3 ms·
Twice in my life, I've encountered unnecessary hassle from TV Licensing (TVL). First, when I purchased my initial home, I didn't immediately get a TV. However,
by Daviey 3y ago
Twice in my life, I've encountered unnecessary hassle from TV Licensing (TVL).
First, when I purchased my initial home, I didn't immediately get a TV. However, when I did, the retailer was obliged to inform TVL under The Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1967. The TV arrived, still boxed, and a TVL representative showed up implying he had the right to enter, which he did not. I had preemptively bought the license, but still faced this intrusion. His insinuations were met with a firm response, because it was clear they were trying to catch me off-guard.
Later, during a phase where I chose not to watch or record live TV, I didn't renew my TV license after moving. This led to a barrage of letters and threats from TVL, all addressed to "Legal Occupier." I called them to halt these communications, finding them harassing. They agreed to stop only if I disclosed my name. Valuing my privacy, I declined, suggesting they use "Legal Occupier" as my identifier. This was met with reluctance but eventually processed.
These experiences highlight the invasive procedures of TVL, especially for those who value privacy.
- gizajob 3y agoIf it hasn't got your name on it, then it's not a contract and that's what they're trying to enforce. "The Legal Occupier" sounds like a pub to me, so I bin every letter wrongly addressed to my house with that name. TV licensing letters are also the only ones sent with windows on the envelope allowing you to read the threats inside, kind of defeating the point of an envelope. I'm not interested in TV but there's also zero chance I'm ever going to give money to a corporation who pays Gary Lineker thirty grand a week to talk about football for half an hour on a Saturday.