How do I reply?

[Serial_Apologist]

Back to topic, I was sent an email by British Gas before Christmas telling me that my having established an online account with them meant that from now on, unless I clicked to indicate that I still wanted their communications in paper, I would be contacted by email. I don't remember this being stated as a condition when I contacted them - by email, because I'd been left on hold for 20 minutes - to get an engineer over to do a repair; or for that matter that by merely emailing them I had established an online account!

Edit: I now seen that the above option does still allow me to have my bills sent by post; however, I have first to log online to my account and request this!!!

Edit 2: My apologies for posting this here, when it should have gone to the online accounts thread!

[un barbu]

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.

By no means. I do not watch TV and find,when visiting friends, that I loathe the experience of seeing it. I did pay the licence fee, hoping that it might be a way of paying for all the wireless programmes (fewer now than before on Radio 3) that I enjoy.

[french frank]

What I meant was do you have to go though this rigmarole in order for your exemption request to be accepted?

It was an HTML email incorporating a button saying: I STILL DON'T NEED A LICENCE. But when I clicked on it, it just took me to the TVL website with all the questions, including filling in my personal details such as name, address, email address, telephone number, just as if they hadn't just sent me an email.

[french frank]

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

I sympathise!

I'm not sure (I mean, 'I'm not sure') whether I lied because I think there are games somewhere on my computers which I could play, and they didn't seem to make a distinction half the time between a television set (which, in my case, I do not have) and equipment capable of receiving television programmes (e.g. my computers). Not sure if 'games' include things like patience and mahjong.

Add: Just found there was a chess game and played it for about six moves. Then I virtually tipped up the board and scattered all the pieces as I could see I was going to lose.

[Padraig]

I'm not sure (I mean, 'I'm not sure')

f f, You live in dangerous border territory. You are a 'target'.

What I would do is buy the licence.

You can still retain your total disdain for their infernal contraption if you want to.

[gurnemanz]

Something not directly related to your issue but worth bearing in mind re not needing a TV licence: we have just returned from visiting my sister and brother-in-law. He told us had overlooked (or never bothered to even check) that the TV licence was in his wife's name and that he is over 75 she is not yet that far advanced, so he could have applied sooner. He successful negotiated a refund from the licensing authority. link. Both my wife and I have a few years to go.

[french frank]

f f, You live in dangerous border territory. You are a 'target'.

What I would do is buy the licence.

You can still retain your total disdain for their infernal contraption if you want to.

I am entitled to a free licence. If the government were still paying for it, I might 'buy' one, but as it now comes out of BBC funding, I'm not inclined. Did you see my PM?

Ed: gurnemanz, yes indeed.

[Padraig]

I am entitled to a free licence.

Did you see my PM?

I made the wrong assumption about your stance, f f. I did not consider what it is not polite to discuss.

Yes I did, thank you.
I, in turn, do not want an email address, so I can't use Listen Again. But please... I don't care.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is owning a television now considered to be a law of nature?

The licensing people hounded my mother for years. She ignored every threatening letter. Later, when I had Power of Attorney, I collected all the letters, hoping to show them up in court, but their bark was always worse than their bite.

[Dave2002]

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

I don't know whether it was a decent bit of heritage or not, but I do think it was demolished unlawfully, as the correct procedures had not been followed. The council didn't actually decree that it should be demolished, but just bungled the whole business, and/or were taken advantage of by the developer. The most recent admission by the local council that an email was sent to the "wrong" email address shows up several issues. Firstly the council made a mistake, but secondly, since when has receipt or even non receipt of an email been considered the correct way for business to be conducted in according with planning rules? The company which had the building demolished made an assumption that they had the right to do so - or perhaps they knew they didn't, but chose to ignore that anyway. Too many assumptions, not enough checks or due consideration, and now the council is trying to say it wasn't their fault anyway. I think there were errors on both sides.

I simply noticed the information in the newspapers, and the gap in the line of buildings as I drove towards Tesco and B&Q - I was never a customer in that pub.

Re the original survey which ff has struggled with - it seems typical of the nonsense way things get done these days. Hardly anyone seems to consider that there may be possibilities which are not compatible with a handful of poorly worded questions, and too few bother to put in one or two boxes for others. It only takes a "Reason not given above" with a box to provide the explanation. Lazy approach to getting things done, though I suppose it kept somebody off the unemployment register.

[Dave2002]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is owning a television now considered to be a law of nature?

I'm not sure about TVs, but I think you obviously don't deserve to belong to the human race if you don't have a smartphone which is permanently on, preferably attached directly to your ear(s) or glued to your hands.

[Sir Velo]

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 …

I agree the potential answers were poorly defined; however, I definitely think the correct response, for someone in your circumstances, would have been to answer that you do not have a television or receiving devices. With no description of what is meant by "devices" I think it legitimate for one to assume that the reference is to televisions. Let them define "devices"; it's not your responsibility to second guess their meaning.

Moreover,has it been legally define that a PC/laptop is a television receiving device? There are all kinds of practical reasons why you might not even be able to watch television on your PC (not least internet speed, or work prohibitions). Equally, you may well have been responding to the questionnaire on a work or shared PC, or on a smartphone. Smartphones can "receive" television programmes but would they be classified as "receiving devices"? I certainly don't use them for that purpose given the limitations of screen size, audio quality etc. Quite apart from the technicalities of the matter, the absurdity of the enforcement agencies trying to locate a pocket device which may or may not being used to watch television mean that it would be impracticable to police such a situation.

No, I would definitely have selected the last option and awaited their response, if any.

[jean]

...With no description of what is meant by "devices" I think it legitimate for one to assume that the reference is to televisions. Let them define "devices"; it's not your responsibility to second guess their meaning...

But they do - the second option reads:

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

[Dave2002]

But they do - the second option reads:

That doesn't necessarily define the word device in the context of the last option. Why try to explain it? It's just a very poor questionnaire. All "they" really want to know is if someone has a licence, or if not, is entitled for a reason they consider reaonable to be removed from their hit list. I think that ff may have already resolved this - but often a fairly short telephone conversation does the trick. I have had two dealings with the licence people - once when I had a licence, but due to an error the address was wrong. The licence was replaced with the correct address. The other time was when we were trying to sell a flat which was empty for quite a long while while. The letters mounted up behind the door, so obviously didn't get dealt with until we paid a visit to check on condition.

[Eine Alpensinfonie]

I recall that when I accessed iplayer via my computer, I had to sign in, having confirmed that I had a TV licence. That is all the security that is required. If the BBC doesn't like it, they shouldn't be making programmes so freely available. It's a form of entrapment.