The TV licence inspectors are employees of whichever private company the contract is with at the time (Capita last time I checked, but that was a while ago). As such, they have no powers beyond those of any other citizen; their doorstep tactics are essentially to ask if they can come in, ask to look around, and try to catch people out in conversation.
The web has numerous examples of people with no TV, who have told the relevant body this, and yet nonetheless receive an endless stream of threatening letters. The letters tend to follow the same pattern; polite reminders to harsh reminders to threats of discovery and huge fines, and then back to polite reminders again. Essentially, their model is to assume that anyone without a TV is lying, and does have a TV. It's probably quite effective and certainly a lot cheaper than trying to keep track of who actually doesn't have a TV.
So, if you've got a TV (that you use to receive broadcast transmissions - you don't need a licence just to own the TV, you need it for some of its possible uses) in the UK and you have no TV licence, you can be pretty sure that you can ignore the letters and, should a private citizen working for Capita come to the door, you need not answer or let them in or even talk to them. The only way they could demand entry would be with a suitable court document and accompanied by an officer of the court (who frankly has better things to do with his time), but to get that document they need reasonable evidence, and simply not having a TV licence is not actually considered evidence of illegally using a TV to receive broadcast transmissions.
Essentially, their model is to assume that anyone without a TV is lying, and does have a TV.
This is not strictly true. I've had no TV license for several years; after the first letter, I filled in the "declaration of no live TV signal" form (or whatever it's called) on their website, and since then, they haven't bothered me once. This is despite having a TV clearly visible through my living-room window (that I use exclusively for games and DVDs). Maybe I'm just lucky.
That said, I feel it slightly ridiculous that you need a TV license (which is for funding the BBC) to watch live TV, even if you never watch any BBC channels -- but you don't need one to listen to BBC radio stations, or use their website, or even stream BBC shows on iPlayer after broadcast. If I didn't suspect it'd pave the way for the government to cannibalise their funding, I'd say it'd make much more sense for the BBC to be funded through general taxation instead of the current horribly over-engineered TV license system.
I got those letters while in University. They are nasty. The people manning the phones aren't much better.
As an English speaking international student, most of the ESL international students brought their letters to me and they were quite scared by them. I had to explain that everything was fine, we just needed to call the company and tell them that they didn't have a TV.
That being said, most of the money from the TV license goes to the BBC, and since I'm 50/50 iPlayer and lovefilm, I don't mind paying that TV license. I'd rather better BBC shows than having to fork out for, say, Sky.
It says there are 13,000 licences for black and white TV's, so I wonder how many of those are just trying to get their licences cheap but actually own a colour TV.
My mother was fined for having a colour television whilst having a black and white license. She had forgotten to upgrade since being given the television from my grand parents.
Blind people who still like to listen to television may be a significant cause of this. They receive a 50% discount on both colour and b&w licenses, so from their point of view there's probably little reason to upgrade from a black and white television.
Why? If it’s working why change it? It only costs money and you will buy something that is more complex and breaks more easily. If you don’t particularly care about TV or the image quality, why wouldn’t you?
(During the last thirty years of their marriage my parents had two TVs, both CRTs. Just now they bought a new plasma TV. They never buy the cheap stuff, but they always try to use everything for as long as possible, a philosophy I’m also quite fond of. Nevertheless I’m not holding my breath for this new TV also lasting 15 years. The guy my parents bought it from – a nice gumpy old fellow, excellent electrician but no longer really fitting into this world – was pretty pessimistic about the prospects of this TV lasting any more than four, five years. Oh, and this thing is a computer. You can access the internet and install apps and all that crap. Nothing my parents will ever use, but if you buy a good panel that’s what you get. If you want it or not. At least it works perfectly fine as a dumb monitor for the cable box. Another of these unpleasant things of the modern age. However, I wonder what happens when Panasonic stops updating this TV, should it last that long, which it probably will. Suddenly having an old TV is no longer harmless.)
If you're perfectly happy with your old trusty 65" 6k 3D TV with MegaHypervison 2, why would you want your grandkids to force you to upgrade to a new 110" 12k TV with SUPER3D-doublePlus and MegaHypervison 4? You'll probably mainly just be using it to watch your silly old movies and TV shows that are only in a pathetic 4k resolution and don't even use MegaHypervison 2 let alone MegaHypervision 4.
"If I have children/grandchildren I hope they prevent me from doing something like that."
Why? If you are an elderly person who has a TV set that they like why change it for a newfangled colour one with a bunch of features that they are not going to use? They just get their grandkids to install a Freeview box and connect it to the TV and they are happy once more.
According to the TV licensing people there are roughly 25 million TV licenses in the UK. So 0.05% of TV licenses are black and white. That's a tiny number and not really surprising if you consider, say, an older person who has a perfectly good working black and white TV set that they see no reason to 'upgrade' to colour.
Other stats show that around 2% of households in the UK do not have a TV (or at least a license).
If the UK as anything like Sweden and if my circle of friends and acquaintances are in any way representative, I'd estimate at least 70% of people without a license have a TV.
A partially-sighted TV license for a B&W TV is £25, compared to £75 for a full colour one. Ebay has quite a few B&W TVs available for £5-10.
There are 360,000 people registered as partially-sighted in the UK, although around a third of those are over 75 (and so get a free license anyway). I imagine this must count for a fair proportion of those 13,000 TVs.
I was always under the impression that the licence was for the tuner, rather than the actual TV screen. I know that you used to have to get a colour licence if you owned a VCR, because it had a tuner capable of receiving and recording pictures in colour.
Now that we've gone through digital switchover, there are no purely B&W TV tuners - every digital set-top box can receive colour pictures, even if the TV can't display them.
Surely, in this case, the Black and White licence is obsolete?
(Incidentally, I dropped my TV licence this year - I just wasn't using it enough to justify the cost. What little TV I view now is on-demand through the computer. With fibre-optic broadband - paid for with the money saved by not having a TV licence - I can receive an HD picture on BBC iPlayer and it's actually better than the old TV reception.)
They have, at least in the great majority of the UK.
You can get set top boxes to receive digital transmissions if you don't have a suitable TV. I'm sure these would work with a B&W TV if you wanted. I believe some groups (the elderly?) were offered subsidised set top boxes.
They have converter boxes. But as other commenters pointed out they may not actually have b&w sets but have merely "forgotten" to upgrade their licenses (at a savings of 100 pounds per year).
I wonder what the uptake levels of HD would be if there was a discount on the license fee for SD screens (basically the modern-day analog of the b/w -> color switchover)
[+] [-] EliRivers|13 years ago|reply
The web has numerous examples of people with no TV, who have told the relevant body this, and yet nonetheless receive an endless stream of threatening letters. The letters tend to follow the same pattern; polite reminders to harsh reminders to threats of discovery and huge fines, and then back to polite reminders again. Essentially, their model is to assume that anyone without a TV is lying, and does have a TV. It's probably quite effective and certainly a lot cheaper than trying to keep track of who actually doesn't have a TV.
So, if you've got a TV (that you use to receive broadcast transmissions - you don't need a licence just to own the TV, you need it for some of its possible uses) in the UK and you have no TV licence, you can be pretty sure that you can ignore the letters and, should a private citizen working for Capita come to the door, you need not answer or let them in or even talk to them. The only way they could demand entry would be with a suitable court document and accompanied by an officer of the court (who frankly has better things to do with his time), but to get that document they need reasonable evidence, and simply not having a TV licence is not actually considered evidence of illegally using a TV to receive broadcast transmissions.
[+] [-] EvilTerran|13 years ago|reply
This is not strictly true. I've had no TV license for several years; after the first letter, I filled in the "declaration of no live TV signal" form (or whatever it's called) on their website, and since then, they haven't bothered me once. This is despite having a TV clearly visible through my living-room window (that I use exclusively for games and DVDs). Maybe I'm just lucky.
That said, I feel it slightly ridiculous that you need a TV license (which is for funding the BBC) to watch live TV, even if you never watch any BBC channels -- but you don't need one to listen to BBC radio stations, or use their website, or even stream BBC shows on iPlayer after broadcast. If I didn't suspect it'd pave the way for the government to cannibalise their funding, I'd say it'd make much more sense for the BBC to be funded through general taxation instead of the current horribly over-engineered TV license system.
[+] [-] thisone|13 years ago|reply
As an English speaking international student, most of the ESL international students brought their letters to me and they were quite scared by them. I had to explain that everything was fine, we just needed to call the company and tell them that they didn't have a TV.
That being said, most of the money from the TV license goes to the BBC, and since I'm 50/50 iPlayer and lovefilm, I don't mind paying that TV license. I'd rather better BBC shows than having to fork out for, say, Sky.
[+] [-] gadders|13 years ago|reply
I was never sure whether the vans were more than an urban myth.
[+] [-] stuartk|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] arethuza|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hackerboos|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rcush|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] culshaw|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] knightni|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] raverbashing|13 years ago|reply
So this means people plugged a digital converter to their B&W TVs?
If I have children/grandchildren I hope they prevent me from doing something like that.
[+] [-] arrrg|13 years ago|reply
(During the last thirty years of their marriage my parents had two TVs, both CRTs. Just now they bought a new plasma TV. They never buy the cheap stuff, but they always try to use everything for as long as possible, a philosophy I’m also quite fond of. Nevertheless I’m not holding my breath for this new TV also lasting 15 years. The guy my parents bought it from – a nice gumpy old fellow, excellent electrician but no longer really fitting into this world – was pretty pessimistic about the prospects of this TV lasting any more than four, five years. Oh, and this thing is a computer. You can access the internet and install apps and all that crap. Nothing my parents will ever use, but if you buy a good panel that’s what you get. If you want it or not. At least it works perfectly fine as a dumb monitor for the cable box. Another of these unpleasant things of the modern age. However, I wonder what happens when Panasonic stops updating this TV, should it last that long, which it probably will. Suddenly having an old TV is no longer harmless.)
[+] [-] dagw|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jgrahamc|13 years ago|reply
Why? If you are an elderly person who has a TV set that they like why change it for a newfangled colour one with a bunch of features that they are not going to use? They just get their grandkids to install a Freeview box and connect it to the TV and they are happy once more.
[+] [-] jgrahamc|13 years ago|reply
Other stats show that around 2% of households in the UK do not have a TV (or at least a license).
[+] [-] dagw|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] blowski|13 years ago|reply
There are 360,000 people registered as partially-sighted in the UK, although around a third of those are over 75 (and so get a free license anyway). I imagine this must count for a fair proportion of those 13,000 TVs.
[+] [-] andyking|13 years ago|reply
Now that we've gone through digital switchover, there are no purely B&W TV tuners - every digital set-top box can receive colour pictures, even if the TV can't display them.
Surely, in this case, the Black and White licence is obsolete?
(Incidentally, I dropped my TV licence this year - I just wasn't using it enough to justify the cost. What little TV I view now is on-demand through the computer. With fibre-optic broadband - paid for with the money saved by not having a TV licence - I can receive an HD picture on BBC iPlayer and it's actually better than the old TV reception.)
[+] [-] Lozzer|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mmahemoff|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] topbanana|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dasmoth|13 years ago|reply
You can get set top boxes to receive digital transmissions if you don't have a suitable TV. I'm sure these would work with a B&W TV if you wanted. I believe some groups (the elderly?) were offered subsidised set top boxes.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kalleboo|13 years ago|reply