"TVL got it wrong"

The starting point for this blogpost is a prosecution for alleged broadcast receiving licence evasion brought in Magistrates Court on 20 November 2012. This particular prosecution was but one among a large number of prosecutions brought in that Magistrates Court on that day for and on behalf of the BBC by Capita Business Services. The vast majority of cases were of women and the majority of those women were in receipt of various state benefits, including the prosecution highlighted here. The prosecution, or rather, attempted prosecution, was witnessed and noted by a prominent anti-TV Licensing™ activist and campaigner. If anything, this attempted prosecution highlights the sloppy, shoddy practices by employees of Capita Business Services in connection with the “operation” of BBC TV Licensing™ contract. As television licensing authority in the UK, the BBC like to claim that prosecuting for broadcast licence "evasion" is a last resort when other measures have failed. Presented here is an incident that gives the lie to that claim. At just about every level, every safeguard against bringing unwarranted prosecutions to Magistrates Court in the Service Provision Agreement between the BBC and Capita Business Services seem to have been disregarded.

The attempted prosecution was of a woman aged 81 years old. As many, if not all, readers will know, in the UK, people aged 75 years old and over are entitled to apply for a tax-payer funded Over 75 Licence. This is made clear in the Service Provision Agreement.

In common with other prosecutions, this attempted prosecution will have come about through a visit to an unlicensed dwelling by an employee of Capita Business Services. An interview under caution will, or may, have been conducted. A TVL178 Record of Interview form completed and signed by the person interviewed under caution, in this case an 81 year old woman. The TVL178 Record of Interview will then have been processed by the Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ prosecutions sausage machine who clearly did not bother to read the age or date of birth of the 81 year old interviewee. In due course the attempted prosecution was brought by a Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ prosecutor who likewise did not bother to read up on that particular prosecution and note the age or date of birth of the 81 year old defendant being prosecuted. However, the Magistrates did notice that the defendant was 81 years old and entitled to an Over 75 Licence and quite properly asked why the prosecution had been brought. Upon which the attempted prosecution was withdrawn by the Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ prosecutor giving the Bench some excuse that ". . . TVL got it wrong . . . ".

The question is, if the first thing the Magistrates noticed was that the age of the defendant was 81 years of age and the next thing they noticed was the entitlement to an Over 75 Licence concession: Why didn’t employees of and prosecutors for Capita Business Services notice that at any point in the processes of bringing that prosecution? Under the terms of the BBC TV Licensing™ Service Provision Agreement are stringent clauses relating to Compliance to BBC TV Licensing™ policies and Due Diligence by Capita Business Services.

During the visit to the unlicensed dwelling of that 81 year old woman the Capita Business Services employee should have realised immediately that the 81 year old resident was eligible for the tax-payer funded Over 75 Licence concession and made the necessary arrangements there and then. The necessary arrangements were not made even though a preliminary assessment for eligibilty to apply for the tax-payer funded Over 75 Licence should have been part of the visit process.

Further, during the early stages of processing the attempted prosecution by Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ the age of the prospective defendant should have immediately raised concerns that at 81 years old, the prospective defendant was entitled to apply for the tax-payer funded Over 75 Licence concession and the prosecution process stopped there and then. The prosecution process was not stopped.

The bringing of this attempted prosecution to Magistrates Court of an 81 year old, entitled to tax-payer funded Over 75 Licence concession, is really nothing short of an absolute bloody disgrace. Under the terms of the Service Provision Agreement, employees of Capita Business Services had opportunities to stop the whole shambolic and disgraceful process. Employees of Capita Business Services chose not to do so. The result was that a vulnerable 81 year old woman faced all the stresses and worries of being prosecuted for a broadcast receiving licence “evasion crime” which the Magistrates Court realised she should not have been in a position to be able to commit. A nasty judicial experience which may very well have ended her life. Who would have carried the blame and responsibility for it?

It seems to us at TV Licensing Watch that through and by their actions, Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ have as good as brought the BBC and the BBC’s role as UK TV Licensing™ Authority into disrepute.

The value of domestic cctv surveillance and handheld video camera can prove invaluable in gathering evidence of the serial abuses and misdemeanours perpetrated by employees of Capita Business Services under cover of the BBC TV Licensing™ contract. TV Licensing Watch advise anybody who has the misfortune to have face to face dealings with Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ to make an audio-visual record of those dealings in their entirety covertly or overtly with cctv and handheld video cameras.

For people who have not exercised their right to remain silent, TV Licensing Watch advise anybody who has had the misfortune to have face to face dealings with Capita Business Services TV Licensing™ and have received a summons as a consequence to contact a licensed law practitioner if: there is the slightest discrepancy between the actual situation regarding viewing habits and/or what actually happened during the interview compared with what has been written on the TVL178 Record of Interview self incrimination form.