Thank you for contacting us.
As you have let us know that you do not use television equipment, I have now annotated our records to show a set is not in use at your address.
To prevent unnecessary reminders being sent we have now changed the process regarding homes where a set is not in use. Within the next few weeks you will receive another letter. This asks you to reply only if a set has been installed or a licence purchased.
As no licence is required, as a set is not in use, then you do not need to reply. In due course one of our Visiting Officers will call on you and confirm the situation. Once confirmed, we will update our records accordingly. This will protect your address from mailing, for a longer period than would normally be set at an address, as it has been confirmed that a set is not in use.
Some unscrupulous people will use this particular action as a form of evasion. I am sure you will appreciate, we have a responsibility to the Licensing Authority and the licence holding public to be certain of the licensing requirements for each address hence the instigation of the new process.
I hope the information above clarifies the situation.
So if this is the new procedure, what was the old on like?
Anyway, I so relieved, I am only classed as a potentially unscrupulous person, rather than a potential criminal. How much does it cost the license payer to send "Visiting officers" around to each address?
I can feel a freedom of Information request coming on. How much of the license fee is spent chasing up non-payers, and how is that figure worked out?
What does a visiting officer do to verify that one is telling the truth? Do they need access? I feel a poll coming on!
Should the "Visiting Officer" come a visiting and want to gain access, should I:
tell them to get a warrant
pretend that I am about to let them in and them slam the door in their face
other: answers in the box below:
in this box (max 255 chars apparently):