How do I reply?

[Sir Velo]

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.

Yes, Caliban's troop of interns appear to have been at it again. There's more than a touch of "when did you stop beating your wife" about the question. I'm afraid the logical fallacy inherent in the question is commonplace with many of these online questionnaires. The obvious answer that the BBC mainly makes abysmally poor television programmes in which I have no interest and, therefore, I do not consider a licence to be sufficient value for money to warrant its purchase does not appear to occur to them!

Looking at it again, it also appears to be inherently discriminatory as it does not consider the visually impaired in its list of potential responses. An absolutely disgraceful piece of third rate research from every angle.

[LMcD]

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.

I transferred 'my' TV licence to my wife, who (amazingly) after 47 years of marriage is STILL 3 years and 25 days older than I am and thus qualified that much earlier for a free licence. By way of thanks, she transferred part of her personal tax allowance to me, thereby saving me well over £200 a year in tax. Still on the subject of TV licences, there are some who think that wealthier listeners/viewers who are eligible for a free licence should might wish to voluntarily continue to pay it. I might consider it were it not for the BBC's wasteful ways, one of the worst is which the practice of sending 2 or more reporters to the same location to cover the same story.

[jean]

That doesn't necessarily define the word device in the context of the last option.

I think it is meant to define device for the whole document.

One problem is that in the old pre-device days, you could only watch TV on a TV set - and the only possible purpose of a TV set was for watching TV. So if you had a functioning TV in the house, you couldn't argue that, actually, you never used it.

[Sir Velo]

I think it is meant to define device for the whole document.

Again, you're second guessing. Nowhere is it defined as such.

[jean]

It's obvious. They've defined it once, they don't need to do so again.

[richardfinegold]

Is it mandatory that you reply, ff? Is there some sort of at least potential punitive consequence if you don’t?

[jean]

Looking at it again, it also appears to be inherently discriminatory as it does not consider the visually impaired in its list of potential responses.

Many visually-impaired people experience TV with the assistance of audio description.

What does seem discriminatory is that broadcasters have to add AD to only 20 per cent of their programmes.

But the problem we were discussing seems to be not so much the failure to define device as the lack of opportunity to say Yes, I have such a device, but I don't watch TV on it.

[kernelbogey]

For what it's worth...

When I had no tv, and before the change in regulations related to catchup viewing, my response to their harrassing letters was to write a clear handwritten statement that I had no tv and sent this by signed-for mail to TVL. IIRC I received a personal letter thanking me for my reply and saying they would contact me again in two years.

(But then I eventually succumbed, and bought one.... )

[french frank]

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.

1. Yes, owning a television is now considered to be a law of nature. Human beings eat, sleep and own television sets.

2. This whole issue must be a matter of temperament, in that in 20 years I have never felt 'harrassed' by TVL and the two agents who visited were charming. I didn't mind responding to their letters every two years but recently they've sent emails. I think one year the letter might have said I could respond online which is how they obtained my email address: I gave it to them

3. Part of my equanimity comes from knowing that I neither have a television set, nor do I watch television programmes on any device in my house. That is security in my position. When HMRC wrote a couple of months ago and said they had been given information that I held offshore assets, and if I held or had held offshore assets I should declare them at once as penalties were now very severe for non disclosure - then, I was uncomfortable because I didn't know whether I did or not (I thought offshore assets were held on pirate ships like Radio Caroline). As there was one thing that had been bought for me 20 years ago, I gathered up all the documents, sent them off and asked if they were offshore assets. They just wrote back and said, Thank you for telling us you don't have offshore assets; we have amended your records accordingly. A few days later all the Paradise Papers scandal broke. Phew. A narrow squeak.

[jean]

1. Yes, owning a television is now considered to be a law of nature. Human beings eat, sleep and own television sets.

They watch television, but not necessarily on TV sets.

I have friends who've always watched on a computer. At first they scrupulously only ever watched after the event on iPlayer; when the option of doing that without a licence was withdrawn, they bought a licence, but they never bought a TV set.

[french frank]

They watch television, but not necessarily on TV sets.

I stand corrected: I copied and pasted Alpie's phrase 'own a television'. Replace it by 'they watch television'. To me, it is a distinction without a difference.

[jean]

The difference is important to he people trying to find out if you need a licence, though.

In the old days, if you had a functioning TV, you could be presumed to be watching it, whatever your protestations to the contrary.

Now, they can't assume everyone possessing a device on which they could watch TV is actually watching it, and they haven't devised a question which would deal with them successfully.

[Dave2002]

It's obvious. They've defined it once, they don't need to do so again.

You are giving them too much credence. The extra information was given in a sub section.

What is becoming even more obvious is just how bad and badly thought out the questions were.

[Beef Oven!]

I haven't heard anything from them since I didn't renew my licence in March.

[french frank]

I haven't heard anything from them since I didn't renew my licence in March.

Wait a while. You might have moved house, gone abroad or something. The first letter might be addressed to Mr B. Oven! or Occupier. At least I have incidentally confirmed that I'm still the occupant (been at the same address for 22 years).