Chris
request-928-5b216600@whatdotheyknow.com
28 July 2008
Dear Chris,
Freedom of information request – RFI20080691
Thank you for your request received on 27 June 2008 seeking further information about TV
Licensing. Your request is being dealt with under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (“the Act”).
However, I am sorry for the delay in sending you this reply. This was due to the complicated
nature of your query. We recognise that we have failed to respond to your request within the 20
working days laid down by the Act, for which we sincerely apologise.
Please note that “TV Licensing” is a trading name used by companies contracted by the BBC to
administer the collection of television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing
system. The majority of the administration of TV Licensing is contracted to Capita Business
Services Ltd (which undertakes the majority of the administration of the TV Licensing system), with
the administration of our cash related payment schemes contracted to Revenues Management
Services Ltd (RMS). PayPoint Network Ltd and PayPoint Collections Ltd are contracted to provide
over-the-counter services. The marketing and public relations activities are contracted to the AMV
Consortium. The consortium is made up of the following four companies: Abbott Mead Vickers
BBDO Ltd, Fishburn Hedges Boys Williams Limited, PHD Media Limited and Proximity London Ltd.
The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall
responsibility.
In your request you asked the following:
In the Corporation's response to the following:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/bbc_licence_fee_prosecutions
It is stated that "In practice, TV Licensing has a 99.9% conviction rate for cases of TV licence
evasion which are prosecuted ..."
. . . implying that the Authority is only prosecuting cases it can win, which is in itself a vacuous
truth. Therefore:
1.
What is the typical rate of prosecution, both by number and as a proportion, of all cases
pursued not initially resulting in purchase of a licence? This includes prosecutions, those cases
where a "prosecution statement" is taken, and any cases dropped other than as a result of
payment on threat of prosecution.
In relation to this question, I can neither confirm nor deny that we hold all of the information you
have requested. However, I can tell you that any such information we do hold in relation to this
question I am withholding under sections 31(1)(a),(b),(d) and (g) and (2)(a) of the Act which relate
to law enforcement, specifically on the grounds that disclosure would, or would be likely to,
prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, the
collection of the licence fee and the BBC’s ability to discharge its public functions in respect of such
matters.
I am satisfied in terms of section 2(2) of the Act that in all the circumstances of the case, the public
interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. I
have provided further explanation of my consideration of the public interest test in the section ‘Why
information has been withheld’ below.
2.
Regardless of the reasons for proceeding or otherwise with prosecution, what is the
aggregate conviction rate for all cases, including those prosecuted, those for which a "prosecution
statement" is taken, cases dropped under the guise of "commercial decision", cases involving use
not subject to licensing (whether these are dropped or wrongfully pursued), or any case which did
not result in payment prior to prosecution. This includes, but is not limited to, all cases where a
mailshot is sent out and no payment received prior to a direct threat of prosecution.
It is difficult to quantify the “aggregate conviction rate for all cases” since this would depend on
which outcomes you are interested in. For example, I am unsure of what you mean by the
“aggregate conviction rate”. Also, it may not be
possible to calculate any figures for some of the outcomes you have described in your question.
For example, the conviction rate for “all cases where a mailshot is sent out and no payment
received prior to a direct threat of prosecution” is not calculated or held by TV Licensing. We are
not sure how we could calculate this rate should you be interested in it.
I therefore suggest you clarify your question and contact us again. However, please note that
some of the information on this topic which you may request in any clarification may also be
subject to exemptions under the Act.
3.
The number of cases for which the Authority held a properly executed authorisation for
covert surveillance (i.e. surveillance carried out without the subject's knowledge) under the
Regulation Of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 - including meeting the requirements of naming of the
subject and a signature from an officer empowered under ss.30-32 of said Act.
As you know, TV Licensing’s use of detection equipment is strictly governed by the Regulation of
Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) and the Regulation of Investigatory Powers (British
Broadcasting Corporation) Order 2001 (the Order). As you indicate in your request, RIPA and the
Order outline how the relevant investigatory powers are to be used by the BBC and ensure
compliance with human rights. Both pieces of legislation are publicly available online on the Office
of Public Information website: http://www.opsi.gov.uk/.
I should emphasise that the Authority has held a properly executed authorisation for all cases of
covert surveillance under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act. In relation to the number of
cases this involves, I can confirm that we do hold the information that you have requested.
However, I am withholding this information under sections 31(1)(a),(b),(d) and (g) and (2)(a) of the
Act which relate to law enforcement, specifically on the grounds that disclosure would, or would be
likely to, prejudice the prevention or detection of crime, the apprehension or prosecution of
offenders, the collection of the licence fee and the BBC’s ability to discharge its public functions in
respect of such matters.
I am satisfied in terms of section 2(2) of the Act that in all the circumstances of the case, the public
interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information. I
have provided further explanation of my consideration of the public interest test in the section ‘Why
information has been withheld’ below.
Why information has been withheld
I am required under s 2(2) of the Act to assess whether the public interest in maintaining the
exemptions outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
The following factors are in favour of disclosure:
1. ensuring that the licensing authority is exercising its functions appropriately and
proportionately, i.e. that people will not be unfairly subjected to detection;
2. ensuring that public funds are being appropriately applied, that is:
a. ensuring that the TV Licensing system is being efficiently run; and
b. ensuring that value for money is being obtained.
I consider that the above public interest factors in favour of disclosure are served by the following:
1. The BBC has a duty to enforce the television licensing system and it is essential that
effective deterrents against evasion are maintained for this purpose. Without an
effective deterrent, evasion would invariably increase. This would be to the detriment of the
honest majority of people who are properly licensed and to the overall amount of revenue
available to the BBC. It would also increase detection costs.
2. The Office of Surveillance Commissioners is an independent body which monitors the
BBC’s compliance with
legislation regarding detection, hence the public interest in
people not being unfairly subject to detection is satisfied.
3. The BBC is required to satisfy the National Audit Office ('NAO') as to the value for money of
the collection and enforcement arrangements and is accountable for the economy,
efficiency and effectiveness of such arrangements. NAO's most recent audit is published at
http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/06-07/0607183.pdf.
4. The BBC has reduced the cost of collection from 6.2% of the total licence fee collected in
1991/2, when it took over from the Home Office, to 3.6% for the financial year 07/08. This
demonstrates that the TV Licensing system is being efficiently run. This and further related
information is available in the BBC’s annual report (see www.bbc.co.uk), the TV Licensing
Annual Review and the About TV Licensing document (see
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/aboutus/index.jsp). A key part of this success has been the
use of detection as a significant deterrent element.
In this instance, the public interest is served by maintaining an effective deterrent to licence fee
evasion and thus in turn protecting the BBC’s revenue stream.
There is hence a greater public interest in ensuring the effective collection of the licence fee than in
disclosing the information you have sought. I am therefore satisfied, in terms of section 2 of the
Act, that in all the circumstances of the case, the public interest in maintaining the exemption
outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.
Appeal rights
If you are not satisfied with this response you have the right to an internal review by a BBC senior
manager or legal adviser. Please contact us at the address provided, explaining what you would
like us to review and including your reference number. If you are not satisfied with the internal
review, you can appeal to the Information Commissioner. The contact details are: Information
Commissioner's Office, Wycliffe House, Water Lane, Wilmslow, Cheshire, SK9 5AF, telephone
01625 545 700 or see http://www.ico.gov.uk/
I hope this response is helpful.
Yours sincerely,
Natalie Saunderson
Policy Adviser
BBC TV Licensing Management Team