-14073503

Now you see it (The Royal Oak) ... now you don't!

[Serial_Apologist]

An email perhaps?

See what happens when emails go wrong - http://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surr...inues-14073503

Now you see it (The Royal Oak) ... now you don't!

OH how sad and unforgiveable: a piece of perfectly decent early Victorian heritage eliminated by bureaucratic decree!!!

[Zucchini]

That question? I could have tried not doing so, but they were radio buttons (coincidentally ) and usually when you miss out an answer, they send you back to complete it. Don't know why they didn't offer:

• Something else (please say what below as it is essential we know for our records)

What I meant was do you have to go though this rigmarole in order for your exemption request to be accepted?
Or are they requesting your (optional) cooperation for statistical/research purposes? ("... to help us improve, even further, our services to non-TV viewers ... ")