That's really telling them if he won't even accept a free TV licence. Sticking to his guns.

I don't. I believe they want people to just give up and going forward just keep having a licence.

Maybe someone should present that as an argument for not having a current licence…you need a law degree nowadays to check and double check the protocols we are being asked to adhere to…so if they send a document in 2023 and my law degree course starts next year and lasts for 7 years then that’s when I sign…lol 😇

@@bgoode2903 Good point - or an argument to make the BBC more transparent when they are trying to con money out of people.

i think its bloody minedness and also its doc evidence they live at address

Cancel the direct debit, job done.

This should be the top comment

💯😂😂

They will probably prosecute you for malicious communications though.

A bit extreme but funny

Yes, but would you pop a bit of sweetcorn in the envelope too?

Wow, that's the longest title I've ever seen. Wright?

​@@gsau3000why pick on the way someone writes. You understood them perfectly and your comment adds nothing other than being masturbatory.

@@gsau3000 damn it is gone. I can't see it.

Less is more.

Yeah, very hilarious

That’s differant they don’t give their names for security purposes cause there are nut jobs out there. But they could demand a wet signature due to security reasons cause they give bank details they want to match the account with the person that sent the letter & the bank details.

​@@SimonCowie86 At the very least, they should put the name of the head of customer services on the letter.

Give ur name for what????

@@leew6091Consumer not customer

Its not a tax, though.

@@oz_jones Itr is colloquially

@@dcarbs2979: I'm old and have always signed by name if I write a formal letter. I guess I don't understand why you wouldn't.

@@eattherich9215 By going back even further: using a wax seal!

@@oz_jones It's an indulgence. Watching TV is a crime so you pay in advance to absolve you of the crime.

Good point!

Incorrect a warrant does not require a wet signature

​@mitchmitchell7470 try rereading the OP again 😉 That wasn't what they said.

@lupo10 >>> You know why people ask for that? Any guesses???? Well I'll tell you..... case proven many times over! Normal debt collectors (bailiffs) ain't no power as their 3rd party.... so use Not courts!... no no no Bulk processing centers that print off 1000's per week with no legal licensed or trained staff present making the paperwork VOID = worthless. It's all down to contract law the bill of bills 1888 which still in effect, they can pass all the laws bypassing it with digital/copied signatures! The requirement still STANDS hence they get told to pis* off royally !!!! Just ask them for contract from you to the debt collection company...... They don't have one!!!! All collection agents can be turned away legally if you inform them they are in the wrong ! Have few buddies/people to enforce that point clearly...... If they don't take the hint move them off & the police are powerless!

@@gettogo0159 "the bill of bills 1888" Now that is a new one. Is it some sort of mash up between the Bill of Rights 1688 and the Bills of Exchange Act 1882?

I dont open the door. The only people that knock on my door nowadays are irritating morons

You don't need to give them a reason.

It sounds like he had paid a year in advance and wanted his unused months back. It's not really about the money but the principle that the BBC make a profit out of producing propaganda.

Sounds to me pretty typical for TVLA. Law unto themselves.

That's outrageous - they are only a Corporation not a legal entity or a financial firm. I think you dealt with them perfectly.

@@kevinfroude8679 Capita are practically a government agency though. They have contracts for so many things, the most insidious of all being benefits medicals. It just shows you how twisted and corrupt this government is by giving a company as thoroughly rotten as Capita the power over sick and disabled people's lives. Who they often fail because that is to their financial benefit, and force through the appeals process, because the so-called doctors just read questions off a computer and don't use any common sense.

You don’t need a licence to have a tv. You only need a licence if you a. Watch any live broadcasts on any channel, or b. Watch bbc iplayer. Netflix etc any other catch up, does not require a licence whether on a tv or any other device.

@@Solitude11-11 License to watch live TV, yet the BBC get all the money even if you don't watch them.

Netflix is just as shitty, so buy into neither@@Johnny71c

@@mf_rat Which is why I haven’t had one for decades and don’t watch live tv…

Ask for a reasonable adjustment of more time, if disability was cause of the oversight. Another favourite of the government is to cleverly guide you past the precise bit that needs signing

Driving a TV without a Licence is the office women are most often convicted of. Girls need to be taught in school how to knee a goon rather than being had by it.

It drives me up the wall at times.

lol! You can't drive a fishing rod or a gun either but you still need licences for them. The difference there is you don't have to notify the issuing authorities that you don't require one.

Remember folks it's a joke. I've just been lectured that you don't need a TV licence to own a TV. Some people need to chilax it's obviously a joke. 😂

I got a licence when I got married and now i have a similar problem

What happens when the ink dries? Does it still count?

Best idea is cancel the DD and don’t tell them. None of their business. No contact whatsoever is rule number one

No contact. Cancel DD.

You can dispute with the bank to refund any money been taken, direct debit charter allows you to do this.

​​@@theskidmarkoforion4829Yes, that is what I did. Just cancelled the DD, and never contacted them, replied to letters, or spoke to the goon on the only visit I had.

I've been saying this for years, an enforced subscription service evennif you don't want it or watch it. 🇬🇧

When you buy a new TV(in Uk) if you pay buy bank card they'll be able to find out where you live.Best to pay in cash and don't give the store any details. 👍🇮🇪🇯🇴🇨🇳🇷🇺🇷🇺

@@grissom2023 lol.

Put simply, the UK licence fee is a tax that pays for advertisement free public service broadcasting. Does the USA have any advertisement free broadcast TV channels?

@@derekp2674no they don’t, they have lengthy ads every 10-12 minutes, it’s infuriating.

@@Johnny71c The last time I bought a TV they asked for my address but it wasn't relevant as I was collecting it not having it delivered. I was told once that stores give addresses to the TV licence people so they know who to harass.🤣👍🇮🇪🇯🇴🇨🇳🇷🇺🇷🇺

I agree. Just comply and declare you don't want one. All this shutting the door in their faces is rubbish. I told them I didn't want a license 2 years ago and have had no letters no calls nothing. If they call at your door it's because they know your watching the TV still. It's all down to the aerial. A TV signal goes down the aerial, they know exactly who is watching without a license.

@@lizvickers7156 The aerial is a receiving device and gives nothing away. My house has both an aerial and a satellite dish. Neither are connected. After 2 years the threat letters begin regardless. After a couple of months they stop using your name on the address and revert to "Legal Occupier". It's been about 12 months since the letters began now and no visits, because I live in a small village in the sticks.

@@lizvickers7156 Better to not watch TV and not pay but don't notify them. That way they waste money chasing you.

The law in the UK does NOT seemingly have to be consistent. It never has been. It's all down to the magistrate/jugde making it up as they go along. I believe most of the magistrates/judges haven't got a clue about law in general and certainly not broadcasting/receiving laws. They are in it for the money, nothing else.

​@@stevegray5709 Not really. They just constantly break the law themselves and abuse people using loopholes, you can't get help going against them because it's them that will decide if you can or not.

@@stevegray5709 ignorance is no excuse if they don't know find out but if too lazy to do that and get it wrong then that should be prison time for them

Have you submitted a reclaim.

@@icouldbewrongicouldberight I'm pretty sure they worded it that I wasn't obligated to pay so it would be pointless

Yep. That's how you know you're dealing with a legit business when they go to these lengths to prevent you from leaving.

That keeps them off your back but having them send someone round is better because not only are they not getting your TV fee but it's costing them money.

Spot on

Tell me about it. I’m a mortgage advisor, and although it’s only a few lenders, those that do ask for a WS are a pain in the ass!!

@@SDrtheone Pru, during lockdown, insisted a client signed his pension benefits declaration… instructions were… HAS TO BE WITNESSED (in ink), and not by family… erm…! (He was also vulnerable!)

@davidsworld5837 My point too,al there after is a extra months payment, even they didn't need it = more cash in the BBC's pocket which is shrinking faster than they can fill it ! Craptia should be worried about this fact.... Give it time 🤤 They think it's tough now 🤣wait a few years as the LLF movement is moving too fast for the PTB's to handle 🙂 Thus why their looking at 'other funding models' Scummy bast*rds!

You can ignore any order from them. They have no powers

Because it's from a corporation, not a living human. Corp-oration. Dead speak.

@@parkamark Nope, the corporation doesn't sign anything, a living human signs.

​@@silversurf6159Gibberish. Dead one's certainly don't sign anything.

@@timg1246 Dead ones don't sign anything , such a profound observation on your part, no shit Sherlock 😂 But people do sign on behalf of the company ! Give us a clue what your ' dead ones ' are.......people, fish, volcanos? be a bit more specific 🙄 I'll give you something to do to keep you occupied, get yourself a collection of licensing letters, you'll notice that at the bottom there will be someone's signature, someone who is alive. Then do some research on the name and what they do at the company, it's all public knowledge. You will invariably find that it is the head or manager of some department or other, or someone else working in the department and they are signing on behalf of their department which means that they are signing on behalf of the company. Easy to understand for most folk.............but obviously not others. 🤣😅😆

Folklore? 😏

And Law as well 🤣👍🏻

The reason on the baliffs bit is because in almost all cases no magistrate was involved. There are no names, so you have no recourse. That in my view is a major issue.

​@adenwellsmith6908 A magistrate or judge MUST be involved if they have a search warrant, or any other type of warrant to seize goods. Without such a warrant, they are just debt collectors. In that case, they have no more powers than any other private citizen. Are you able to describe a situation where any kind of legal warrant has been executed without the prior authorisation of a magistrate or judge ?

It's not clear. If a magistrate signs off 5000 of at once, they are not involved. If the council is paying the magistrate, that's just corruption. If there is no name on the warrant, its corrupt. If you cannot ring the court and check that the warrant is correctly issued, when etc. It's corruption I think there is a huge amount of corruption and extortion going on. @@timg1246

The names they use are usually seem to be fictitious.

WIll prolly start again around the year mark. THats how long it took for them to start harrassing my Grandma again. THen again maybe not,she was old,they love bullying the elderly because it's easy,your experience may vary lol

Our MPs have given up on democracy. Sorry, but really is that simple.

Total nonsense. If it constitutes harassment then it does so only to those they refuse to accept the cancellation letter from. Why? Because those that are not sent such a letter cannot complain of harassment as they have not been harassed. Think about it. It's not difficult. So even a person with a modicum of intelligence can easily recognise that it is not the entirety of 66 million or so people of the UK that are being harassed. I despair at the lack of critical thinking skills of some of that 66 million...

All the people of the UK are subjected to this harassment in the event that they fail to pay. Many people pay because they fear the harassment. So, everyone is indeed subjected to fear of the harassment.

@@Johnny71c i would post daily into the local mp letterbox, maybe send it in without stamps...

The Criminal Procedure Rules 2010 say a clerical error does not invalidate a warrant, unless it makes the original conviction/case behind the warrant invalid. So if the person with the conviction is your neighbour, but they come for you because the wrong house number is on the warrant, they can still go for your neighbour with the same warrant, but you can still sue the erroneous party behind the warrant (although it would probably take far less of your life if you gave reasonable Id rather than be 'KZfaq indignant' over it, as then you have a case against the party nearest you - i.e. the police or bailiff - that should have reasonably spotted the issue once you proved identity). If the whole thing was raised in error, then I guess its a visit to court to prove it, as the law never makes it easy, 'unless you're a bent copper or someone with a lot of money', but only a fool doesn't know that! Ref: Criminal Procedure Rules 2010, Part 18 (Warrants) > Rule 18.14

Which is pretty logical only a court can overrule a court ruling. It would be insanity for a member of the public to be able to say a court was acting illegally. There has to be someone at the top with the ultimate authority and guess what its not Frank down the pub@@shambhangal438

With monthly direct debit they take 6 months in advance! I would advise anyone cancelling to remember to ask for that back as well.

@parkamark >> LLF here for many years & yes more they increase the fee more I & my fellows save per year 😁 I get what your saying but if you follow the no contact rule & do whatever you like (not I'd advise it ) how are they going to know? Just don't use I player or live subscription services only use the 'catch up' services as the live version perfectly legal. Name a live service theirs a 'catch up' service to match even sky (live) >>> Now TV (catch up).... just to name one. 🙃 The only way they are going to get you or 'stitch you up' if you fill out the *178 form* self confession other than that theirs nothing else they can do...... This is why the no contact rule defeats them every time no details = no case. TVL craptia go for the easy marks over the harder one but if you get on their 'hit list' aka black list they will try everything even making false statements!!!!!!! FYI > Theirs no such thing as TV detector vans - total bloated BBC propaganda, if their was it would have be used in a court case.... it never has, as to case discovery when asked for information the case gets dropped !!! How come arh? Evidence from any has never been used, you can see the 'victim' would blow holes in the whole farce very quickly..... 😆

They can prosecute you if you are breaking the law regardless of whether you have signed something in the way described here.

or just cancel the debit keep watching tv that you paid for, for 6 months and let them prove you not paid for that six months allfeady

​@@timg1246How are they going to find out that you are breaking the law?

If you're unconcerned that BBC, and or Capita, retain and update your personal information, including tracking your residential movements on a database, then more fool you.

Legally yes.

So, BBC (tvl) or Capita, will retain that piece of information on a database, including other details they have, indefinitely. I question if they have the resources to actually store the records of wet signatures? Or is this simply more of their deceptive practices?

That's why they should be ignored, always

You need to buy the right law books.