That’s why you need to get the MP involved. Innocent people should not need to prove anything.
Make sure you quote Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention -
ARTICLE 8
Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
I suspect that this will sound ridiculous and it probably is but suppose the authorities say it falls under the ‘except…for the prevention of …crime’ heading. They could argue that in order to prevent the crime of not having a TV licence they would need to first check if there was a TV in existence to which the possible future crime could be attributed (or prevented). Or am I confused. Or is this 1984.
“Necessary” is a much higher threshold than “desirable”. It also has to be within the law to comply - the law has not provided the authorities with right of entry or a requirement that you converse with them. Once they get a warrant it is within the law but the court would need to be sure it was necessary otherwise they would be breaching the human rights act etc.
If Article 8 meant any authority could enter any property at any time in case there was a crime being committed Article 8 would have no effect.
Thanks for that, BB, we will keep it for reference.
(However one recent communication said that their inspectors were going to come round to check whether we had a TV, computer, or mobile phone on the premises!!)
I recall when the debate was happening on whether there should be a two-tier licence. One for analogue and one for digital. Fell flat when they realised that at the point the signal hits the property it is still an analogue signal and only switches back to a digital signal once convertered by the receiver, so they couldn’t tell using the monitoring equipment. Also with Cable and Broadband connections, unless there is egress from the cabling they cannot test the signal (unless an engineer of relevant comms company).
This is only speculation, but perhaps this is the reason that they introduced the requirement that the retailers notify the licence fee peeps when equipment capable of processing a television signal has been sold.
You could start sending the TV Licensing people your own threatening letters… something along the line that you are finding their constant harassment, alarming and distressing - and that unless they desist immediately you will be talking to your solicitor about instigating legal action to prevent further harassment. Make it entirely clear that you do not have any TV equipment in your house, you do not watch TV in any form, and that you will not be allowing access to your premises. Point out that if they continue contacting you in this manner then you may be forced to apply for an injunction, and that due to the fact you are a private individual having their right to privacy invaded you will be applying to the court for all your legal costs to be reimbursed.
Of course, you need to be willing to go through with your threats…
