Real Or Fraudulent? I Took The Safe Option…

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

An e-mail claiming to be from the TV Licencing Agency wanted me to confirm I do not need a TV Licence. (As indeed I do not.)

I thought the address, ending “.co.uk”, a bit odd for a Civil Service agency, but with so much given to China or the USA, that did not immediately warn me.

In fact all else looked in order until a page asking if anyone in my household ever watched… any of a long list of assorted non-BBC companies and channels, each name accompanied by YES / NO buttons.

These did not work, and the site told me I definitely need a licence.

I think the buttons were merely image-boxes.

The ‘View Source’ tool did not reveal anything untoward, such as deeper addresses, and its “spam verdict” was “clean”, but all the other results from this analyser are in inscrutable computerese and hexadecimal code.

I was now convinced the site was not bona-fide.

 

I forwarded it to BT’s and the government’s “phishing” report addresses, blocked its sender and domain, and deleted it; but after completing a feedback form lest it was genuine, to say I do not like being called a liar by a website clearly designed to be a trick.

 

I thought the TV people used letters, not e-posts, but they do have a bad reputation for assuming any confession of the venal sin of not having a telly, to be a lie.

 

If I hear or receive nothing, I will assume that the request was indeed a highly sophisticated attempt to defraud me of the fee.

 

[BazyleParticipant @bazyle]

They are of course data mining. The basic BBC access to iplayer wants a login with location data which it uses to feed you ‘appropriate’ data on the webpages.
If you do pay the fee by DD they like to send you an annual email to confirm they received the payment and in passing want you to “activate” it which no doubt sucks some more data out of your computer.
I was very annoyed after my mother passed away a decade into the free age limit as it was then that she had been conned by the threatening letters into continuing to pay.
I often go for a week or two without watching anything on BBC yet am still forced to pay £3 a week for nothing.

[blowlampParticipant @blowlamp]

Why would anyone need to fill in a form for a licence they don’t want or need?

I ignore their letters.

Martin.

[Andrew CrowParticipant @andrewcrow91475]

Every time we go on line someone is collecting data about us and selling it on to lord knows who.

So it is inevitable that we are going to receive fraudulent claims on a fairly regular basis from someone trying to get either a small sum of money directly as in Nigel’s case above or trying to access your bank account and take thousands.

I take the view that if it looks odd, it probably is and like Martin above I ignore and delete them.

If its genuine the government department or bank will actually will give some identifying information known only by you and them or they will send a letter with similar I.D.

Andy.

[Robert Atkinson 2Participant @robertatkinson2]

Note that while the licence funds the BBC it is not only for watching the BBC. If you watch ANY live TV service be it off-air, cable, satelite, online or streaming from any source on any device you need a licence.
So while I can’t comment on that email, asking if you waatch other programmes is par of derermining if you need a licence.
It is very unusual for someone not to watch anything live in a year. Watching any news would count for example.

Robert.

 

[SillyOldDufferModerator @sillyoldduffer]

Nigel doesn’t identify the website, but it may be this one, operated on behalf of the BBC.

”TV Licensing’ is a trade mark of the BBC and is used under licence by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of the television licence fee and enforcement of the television licensing system.”

That the BBC is funded by a licence fee collected by the government is a slightly odd arrangement.  Looks like a tax, but isn’t, and it’s not voluntary.  People dodging the license fee has always been major problem. Watching BBC programs but not paying for them is a crime, fine £1000, and plus a criminal record.  It is also a “strict liability offence”, meaning there is no requirement to prove intent.

Done this way because the BBC is funded as a Public Service, in much the same way as roads are paid for by Road Tax.   The BBC Charter requires them to provide a balanced view, which upsets politicians who would prefer them to toe their particular party line.  I think a broadcaster that doesn’t kowtow to whatever zealot happens to be in power is a good thing.  Politicians should be accountable, not above criticism.

And further annoying to people who do not watch TV at all, or don’t watch BBC programmes.  As  almost everyone has a TV, they are assumed to be criminals, which they’re not.

Against that background, the BBC have contracted PayPoint Plc, the Post Office, RAPP Limited,   Havas Media, Media services, Wescot Credit Services Ltd and Capita Business Services Ltd to get money the BBC is entitled to.

Capita are cause for concern.  They are contracted to administer and enforce the TV Licence fee, but are notorious for clumsy incompetent delivery of privatised public services.

Doesn’t help that the tvlicensing website looks very like the fraudulent sites providing car licencing services.  They charge an unecessary fee for front-ending the free DVLA service, catching folk who believe that the top entry on a Google search must be the official one!  Not so.

Nigel is wise to be suspicious. The website looks very iffy.  However, I think failing to answer the questions means he’s still on Capita’s hit list, and there might be a follow up.  As tvlicensing.co.uk is private enterprise, they don’t have access to the government data that confirms he’s entitled to a free license.  He has to tell them again.

It’s a mess. Tip of an iceberg too. The way governments raise revenue is hideously complicated, unfair, and intrusive.  With severe punishments.

🙁

Dave

 

 

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Roads are not funded by road tax. The official name is vehicle excise duty, no linkage to what they spend on maintenance.

[Andrew CrowParticipant @andrewcrow91475]

Not buying a TV licence is no longer classed as a criminal offence, abolished by the last Conservative government, but the BBC will still take out a civil prosecution if you  don’t buy one.

By today’s living standards I don’t regard £3 to £4 a week for supporting quality radio and television and I still believe the BBC have the most trustworthy news programmes even taking into account recent problems.

Andy.

 

 

 

 

[Andrew Crow]

On Andrew Crow Said:

Not buying a TV licence is no longer classed as a criminal offence, abolished by the last Conservative government, but the BBC will still take out a civil prosecution if you  don’t buy one.

By today’s living standards I don’t regard £3 to £4 a week for supporting quality radio and television and I still believe the BBC have the most trustworthy news programmes even taking into account recent problems.

Andy.

 

 

 

I couldn’t disagree more. They have proved themselves to be completely untrustworthy, from Savile to Edwards with much inbetween and since. Even within the last week or so their top man and woman have had to resign due to crafty editing of the news.

 

Martin.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

I agree wholeheartedly, Andy.

I wionder if the problem lies in the old name “Licence”, when it is really a subscription – and a ridiculously cheap one at that.

As I have no television, nor use my PC as a TV, my enjoyment of the radio is being subsidised by those who do watch television programmes.

Really, it ought be re-named “Subscription”, increased to maybe £170 for both TV and Radio with a partial fee re-introduced for radio-only. I don’t know what the arithmetical proportion should really be, but say £50/year.

Provided that is not lost in poor systems taking all that and more to operate. Let alone taken by third-party agents who should be kept right out of it. He writes risking the “no-politics” rule.

Later I found a letter from TV Licensing that did confirm the “.co.uk” bit; but also says, if nothing has changed I need not do anything. If they write again I will reply, but by post not web-site, and report my suspicions.

 

I think a lot of the attackers do not really know what the BBC offers, because their interests are confined to TV shows and drama, and think BBC Radio is only the day-time pop they hear from builders’ wireless-sets.

[cedric 1Participant @cedric]

Congratulations. You got one of the 107 Billion spam emails sent every day  (Yes that is the actual figure, on a quiet day!)

You were lucky to click on the link in it and to fill out their feedback form without inadvertently downloading some malware etc. Or were you?

[Martin of WickParticipant @martinofwick]

Probably genuine if you do not have a licence, as stated, the Ministry of Truth have hired pet thugs to go and intimidate those unwilling to subscribe to rentier capitalism.

I get such a mail every 2 years or so. Haven’t had a TV licence for decades now, have no interest in TV or any other form of specious infotainment. Every so often I find myself in a holiday cottage with ‘visual entertainments’. It takes about ten minutes to discern that the tendentious dross that spews out of every channel has insufficient intellectual content to occupy the brain of a slug.

I then feel free to pick up a decent book and congratulate myself on how much money and time I have saved. Permission to be smug sir……

Radio is another matter, but would I pay £50? Hmmm… 15 or 20 years ago the answer would have been an unequivocal yes.  The relentless dumbing down and use of more and more vacuous, patronising airhead presenters makes it a tighter decision these days. On balance, they still produce the goods, it just harder to find.

 

 

 

 

 

[not done it yetParticipant @notdoneityet]

I’ve not had a TV, or recording equipment for close to 20 years, maybe more.

I don‘t watch anything live anywhere – unless on TV at someone else’s house – which is rarely.

I’ve had innumerable letters from tv licensing, warning me of an up-coming visit.  Nobody has yet knocked on my door or rung the bell.

They can come and look, but will need a court warrant before I allow them entry.  Until then, they can keep off my property.

[JAParticipant @ja]

Surely this topic should be moderated. It has moved away from talking about a possible scam to politics.

JA

[JA]

On JA Said:

Surely this topic should be moderated. It has moved away from talking about a possible scam to politics.

JA

Are we not adults?

Martin.

[blowlamp]

On blowlamp Said:

On JA Said:

Surely this topic should be moderated. It has moved away from talking about a possible scam to politics.

JA

Are we not adults?

Martin.

Yes but I am old, weary, and very fed-up with the day to day happening of this world.

JA

[Nicholas FarrParticipant @nicholasfarr14254]

Hi, I believe if you get a visit from an Enforcement Officer, they will have all the documentation they need to look inside your home.

Regards Nick.

[Stuart Smith 5Participant @stuartsmith5]

There are plenty of other sites to discuss politics.

This should not be one of them

 

[JA]

On JA Said:

On blowlamp Said:

On JA Said:

Surely this topic should be moderated. It has moved away from talking about a possible scam to politics.

JA

Are we not adults?

Martin.

Yes but I am old, weary, and very fed-up with the day to day happening of this world.

JA

 

I agree. These sheninigans are tedious, but ‘venting off’ gives some of us a little relief from it. 😉

 

Martin.

[Nicholas Farr]

On Nicholas Farr Said:

Hi, I believe if you get a visit from an Enforcement Officer, they will have all the documentation they need to look inside your home.

Regards Nick.

 

No they don’t. They have no right of entry without a warrant or your permission. They are sales people, hoping to persuade you into buying a licence that you don’t need if you don’t watch or record live transmissions. You don’t even need to prove to them that you don’t need one.

I’ve had three visits over the years and like all uninvited salesmen, I told them that I don’t make doorstep purchases from strangers. As is my right.

 

Martin.

[Nicholas Farr]

On Nicholas Farr Said:

Hi, I believe if you get a visit from an Enforcement Officer, they will have all the documentation they need to look inside your home.

Regards Nick.

You’d need to qualify that statement, Nick; we’ve had several such visits that ended fruitlessly for the enforcement officer because we just didn’t answer the door.

I simply don’t engage with TV Licensing at any level. Never have done in twenty-five years. Nothing ever happens apart from their endless streams of printed bluster that go directly in the bin.

In my experience, the average law-abiding citizen is far too indulgent towards unworthy  scoundrels of all kinds. Capita, particularly since their cyberattack and £14 million fine, are clearly scoundrels of a special kind.

[Stuart Smith 5]

On Stuart Smith 5 Said:

There are plenty of other sites to discuss politics.

This should not be one of them

 

Some people evidently have a very low threshold for what constitutes politics.

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

The problem may be that although in Law we are innocent until proven guilty in a Court of Law, other bodies tend to think otherwise, and if you have a broadband-service PC and telephone it may be very hard to prove you do not watch any TV programmes. It would be your word against theirs.

As for Capita, it seems far more simply too bone-headedly inept and lazy to be a “scoundrel”!

[duncan webster 1Participant @duncanwebster1]

Private Eye add an ‘r’ after the c when referring to Capita. Seems appropriate.

[Author]

Posts