This is an HTML version of an attachment to the Freedom of Information request 'Copy of various reports'.




 
 
Nath 
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx 
 
17 December 2010 
 
 
Dear Nath, 
 
Request for Information – RFI20101350 
 
Further to my letter of 28 October 2010 please find attached copies of the documents set out in Appendix 
2 of this letter.   Please note the following: 
 
1.  Documents 4.5.6 and 4.7.9 are the same. 
2.  In accordance with section 1(1) of the Act, I am able to confirm that the BBC does not hold copies 
of documents 4.6.8, 4.7.1 and 4.7.10.  This is due to the fact that the list of requested reports was 
drafted in 2002 and reporting arrangements have changed since that time. 
3.  In relation to the 16 audit reports (AR1-AR16) KPMG advise that the documents are not suitable 
to be relied on by any party wishing to acquire rights against KPMG LLP for any purpose or in any 
context. Any party that obtains access to these documents or copies and chooses to rely on these 
documents (or any part of them) does so at its own risk. To the fullest extent permitted by law, 
KPMG LLP does not assume any responsibility and will not accept any liability in respect of these 
documents to any party other than the original addressees. 
 
A small amount of information in the attached documents has been redacted. This is because we consider 
in each case the information contained therein to be exempt from disclosure under the terms of the 
Freedom of Information Act (“FOI Act”). As you will see, each instance of redaction has been annotated to 
indicate which exemption has been applied. The exemptions used relate to sections 31, 42(2) and 43(2) of 
the FOI Act.   
 
Information has been withheld under s40(2) as it constitutes personal information. Personal information 
about living individuals is exempt under the Freedom of Information Act if disclosure to a third party would 
breach one or more principles in the Data Protection Act 1998. As individuals who work at TVL do not 
expect their details to be disclosed, to do so would be unfair and unlawful; therefore, disclosure would 
breach the First Data Protection Principle, which concerns fair and lawful processing. 
 
 

Section 43 states that information will be exempt under the Act if its disclosure would, or would be likely 
to, prejudice the commercial interests of any person (including the public authority holding it). In the case 
of each redaction indicated, the BBC is of the view that the release of the information would be prejudicial 
to either its own commercial interests, or those of Capita, or both, because to do so would reveal details 
about our suppliers’ services and methodologies and/or would reveal market sensitive information which 
would be of benefit to competitors in any future tendering process for such services. 
 
As stated above, some information has also been withheld under section 31, which relates to law 
enforcement (specifically, because 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). This is because in each case the 
redacted segments contain information which could be useful to people attempting to evade the licence fee.  
 
As sections 31 and 43 are qualified exemptions, I am required by section 2(2) of the Act to assess whether 
the public interest in maintaining the exemptions used herein outweighs the public interest in disclosing the 
information. 
 
The following factors are in favour of disclosure: 
 
1.  Ensuring that public funds are being appropriately applied, and specifically that: 
a.  the TV Licensing system is being efficiently run; and 
b.  value for money is being obtained. 
2.  Ensuring that the BBC is getting value for money in respect of its use of the licence fee when 
purchasing goods and services. 
3.  Ensuring that the licensing authority is exercising its functions as regards the enforcement of the TV 
Licensing system appropriately and proportionately. 
4.  Ensuring that the public has access to sufficient information to enable it to contact TV Licensing and 
seek accountability for TV Licensing’s activities. 
 
I consider that the above public interest factors in favour of disclosure are already served by the following: 
 
1.  The fact that 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.  
2.  The fact that the BBC is also subject to the oversight of the BBC Trust (which is responsible for 
commissioning value for money investigations into specific areas of BBC activity under Article 
24(2)(i) of the BBC Charter) and the Executive Board (which is responsible for conducting the 
BBC’s operational affairs in a manner best designed to ensure value for money under Article 
38(1)(h) of the Charter). 
3.  The fact that the BBC has reduced the cost of collection from 6.2% of the total licence fee 
collected in 1991/2 (when it took over responsibility from the Home Office), to 3.5% for the 
financial year 09/10. 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) and the 
TV Licensing Annual Review (see www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/). 
 
 

In addition, I consider that the following factors are in favour of withholding the information: 
 
Section 43 
 
1.  The need for the BBC to maintain a strong bargaining position vis-à-vis suppliers during contractual 
negotiations in order to ensure that the licence fee is spent effectively. 
2.  The fact that the competitive position of companies in their particular market is not disadvantaged 
by doing business with the BBC. It would not be in the public interest to disclose sensitive 
information about a particular company if that information would be likely to be used by 
competitors to gain a competitive advantage. 
 
Section 31 
 
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. 
2.  Without an effective deterrent to licence fee evasion, 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. 
3.  An increase in the rate of licence fee evasion would lead to an increase in detection costs. 
4.  An increase in the costs of detecting licence fee evasion would lead to a decrease in the available 
funds to be put towards producing the BBC’s content. 
5.  In this instance, the public interest is served by ensuring that the commercial aspects of documents 
used by the BBC’s TV Licensing partners are protected, and by maintaining an effective deterrent 
to licence fee evasion and thus in turn protecting the BBC’s revenue stream to produce its output. 
 
Hence, I consider that there is 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. 
 
Yours sincerely, 
 
 
 
Dan McGregor 
Senior Policy Adviser, TV Licensing Management Team 
 

Appendix 1 
 
1) DDI scheme reconciliation report 
2) non-DDI Scheme reconciliation statement. 
4.5.1) sales value and volume schedules adjusted to reflect Over 75 Licences and 
adjustments required to Refunds, Cancellations, Short Term Licences, discount 
claimable and discount not allowable; 
4.5.2) daily sales volume schedule; 
4.5.3) gross and net value and volume of Licence sales by payment channel; 
4.5.4) Licences in force overall and national and estimated regional evasion 
rate; 
4.5.5) volume / price variance analysis; and 
4.5.6) work in progress valuation. 
4.6.2) detailed breakdown of Licences in force movement (currently known as 
LIFSUM); 
4.6.3) summary of Licences in force by region, expires, ARC Licences, 
Prosecutions and hotel Licences; 
4.6.5) statement of Statutory Discount Licences issued; 
4.6.7) analysis of phasing of issues for any one month (known as measured); and 
4.7.2) Licence sales to Licences in force reconciliation; 
4.7.3) ARC Licence revenue statement; 
4.7.4) sales of Licences at the old fee; 
4.7.6) scheme Cancellations and Refund write offs; 
4.7.7) quarterly direct debit premium statement; 
4.7.8) debtor movement analysis; 
4.7.9) work in progress analysis; 
4.7.11) erroneous Licences deleted details; and 
4.7.12) details of miscellaneous income.