White House occupant threatened with Court appearance

No, not that White House.

The White House in question is the oldest building in the city of Newtownabbey, Northern Ireland, and is situated on Belfast Lough. It dates from the 16th century, but lately had fallen into disrepair and so in the year 2000 the White House Preservation Trust was formed to preserve and restore the building. It is unoccupied.

Of course, that did not stop the zealots at TV Licensing™ from taking an interest in it. In their eyes, any property standing must need the State's permission to receive live TV broadcasts (which is what a TV licence actually is). Well, perhaps not Stonehenge, and if not it's probably the only exception.

And so it was that the Chair of the White House Preservation Trust, Councillor Billy Webb, received the customary letter full of bluster, intimidation and misinformation. Councillor Webb was rightly miffed and took the document to the local Press so that all Newtownabbey would know just what base actions TV Licensing™ got up to and exactly what he thought of them. You can read the story in the Newtownabbey Times, and it's available online.

What is particularly heinous is the text of the letter. Councillor Webb said:

I received a threatening letter telling me what I would need to do if I was taken to court for not having a TV licence ... This letter goes on to tell me that I can appoint a lawyer to appear in court for me and the court has the power to impose a fine of up to £1,000.

In fact, the letter is just a run-of-the-mill scurrilous document, computer generated and sent without any thought whatsoever about its impact on the recipient. Here's what it said:

Dear Sir/Madam,

You have not responded to our previous letters. We want to ensure you have the information you may need before a hearing is set at your local court.

Please read the information below carefully and keep for your records. You will be allowed to take it into court with you.

Yours faithfully

(etc)

What to expect in court
If you are asked to appear in court, this is what you can expect to happen:

• You can appoint a lawyer to represent you, or you may represent yourself.
• Evidence collected during an enforcement visit to your property is used by the court to decide the penalty for TV Licence evasion.
• The court has the power to impose a fine of up to £1,000, plus legal costs. The decision is legally binding.
• If your property needs a TV Licence, you will still need to buy one.

A scan of the letter is available on the BBCtvLicence.com Website. Just scroll down the page to the May 2011 entry.

Councillor Webb went on:

I ask, what happened about ‘presumed innocent until proved guilty’? The TV licensing authority would seem now to apply the principle that if you do not have a licence you are breaking the law.

Welcome to the world of TV Licensing™, Councillor! Guilty until proven innocent - and then only innocent until TV Licensing™ decides otherwise. Notice that Councillor Webb refers to "the TV licensing authority". With all due respect to him, he probably doesn't realise it's that model of rectitude the BBC.

Notice how much bluster there is in this letter (the intimidation is self-evident):

• You have not responded to our previous letters - but there is no legal requirement to respond to these letters. And in any case, your humble scribe knows personally one couple who DID respond to the letters, yet still received one of these threats of a court appearance. Responding to TV Licensing™ letters is futile.
• ... before a hearing is set at your local court - but Capita (which brings the prosecution) does not know whom to summon to court. The letter is addressed to "Sir/Madam".
• You will be allowed to take it into court with you - stating, not implying but stating, that you will be appearing in court. This without any evidence whatsoever that a crime (i.e. illegally watching live television programmes) has been committed.
• If your property needs a TV Licence ... - which really gives the game away. TV Licensing™ does not know whether you need a licence or not! Yet you are threatened with the certainty of a court appearance.

The letter is, of course, totally outrageous. Which other public body could get away with sending out letters like this? How about the Environment Agency threatening you with a court appearance because you do not have a fishing licence and it doesn't know whether you fish or not? Or The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency threatening you with a court appearance because you do not have a driving licence and it doesn't know whether you drive or not?

How does the BBC get away with it?