I think you're aware Mark, that TVL has no way, at all, of differentiating between the reception of Freeview radio (requires no licence) and Freeview TV (requires licence).

I wouldn't expect the BBC to provide a simple answer like that.

Just trying to get some transparency from this most opaque organisation.

Didn't you see the BBC's response to RFI20130094?

"Only pass the minimum necessary information".

That's the mindset we're dealing with.

How can disclosing whether lawfully listening to radio via freeview unlicensed is prejudicial to enforcing tv broadcast receiving licence when the BBC themselves have admitted that so listening to radio is lawful?

BBC FoI staff seem to have taken leave of their senses.

Complete failure to conduct an internal review is also a matter you can involve the ICO for.

Might I suggest opening a case with the ICO, since their process is also very slow moving :-(

This is something we have previously sought disclosure over, and we actually got an answer:

FOIA request: http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2012/... (see page 2 of disclosure document).
Our article: http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2012/...

It looks to me they do not want to answer the request, because there is such a thin legal line, between.
1. A person with no TVL using a TV ONLY legally, to listen to radio stations.
2. A person with no TVL using that same TV to watch live broadcasts illegally.

Technology has overtaken the law to such a huge degree, so they are stuffed!

Where is this internal review from April?

I believe you've had what's known as "the brush-off".
The BBC do that a lot - mainly when they're trying to escape the blame for something that is entirely their fault. Can you go to the ICO? It's time to make a stand.

Saying they did not understand the request is a load of rubbish - To simplify Rupinda:
If a TV is ONLY used as a Radio reciever, EG to listen to Radio four, is a TV licence required - yes or no?

On 21 Jun 2013, at 15:08, "TVL - Customer-Relations" <TVL.Customer-Relations@capita.co.uk> wrote:

Dear Blah,

Thank you for your email of 14 June 2013, which has been passed to me for reply and has been recorded under your reference blah blah. Please use this number if you wish to contact us again.

I am very sorry that we have not been able to resolve your enquiry to your satisfaction, and hopefully I can clarify the exact position now. I must also apologise for the fact that the advice you were given in our email of 13 June was incorrect, and I have now referred this error to the advisor’s manager for feedback and training.

You asked the following question:

“Is there any legal/lawful objection to a cash-strapped household taking a 1 year “TV Licence Fee Holiday” by simply switching off their fully functional TV and ensuring that, without exception, it remains switched off for a 12 month period, thereby spending the entire year never using it to watch or record live programming as it is broadcast?”

The answer in response is:

There is no objection to a household taking this decision. Legally, the ownership of a television receiver does not require a TV Licence. Therefore if you choose not to switch your television receiver on for twelve months, you do not need a TV Licence during that period. Under the Communications Act 2003, a TV Licence is only required to watch or record live television programmes.

I trust that this has provided a clear answer to your question.

I would also like to take this opportunity to explain why we always ADVISE people in these circumstances to disconnect the aerial and remove the TV set from a power source as a precautionary, NOT A MANDATORY, measure.

I appreciate that you requested that we do not mention TV Licensing Officers in our response. HOWEVER, in order to give as full an explanation as possible, I would like to clarify that the reason we give this advice is because IF a TV Licensing Officer WAS to visit an address and WAS permitted to enter, AND the officer WAS to see a television receiver connected to an aerial and a power source, he or she would have reason to SUSPECT the unlicensed use of a television receiver. This COULD be observed without attempting to turn on the television set. IN TURN, this COULD POTENTIALLY lead to a Court case where the Court MIGHT reasonably (?!) believe that a TV receiver set up ready for use, was SUFFICIENT evidence of licence evasion.

However, as you have quite rightly said, the option remains for a person to deny entry to a Licensing Officer.... Clearly, in this instance, a Licensing Officer would not be able to see the television receiver connected to an aerial and a power source.

I trust that this has provided the clarity that you required, and I would like to apologise again for any frustration caused due to the misleading information that you were given following your initial enquiry. Yours sincerely Etc

^^ That letter is on the TV Licence Resistance forums. I have CAPITALISED some of the words for my own amusement.

Hope it helps :)

This has been raised as an ICO complaint.

You might have problems with the ICO Mark.
The name "Mark" by itself is not a valid name for making a request.

As far as I am aware, I have complied with the requirements of FOIA. If the ICO decide otherwise, that'll be interesting.

The complaint to the ICO is in my full name, as required under their procedures.

The ICO has determined that the BBC must send this matter for Internal Review, to be reported upon within 20 working datys of 8/11/2013.

That is the most biased "Independant" review in favour of the BBC, that I have ever seen.
This is imprisonment of information - nothing less.

I need to take some time and read the lengthy reply.

From what I can see so far, a complaint to the ICO is probably not justified - if they do not have the information, they do not have it.

However, a complaint to the BBC Executive is looks more than justified.