I have responded to a consultation being run by the BBC Trust as part of a review of licence fee collection. The consultation is being run between the 8th September 2008 and the 28th November 2008:

Question 1. Do you feel it is clear when a TV licence is needed? Is there anything more which could be done to help people understand?

I feel I have to answer this by drawing attention to the irony arising as the preamble to the question makes clear that not even you understand when a TV licence is needed. Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 states a TV licence is needed either if you install a TV receiver or if you use one. Therefore I believe it is clear from the Act that you don’t only need a TV licence to use a TV receiver; even if you install one and don’t use it you need a licence. This key set of circumstances where a TV licence is required is omitted from your summary.

Given that the BBC Trust can’t create a comprehensive summary it is not surprising that other organisations who attempt to summarise the law such as TV Licensing, Citizens Advice, Students’ Unions and others often fail to produce clear complete accurate advice.

Almost any modern computer connected to the internet is capable of meeting the definitions of an installed TV receiver, take for example any computer with media player software such as RealPlayer, VLC or Windows Media player installed which is capable of playing live video streams of TV shows such as for example the BBC news 24 stream available from bbc.co.uk . While TV Licencing’s website makes clear a licence is needed to view such streaming live feeds, the legislation makes clear merely having apparatus installed for the purpose of receiving such feeds is sufficient to require a licence. [It is rapidly becoming the case that many domestic computer, phone, games console and mobile phones require licencing, if we do not want a computer, mobile phone, or games console licencing regime in this country we need to change the rules on TV licencing]

While a definition of “TV receiver” has been provided by The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004, [Statutory Instrument 2004 No. 692] there has been no definition of “installed”. This has led to questions such as if a detuned TV receiver could be considered “uninstalled”.

While correcting the omission in the legislation of a definition of “installed” would make determining if a licence was required or not in a particular set of circumstances I do not think it would greatly assist people’ s understanding of when a TV licence is required.

I do not believe a rational TV licencing scheme can be maintained in the current era of broadcasting over the internet. The increasing take up of mobile devices capable of receiving broadcast programme also pose challenges not reasonably addressed by the current legislation.

In summary I believe it is not at all clear when a TV licence is needed and while there are improvements to both the legislation and popular interpretations which could be made the concept of a TV licence has largely been rendered obsolete by the progression of technology.

Question 2. Did you know about the different ways of paying for your TV licence?

Yes.

The problem isn’t a lack of ways to pay, or a lack of knowledge about the possible ways to pay. [I believe there is a clip of one of the Mock the Week team making this exact point to massive acclaim from the studio audience]

Question 3. Is this range of payment methods suitable for you? If not, how would you like to pay?

Yes.

The problem isn’t a lack of ways to pay, or a lack of ways to pay that people “like”.

Question 4. Has the direct communication you’ve received about your TV licence met the aims outlined in the paragraph above? [Communications aim to be clear and concise, polite but firm. They should not presume guilt but may explain the consequences of evasion]. If not, please explain].

No. For example my first TV licence renewal notice this year which was sent about a month before my license was due to expire was threatening and inaccurate. It stated:

“We also keep a permanent record of everyone on our database so we know who’s paid and who hasn’t”

I queried this statement about keeping a “permanent record” with TV Licensing and they confirmed to me that it is a lie. They even noted correctly that to keep such a permanent record would be disproportionate. I stress this heavy handed unpleasant language is being used in the first renewal notice, so is directed even at those who pay for their next license well in advance of their current one expiring. While I have picked on this specific example as one which I believe is totally unjustifiable and ought to be an easy target to correct, I believe TV Licensing communications are in general excessively aggressive.

I do not believe a threatening and inaccurate notice could be reasonably described as “polite”.

[I have since discovered that different TV licencing renewal notices with different degrees of language ranging from perfectly polite to threatening are sent to different people.]

Question 5. Do you think the tone of the marketing and advertising about the TV licence is appropriate?

No. I believe TV Licensing communications are in general excessively aggressive, heavy handed and unpleasant. A number of their TV adverts are menacing and threatening. As an example I cite an advert which has been described as follows:
“The blades of the helicopter beat as it hovers over a city of computer components. A police siren sounds, changing pitch as it speeds to some crime scene. We hear a big dog barking. Then comes the authorities’ message: “Your town, your street, your home. It’s all in our database.” The official voice is calm and patronising: “It’s impossible to hide,” we are reminded. There is a knock on the door. ”

Question 6. Do you think that the methods of enforcement, including letters, visits and detection, are reasonable and appropriate?

No, as I said in my answers to questions four and five I believe communications from TV licencing are inappropriate as they are unnecessarily threatening.

It is difficult for me to make informed comment on the use of detection powers and search warrants in TV licencing enforcement as requests for information relating to the use of these powers citing the freedom of information act have been declined, for example:

• http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/who_can_authorise_the_use_of_the#incoming-4690
• http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tv_licensing_search_warrants#incoming-5400

Question 7. Do you think that the process for those who do not need a licence is appropriate? Please explain.

The stated policy appears reasonable, however there is extensive evidence available suggesting that it is not followed and in practice the process followed is much more akin to harassment. Richard Girling writing in The Times provides an example:
“Owners of unlicensed properties can expect a leaf-storm of increasingly nasty pro-forma letters threatening visits by inspectors – enforceable by warrant – and criminal prosecution. As I personally can testify, it takes great forbearance and persistence by the victim to get the harassment stopped. ”

Question 8. Based on your experiences of other collection agencies, such as local councils, utility companies and the DVLA, do you have any suggestions on alternative ways of collection?

No. I disagree with the premise of the question, no other agencies are substantively comparable with TV Licencing in this area.

Question 9. Overall, do you think the right balance has been struck between encouraging payment and deterring evasion? Please explain

I do not see a distinction between activities aimed at encouraging payment and those intended to deter evasion.

[I have not seen any communications from TV licencing either promoting TV licencing over other ways of funding public service broadcasting or drawing attention to the value for money licence payers recieve]

Question 10. Do you have any other comments about how the TV licence fee is collected?

No.
However I would like to take the opportunity to say I believe the problems are not primarily with the collection of the TV licence fee, but with the existence of the TV licence at all. I believe it has become outdated and irrelevant particularly following the increase in “TV” content delivered over the internet and to mobile devices. The funding of BBC and other public service broadcasting needs an overhaul; advertising, general taxation and other commercial activity are more appropriate sources of funds than the current TV licencing system which has many flaws.

---

On submitting I received a message stating:

Thank you for your participation in this consultation. Your response has been submitted to the BBC Trust for consideration. The Trust’s review on licence fee collection will be published in Spring 2009 and will be available on the Trust website.