Beating TV Licensing at their own game
It is a bit late to reject a contract when you have already been enjoying the service!
The latest in my long saga with bullying and corrupt TV Licensing in the UK is above. Their usual method of operation is to grind people down who interact with them, since it is a joyless activity. I have “flipped the script” and presented them with a fee schedule for bullying me, so that at least it is a profitable activity. They keep making use of my correspondence services — yet deny we have a contract. Their need to have the last word (to keep a position of dominance) is their undoing. We must have a contract, since they are insistent upon writing to me even when I ask them not to!
Here is my draft response for your amusement.
You have now written correspondence to me on four occasions when I have asked for no further contact:
• A long unsolicited policy discussion on the nature of licensing televisions in the UK and your strong desire to correspond in a threatening way with the public.
• An unsolicited form letter breaking my “no contact” request (but acknowledging withdrawal of implied right of access) with a false assertion about me making a statement about whether or not I need a television license.
• Another unsolicited policy discussion on public correspondence that referenced my offer to contract.
• A further unsolicited letter containing a false assertion about me making a statement about not needing a television license.
I simply wrote to you on 25th September 2022 requesting that you cease all contact, but if you do contact me that a schedule of fees applies. At every stage I have made it clear that I do not wish to be contacted, that further contact is deemed to be harassment, and that any additional contact is subject to my schedule of fees for unwanted correspondence.
As a matter of principle, I am purposely not making any statement whatsoever about television licensing at my address — since none is lawfully required from me. I merely note that the whole subject is of no interest to me personally. Your most recent letter forces me to respond once more, since it contains a false statement. When you send me false assertions that put words into my mouth then I am obliged to respond so that they do not become fact.
If you imply that you will override my common law rights then that also demands rebuttal. That we are corresponding at all is due to you seeking my correspondence services. No objection was made to my terms within 21 days, and two letters were received from you without any objection to my terms. I have made it abundantly clear that all you had to do in order to cease payment was to cease corresponding — as originally asked — which you have ignored once again.
That you have done the exact opposite of what I requested, indeed on a continual basis, shows that there was a meeting of minds, and that you have accepted my commercial terms. It is no different to walking into a barber shop (with a price list on the wall) and getting a hair cut, then claiming there was no contract, so nothing is owed. Or even walking into a solicitor’s office, asking for law advice, and be shocked at the bill being presented. (I expect your own solicitors would be most unamused if you pulled this trick.)
The material facts indicate that we do have a contract for correspondence, since you do not deny that I made my terms clear, and of your own volition continually choose to make use of my letter receipt and writing service. If you did not wish to agree to my terms you only had to do nothing. That you do something, over and over and over and over again, demonstrates a clear intent to contract with me.
Furthermore, it is well established law that in the case of trespass that a clear schedule of fees is a valid enforceable contract. This is the case here — I have withdrawn the right of access and requested no contact, so this is trespass. There is no requirement for me to demonstrate loss. Nor am I charging for my time or expenses, as you wrongly assert. My fees are for my (considerable) skill in reading, analysing, and appropriately responding to unwanted correspondence under conditions of trespass and harassment.
As a matter of service to the general public I am consulting to you. I am helping you to understand the burdens you are placing on other people who do not wish to correspond with you. In the case of the majority, who are unwise enough to interact at no charge, they merely take on this deadweight loss of dealing with your unsolicited commercial offers and advances. I am attaching a financial cost to that general harm, and while you may not appreciate the value I offer, it is being delivered exactly according to your own desires — under contract.
Please find attached my latest invoice for £750, bring the total due to £3000 to date. There will be a small claims court case to recover this debt if unpaid. We have a valid contract, albeit an unusual one, and you have no good reason to contest this in court. If you don’t want to pay for my commercial service, then please don’t use it any further! It is that simple.
For the avoidance of doubt, unsolicited correspondence about our contract itself also falls under our contract for unwanted correspondence. I have a 100% detection rate for unwanted correspondence from TV Licensing. So the best option is just to pay now to avoid further investigations, visits, or costly court action.
I will go to court, which will cost them thousands of pounds in fees, and I am guaranteed a fun day out. Up to £10k there is no risk of costs, and who knows, I might get an honest judge that recognises they are big boys, should have paid attention to my terms up front, and have to give me a little windfall for my efforts.
Isn’t it fun to turn the tables on these bullies who help to fund genocidal propaganda?
Future of Communications is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.