BBC - are they worried?!

[Merle Haggard]

Given the way they engage in borderline harassment when you do not have a licence and have not told them that you do not need one (which is not a legal requirement), I'd be surprised if there are that many people who are that unaware.

I have always found it a bit odd that the BBC/Capita are allowed to be so rude to anyone who does not hold a licence. It'd be like getting constant letters from the DVLA when you don't own a car. Or getting letters about tax evasion while you're unemployed. Or indeed, having TOCs threaten to do you for fare evasion when you don't use the train!

There is apparently a number of people who use a car but do not tax it. As you say, people who haven't taxed a car don't get hostile letters from an arm's length subsidiary of DVLA.
It has safety considerations because if you are injured in an accident involving a car at fault that isn't licenced then the insurance (even if one is in force) is invalid.
Perhaps more consequential than not having a TV licence.

 

[AM9]

There is apparently a number of people who use a car but do not tax it. As you say, people who haven't taxed a car don't get hostile letters from an arm's length subsidiary of DVLA.
It has safety considerations because if you are injured in an accident involving a car at fault that isn't licenced then the insurance (even if one is in force) is invalid.
Perhaps more consequential than not having a TV licence.

BBC vs DVLA is a false equivalence. The vehicles of those who refuse to pay car tax are usually captured by ANPR cameras and prosecuted. The fact that not every driver is caught is partially due to the limited resources that the police can deploy and the variable nature of any vehicle's appearance of the public highway.
The BBC (or their licensing agent) does not have even those levels of resource, so they choose to send correspondence to potential licensees to adult householders. To stop those letters for two years only requires a free online submission of a No Licence Needed declaration.

 

[Bevan Price]

I think that there are some slimy politicians who dislike the BBC, because in its absence, the alternative would "encourage" more people to subscribe to "paid for" channels, contributing more to the profits of media industry moguls (who may be "friends" of such politicians. )

Personally, although it is far from perfect, I think we need BBC as an organisation hopefully always free from political influence / control. But I am unsure of how to solve the licence fee problem for those who never use BBC; allowing it to show adverts might divert revenue away from ITV & Channels 4&5.

 

[GusB]

I think that there are some slimy politicians who dislike the BBC, because in its absence, the alternative would "encourage" more people to subscribe to "paid for" channels, contributing more to the profits of media industry moguls (who may be "friends" of such politicians. )

Personally, although it is far from perfect, I think we need BBC as an organisation hopefully always free from political influence / control. But I am unsure of how to solve the licence fee problem for those who never use BBC; allowing it to show adverts might divert revenue away from ITV & Channels 4&5.

I think that there's potential for monetising the iPlayer. Having advertising breaks within the programmes themselves would perhaps be a step too far, but having a few ads at the beginning of each programme might be tolerable - maybe even have certain programmes sponsored as they are on ITV and C4. The iPlayer could be available to everyone free of charge with ads, or there could be a paid ad-free version, as there is with ITVX/C4 and other on-demand platforms.

 

[HSTEd]

I think that there's potential for monetising the iPlayer. Having advertising breaks within the programmes themselves would perhaps be a step too far, but having a few ads at the beginning of each programme might be tolerable - maybe even have certain programmes sponsored as they are on ITV and C4. The iPlayer could be available to everyone free of charge with ads, or there could be a paid ad-free version, as there is with ITVX/C4 and other on-demand platforms.

I'm not sure that ads on that basis could hope to raise anything like the money needed to keep even a husk of the BBC alive.

I am of the view that the only sensible future is funding from taxation. My preferred method would be to make them a precepting authority on council tax (making appropriate arrangements for Northern Ireland), but I imagine many other models exist.

 

[londonbridge]

To stop those letters for two years only requires a free online submission of a No Licence Needed declaration.

There is no legal requirement to inform the BBC that you do not require a licence so why should you be continuously harassed for not telling them?

 

[dosxuk]

I think that there's potential for monetising the iPlayer. Having advertising breaks within the programmes themselves would perhaps be a step too far, but having a few ads at the beginning of each programme might be tolerable - maybe even have certain programmes sponsored as they are on ITV and C4. The iPlayer could be available to everyone free of charge with ads, or there could be a paid ad-free version, as there is with ITVX/C4 and other on-demand platforms.

The whole point of advertising funded broadcasting is to make programmes that are interesting enough to a large enough audience that people will watch the adverts. No advertiser will stump up the money to pay for an advert when the audience is minimal. The adverts need to be annoying and in the middle to make people watch them.

Whenever the subject of the BBC taking adverts comes up, the lack of public comment by ITV/C4/C5 is notable. While, especially at ITV there is a dislike of the licence fee advantage that the BBC enjoys, there is also an acknowledgement that they enjoy the advantage of not having to compete with a commercialised BBC for advertising revenue. There have been studies on what potential increase in advertising revenue there would be if the BBC became an option for advertiser's and they've consistently come back with "not much" - meaning the same amount of funding would have to go further, with the commercial broadcasters seeing significant reductions in their income.

 

[AM9]

The whole point of advertising funded broadcasting is to make programmes that are interesting enough to a large enough audience that people will watch the adverts. No advertiser will stump up the money to pay for an advert when the audience is minimal. The adverts need to be annoying and in the middle to make people watch them.

Whenever the subject of the BBC taking adverts comes up, the lack of public comment by ITV/C4/C5 is notable. While, especially at ITV there is a dislike of the licence fee advantage that the BBC enjoys, there is also an acknowledgement that they enjoy the advantage of not having to compete with a commercialised BBC for advertising revenue. There have been studies on what potential increase in advertising revenue there would be if the BBC became an option for advertiser's and they've consistently come back with "not much" - meaning the same amount of funding would have to go further, with the commercial broadcasters seeing significant reductions in their income.

Add to the oft stated fact that the cost of the licence is lower than the added cost of products that advertise on commercial tv.

 

[Buzby]

To stop those letters for two years only requires a free online submission of a No Licence Needed declaration.

This has been reduced to 1 year (12 months) before the begging letters restart.

 

[AM9]

There is no legal requirement to inform the BBC that you do not require a licence so why should you be continuously harassed for not telling them?

So long as there are tv licence freeloaders, there will be reminders that there is a legal obligation to hold one. As posters here have said, they ignore the letters. The choice if using the formal notification or not is theirs.

 

[sor]

So long as there are tv licence freeloaders, there will be reminders that there is a legal obligation to hold one. As posters here have said, they ignore the letters. The choice if using the formal notification or not is theirs.

As I said in my other post, there are numerous "legal obligations" that apply to many more people in this country, but for which the enforcing agency doesn't send out endless threatening letters to people who aren't on their books. This is true for optional activities too. I don't fish, so I don't need a fishing licence, yet I don't get reminders telling me of the punishment if I am caught fishing without one.

I once ended up with an underpayment of income tax and NI (not my fault, PAYE screwup by a former employer). HMRC could not have been more polite in telling me that I needed to pay it, and similarly polite in their reminder when I forgot about it. It wasn't a huge sum of money but the point stands

TV Licensing is the total opposite. It sends harassing letters to people who have no reason to pay and may not understand that they don't need to pay, for example immigrants who may be used to it being rolled into taxes or through a stricter set of rules than we have.

 

[AlterEgo]

As I said in my other post, there are numerous "legal obligations" that apply to many more people in this country, but for which the enforcing agency doesn't send out endless threatening letters to people who aren't on their books. This is true for optional activities too. I don't fish, so I don't need a fishing licence, yet I don't get reminders telling me of the punishment if I am caught fishing without one.

I once ended up with an underpayment of income tax and NI (not my fault, PAYE screwup by a former employer). HMRC could not have been more polite in telling me that I needed to pay it, and similarly polite in their reminder when I forgot about it. It wasn't a huge sum of money but the point stands

TV Licensing is the total opposite. It sends harassing letters to people who have no reason to pay and may not understand that they don't need to pay, for example immigrants who may be used to it being rolled into taxes or through a stricter set of rules than we have.

Couldn't agree more. The entire apparatus of harassment is completely unnecessary, and that the taxman deals with monies owed in a more civilised way really is the icing on the cake. (If only HMRC would be so speedy at returning overpayment though!)

 

[AM9]

As I said in my other post, there are numerous "legal obligations" that apply to many more people in this country, but for which the enforcing agency doesn't send out endless threatening letters to people who aren't on their books. This is true for optional activities too. I don't fish, so I don't need a fishing licence, yet I don't get reminders telling me of the punishment if I am caught fishing without one.

I once ended up with an underpayment of income tax and NI (not my fault, PAYE screwup by a former employer). HMRC could not have been more polite in telling me that I needed to pay it, and similarly polite in their reminder when I forgot about it. It wasn't a huge sum of money but the point stands

TV Licensing is the total opposite. It sends harassing letters to people who have no reason to pay and may not understand that they don't need to pay, for example immigrants who may be used to it being rolled into taxes or through a stricter set of rules than we have.

'Harassment' is a legally defined crime. If those who thought that they were being harassed did something about it then there would be changes. Why they haven't so far, - maybe someone here could answer that question.

 

[Merle Haggard]

This has been reduced to 1 year (12 months) before the begging letters restart.

If only! I have usually responded promptly to tell TV Licencing that I don't require a licence to get them off my back. The duration between doing so and receiving the next demand is always less than one year let alone two ; generally 5 - 6 months but once, only a fortnight passed between my reply and the next tiresome letter.
On the occasion of the latest demand letters - 5 months after the previous reply - I did not respond but opened the letters and read them. Each displayed a greater aggression than the previous one, when the one referring to a 'Visit by an Agent' I gave in and replied.
Mention has been made of registering that you don't need a TV licence on line. For those who wish to endured a half hour of rising irritation they should try to do this - obviously up to but not including actually confirming. Or perhaps others may find it easier than I have.

 

[Buzby]

maybe someone here could answer that question.

Two thoughts. If you presented the letters ay your local Police Station, they’d be dismissive either explaining it is a ‘civil’ matter, or that in the scale of things, if that’s all that’s worrying you, you’re lucky!

 

[Halwynd]

If only! I have usually responded promptly to tell TV Licencing that I don't require a licence to get them off my back. The duration between doing so and receiving the next demand is always less than one year let alone two ; generally 5 - 6 months but once, only a fortnight passed between my reply and the next tiresome letter.
On the occasion of the latest demand letters - 5 months after the previous reply - I did not respond but opened the letters and read them. Each displayed a greater aggression than the previous one, when the one referring to a 'Visit by an Agent' I gave in and replied.
Mention has been made of registering that you don't need a TV licence on line. For those who wish to endured a half hour of rising irritation they should try to do this - obviously up to but not including actually confirming. Or perhaps others may find it easier than I have.

Before I stopped paying the licence fee I undertook some research into TV Licensing (TVL). Remember, they are the BBC. They only use the TVL name to separate themselves from what they do and how they operate.

I would never complete the 'no licence needed' form because, as you say, you will only experience rising irritation. TVL only want your data to possibly use against you at a future date. You have no legal obligation to do so and it will be of no benefit to you except, possibly, fewer letters.

The letters which threaten a visit by an agent are nothing to worry about and it is unlikely you will receive one. If you do receive a visit (I've never knowingly received one in six years) and, like me, you genuinely do not watch live TV or use BBC iPlayer, just treat them as you would any other door-to-door salesman/woman with a polite 'not today thank you' and close the door. Don't ever be tempted to engage in conversation with them. They are well-trained and cunning and once you talk to them it can become increasingly difficult to disengage. A favourite is to ask you to sign a form they complete 'just to confirm the visit' and then ask you to sign it. You are under no obligation to do so, but most people don't understand that, or what they are signing, and this is how most people end up in court. I have even read reports of these forms being manipulated after the householder has signed it. TV Licensing - the BBC - should never ever be trusted to operate in good faith or with any integrity.

If anone wants to read more this forum might be useful: https://tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/

 

[Merle Haggard]

Before I stopped paying the licence fee I undertook some research into TV Licensing (TVL). Remember, they are the BBC. They only use the TVL name to separate themselves from what they do and how they operate.

I would never complete the 'no licence needed' form because, as you say, you will only experience rising irritation. TVL only want your data to possibly use against you at a future date. You have no legal obligation to do so and it will be of no benefit to you except, possibly, fewer letters.

The letters which threaten a visit by an agent are nothing to worry about and it is unlikely you will receive one. If you do receive a visit (I've never knowingly received one in six years) and, like me, you genuinely do not watch live TV or use BBC iPlayer, just treat them as you would any other door-to-door salesman/woman with a polite 'not today thank you' and close the door. Don't ever be tempted to engage in conversation with them. They are well-trained and cunning and once you talk to them it can become increasingly difficult to disengage. A favourite is to ask you to sign a form they complete 'just to confirm the visit' and then ask you to sign it. You are under no obligation to do so, but most people don't understand that, or what they are signing, and this is how most people end up in court. I have even read reports of these forms being manipulated after the householder has signed it. TV Licensing - the BBC - should never ever be trusted to operate in good faith or with any integrity.

If anone wants to read more this forum might be useful: https://tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/

Thank you for all the detail.

As an aside; I live in a bungalow with an open plan front garden. Some time ago, my neighbour saw someone in uniform looking into my windows. Might not have been a TVL 'Agent', of course, but I had a strong suspicion. I am now in my eighth decade on the planet and on paper this can give a certain image which I could take advantage of. Suppose someone is seen getting out of a car and snooping through my windows. On the face of it, that might well be the cause for a 999 call as a serious threat to a vulnerable person. The registration number of the car concerned could be added. All made in a trembling nervous voice ...

In reality I'm 6' tall of athletic build and still use resistance machines down the gym. But it might be fun to ignore future reminders and see how it works out ....

 

[Halwynd]

Thank you for all the detail.

As an aside; I live in a bungalow with an open plan front garden. Some time ago, my neighbour saw someone in uniform looking into my windows. Might not have been a TVL 'Agent', of course, but I had a strong suspicion. I am now in my eighth decade on the planet and on paper this can give a certain image which I could take advantage of. Suppose someone is seen getting out of a car and snooping through my windows. On the face of it, that might well be the cause for a 999 call as a serious threat to a vulnerable person. The registration number of the car concerned could be added. All made in a trembling nervous voice ...

In reality I'm 6' tall of athletic build and still use resistance machines down the gym. But it might be fun to ignore future reminders and see how it works out ....

Glad to help. Just to let you know that these agents don't wear uniforms and usually park their cars a street or a couple of steets away in case they need to make a quick get away from an angry householder, so don't worry. Sounds like you might give them a run for their money anyway!

 

[styles]

I must admit, I've seen videos of these TV Licensing workers being refused access or refused answers to their questions and at least from the videos I've seen, they seem pretty poorly-trained.

The ones which would get my back up would be those who come to the door asking for your name, then when you ask them who they are or for them to show ID, they say they can't if they don't know they're speaking to the tenant. Can you imagine any other door-knocker did this - a gas engineer wanting to take a meter reading, or someone doing the BARB survey, or even a police officer? You wouldn't stand for it, and the police would even advise you not to engage with them.

That, and the ones who incorrectly claim that filming them is unlawful, or that under GDPR/DPA you need to delete the footage or that you can't post it online. If it were a permanent CCTV installation covering a public place, that may be true, but not filming someone on a mobile phone or on a boxed area doorbell.

If they don't like being filmed or asked to show ID or give their name and employee identifier, they can leave, and it would probably get fewer views on YouTube!

 

[Dave61]

There is apparently a number of people who use a car but do not tax it. As you say, people who haven't taxed a car don't get hostile letters from an arm's length subsidiary of DVLA.

Maybe not but the letters that get sent to the Registered Owner come very close and I feel are quite threatening. In my case after selling my car the new owner missed a DD payment for road tax and due to some balls up in the DVLA went after me (the previous owner) and the letters were not nice. Got it sorted - eventually.

But back on topic, the TV License has always been a contentious subject which only really has 2 other options: you scrap it and either the BBC has to fund via subscriptions/adverts like all the rest or it gets put into general taxation and performs solely as a Public Service. The former leads to the horrendous would of USA style TV and the latter a very hobbled BBC when the government needs to save mony and thus slashes the funding (much like the old British Rail before privitisation and I hope GBR does not go down that same path.

 

[yorkie]

Anybody else finding the current ‘What has the BBC ever done…?’ and associated campaigns to be a little bit over the top, almost as if someone is a bit worried?

I understand that the corporation is under a lot of fire these days, but the relentless justification of the license fee becomes really rather tedious pretty quickly I find. The add with Romesh seems to be played relentlessly, alongside constant “Thanks for paying for your license” interludes from the continuity bods at the end of shows. Last night I happened upon The One Show, which I have to say I’ve always thought is on a par with most daytime TV in terms of being utterly bland, and the levels of self indulgence over it being their twentieth ‘anniversary’ were positively vomit inducing!

I’m not sure what the best direction might be for the Beeb moving ahead, but they certainly seem to be fighting to justify themselves currently!

The TV license absolutely needs to be abolished in my opinion; indeed, the BBC's new director general appears to be admitting this too:

Licence fee is 'yesterday's model', says new BBC director general Matt Brittin

Matt Brittin gives his views on the corporation's future, six weeks after taking over the BBC.

www.bbc.co.uk

The BBC's new director general has described the traditional TV licence model as "a busted flush" and "no longer fit for purpose".

In his first major public appearance since taking over the BBC six weeks ago, former Google executive Matt Brittin told MPs that the licence fee is "yesterday's model"..

I've been saying this for a while, but the situation has become increasingly untenable in recent years.

Many people today - especially but not exclusively young people - are not interested in the traditional concept of "live TV", and are much more likely to watch content on an "on demand" basis.

With the exception of e.g. sporting fixtures, hardly anyone these days is interested in the idea of looking up schedules and being tied to a specific time; people want to watch content at a time that suits them.

The idea of requiring a 'license' to view something that is deemed to be "broadcast"- but not something that is "live streamed" - is absurd and non-sensical in 2026.

The BBC effectively admitted the TV wasn't really a TV license - but was more of a BBC license - in disguise, back when iPlayer required a "TV license" to watch on-demand content, despite such content clearly being outwith the scope of any serious claim for the license to be a true TV license.

Some of the rules, e.g. about laptops not being plugged into mains (yet being plugged into a pre-charged battery pack is fine!) are so bonkers, kids these days think you are joking if you try to explain it to them!

In my opinion, the BBC should be funded through general taxation. The amount of money saved by not sending threatening letters must surely be in the £millions.

Also, a tip for anyone who does not require a TV license: do not complete the declaration forms; you are wasting your time, as you have to complete the form on a regular basis otherwise you still get threatening letters. Far better to not bother with the declaration and simply place all the letters in the recycling bin.

 

[Towers]

The TV license absolutely needs to be abolished in my opinion; indeed, the BBC's new director general appears to be admitting this too:

Licence fee is 'yesterday's model', says new BBC director general Matt Brittin

Matt Brittin gives his views on the corporation's future, six weeks after taking over the BBC.

www.bbc.co.uk

I've been saying this for a while, but the situation has become increasingly untenable in recent years.

Many people today - especially but not exclusively young people - are not interested in the traditional concept of "live TV", and are much more likely to watch content on an "on demand" basis.

With the exception of e.g. sporting fixtures, hardly anyone these days is interested in the idea of looking up schedules and being tied to a specific time; people want to watch content at a time that suits them.

The idea of requiring a 'license' to view something that is deemed to be "broadcast"- but not something that is "live streamed" - is absurd and non-sensical in 2026.

The BBC effectively admitted the TV wasn't really a TV license - but was more of a BBC license - in disguise, back when iPlayer required a "TV license" to watch on-demand content, despite such content clearly being outwith the scope of any serious claim for the license to be a true TV license.

Some of the rules, e.g. about laptops not being plugged into mains (yet being plugged into a pre-charged battery pack is fine!) are so bonkers, kids these days think you are joking if you try to explain it to them!

In my opinion, the BBC should be funded through general taxation. The amount of money saved by not sending threatening letters must surely be in the £millions.

Also, a tip for anyone who does not require a TV license: do not complete the declaration forms; you are wasting your time, as you have to complete the form on a regular basis otherwise you still get threatening letters. Far better to not bother with the declaration and simply place all the letters in the recycling bin.

Completely agree with all of that!

 

[Bantamzen]

The TV license absolutely needs to be abolished in my opinion; indeed, the BBC's new director general appears to be admitting this too:

Licence fee is 'yesterday's model', says new BBC director general Matt Brittin

Matt Brittin gives his views on the corporation's future, six weeks after taking over the BBC.

www.bbc.co.uk

I've been saying this for a while, but the situation has become increasingly untenable in recent years.

Many people today - especially but not exclusively young people - are not interested in the traditional concept of "live TV", and are much more likely to watch content on an "on demand" basis.

With the exception of e.g. sporting fixtures, hardly anyone these days is interested in the idea of looking up schedules and being tied to a specific time; people want to watch content at a time that suits them.

The idea of requiring a 'license' to view something that is deemed to be "broadcast"- but not something that is "live streamed" - is absurd and non-sensical in 2026.

The BBC effectively admitted the TV wasn't really a TV license - but was more of a BBC license - in disguise, back when iPlayer required a "TV license" to watch on-demand content, despite such content clearly being outwith the scope of any serious claim for the license to be a true TV license.

Some of the rules, e.g. about laptops not being plugged into mains (yet being plugged into a pre-charged battery pack is fine!) are so bonkers, kids these days think you are joking if you try to explain it to them!

In my opinion, the BBC should be funded through general taxation. The amount of money saved by not sending threatening letters must surely be in the £millions.

Also, a tip for anyone who does not require a TV license: do not complete the declaration forms; you are wasting your time, as you have to complete the form on a regular basis otherwise you still get threatening letters. Far better to not bother with the declaration and simply place all the letters in the recycling bin.

I think the writing has been on the wall for some time, I can see the BBC heading to a subscription model inside of 5 years. And once they break cover, expect ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 etc etc to follow suit.

This of course will see the end of "free to air" services, meaning other channels that piggyback onto Freeview channels will have to either follow suit with their own, or more likely find a subscription platform to join. And of course more subscription channels will ultimately mean more cost to the viewers, and also opens up all these channels to takeovers from the media giants such as Disney and Paramount, who in turn will have an increasing say on the content on them.

Personally I think that whilst the TV licence is not the best model, losing it will mean the end of TV as we know it. Expect more adverts across all channels, the end of relatively impartial news reporting, and more cost as the big players carve up British TV between them. The only bit of good news would be that the dreadful GB News would be consigned to history, or be relegated to some murky corner of streaming TV.

If you've ever been to the US and watched any amount of their TV*, you'll have an idea where we are going! Spoiler alert, it's dreadful!

(*My apologies to any American members, but I'm sure many would agree that TV over there is mainly adverts for pharmaceuticals, occasionally interrupted by TV shows)

 

[AM9]

I think the writing has been on the wall for some time, I can see the BBC heading to a subscription model inside of 5 years. And once they break cover, expect ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5 etc etc to follow suit.

This of course will see the end of "free to air" services, meaning other channels that piggyback onto Freeview channels will have to either follow suit with their own, or more likely find a subscription platform to join. And of course more subscription channels will ultimately mean more cost to the viewers, and also opens up all these channels to takeovers from the media giants such as Disney and Paramount, who in turn will have an increasing say on the content on them.

Personally I think that whilst the TV licence is not the best model, losing it will mean the end of TV as we know it. Expect more adverts across all channels, the end of relatively impartial news reporting, and more cost as the big players carve up British TV between them. The only bit of good news would be that the dreadful GB News would be consigned to history, or be relegated to some murky corner of streaming TV.

If you've ever been to the US and watched any amount of their TV*, you'll have an idea where we are going! Spoiler alert, it's dreadful!

(*My apologies to any American members, but I'm sure many would agree that TV over there is mainly adverts for pharmaceuticals, occasionally interrupted by TV shows)

This is very much what I was alluding to in post #2 of this thread. TV in the UK has been rapidly moving towards internet broadcasting since the government changed the position of broadcasting via terrestrial and satellite channels.
Internet connections improved rapidly for many such that SD and then HD tv was viable to stream video over. The established broadcasters, looking forward at increasing transmitter costs, see internet distribution as the way ahead.
I think the BBC also sees this as a solution to their declining revenue from licences. Subscription access to what is now iplayer material would make this happen.
The free to air channel I think will carry many adverts, not commercial, but mostly promoting their subscription channels as well as any necessary government public service announcements. Those that genuinely cannot afford the online content would at least have a free basic news and a selection of light entertainment material. The freeloaders will have to put up with that or seek weaknesses in charging mechanisms of other services that others are paying for.