cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Cliff Richard Court Case

Community Veteran
Posts: 19,366
Thanks: 456
Registered: ‎12-08-2007

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case

Like a lot of others on here I don't pay for my TV licence anymore but am always surprised at the whingers who complain at the £150 yearly fee. That works out at around 40p a day. It's worth it for the News coverage alone.

.

Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case

I pay for mine by monthly DD and as @artmo says it's worth every penny, and when you have content like the Horizon documentary on Jupiter I see nothing to grumble about ...

 

... well maybe EastEnders.

 

Jonpe
Aspiring Hero
Posts: 2,898
Thanks: 1,057
Fixes: 9
Registered: ‎05-09-2016

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case

@Mayfly "Fining large companies does nothing but put the burden on the customer in most cases."

The bad publicity can in some cases turn large companies into small, or even non-existent, companies.  The bosses, I suspect, just move on to other large companies.

Community Veteran
Posts: 4,047
Thanks: 532
Fixes: 7
Registered: ‎05-04-2007

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case

I don't do the Direct Debit thing, but like the license fee itself that is a scam too isn't it anyway?

Don't they take out your current license in the first six months, the your next one in advance. So you're essentially paying in advance for it. Something like that I believe.

Someone told me, and I remember reading about it.

Mind you I can't talk I pay £80 per month for Sky, so I paying to watch adverts and repeats of old programmes. So that is even better value for money :rolleyes:

Community Veteran
Posts: 19,478
Thanks: 2,394
Fixes: 30
Registered: ‎06-11-2007

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case


@Alex wrote: so I paying to watch adverts and repeats of old programmes. So that is even better value for money :rolleyes:

Indirectly,... us "normal" people, who don`t subscribe to sky, virgin, et al... we are still paying to watch adverts, and repeats of old programmes... :angry:

 

Anonymous
Not applicable

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case

@Alex, if what you say is correct and I think you may be then as the Smith’s once said “What difference does it make?”. That would then mean you could watch TV for 6 months without paying should you stop buying one, for what ever reason.

Community Veteran
Posts: 19,366
Thanks: 456
Registered: ‎12-08-2007

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case

@Alex wrote:

I don't do the Direct Debit thing, but like the license fee itself that is a scam too isn't it anyway

 

Why are DDs a scam? I find them very convenient. I don't understand how you think the licence fee is a scam. At £150 it's good value for money.

.

Community Veteran
Posts: 4,047
Thanks: 532
Fixes: 7
Registered: ‎05-04-2007

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case

The difference is when it makes is that when you’re paying an extortion racket like the TV licensing, is you’re paying for 24 months of a service over a year rather than 12.

Multiplied by the number of people who choose to do it, that is a nice bit of extra interest in their bank.
Community Veteran
Posts: 19,366
Thanks: 456
Registered: ‎12-08-2007

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case

Maybe you should check your facts.

Community Veteran
Posts: 4,047
Thanks: 532
Fixes: 7
Registered: ‎05-04-2007

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case

Not that I needed to, but a quick Google comes up with the following:

Spread the cost with a Direct Debit. Pay for your first licence by Direct Debit in six months, at around £25.10 a month. Then pay for the next one in monthly instalments of around £12.56. Make four Direct Debit payments throughout the year.

So you don't need a mathmatics degree to work out you are paying:

(25.10 x 6) + (12.56 x 4?) I assume that's what it means, though it is not clear so:

£200.84?

So £200.84 > £150.50.

£50 nice bit of interest x the number of victims who have to pay it.

Community Veteran
Posts: 19,366
Thanks: 456
Registered: ‎12-08-2007

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case

Well done! But how is that paying for 24 months in 12?

.

Community Veteran
Posts: 4,047
Thanks: 532
Fixes: 7
Registered: ‎05-04-2007

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case

Fair enough, I stand corrected about my 24 month comment.

If I could be bothered, and Lithium would show the full post history of what you're replying to not just the last one I would work out the percentage.

Maybe there is an option to change that, will look into it.

You're still paying more in advance though, that's my point. If I have to pay a tax per month in for a year I expect it to be divided into 12. Yes I know the TV Tax people aren't the only ones who do it, car insurance charge you extra to compensate for the interest they are not making by charging you extra paying monthly and not annually.

BT twist it the other way, by saying "Line Rental Saver" to pretend they're not actually charging you extra for paying in advance. They're actually giving you a discount for getting your money early, rather than penalising you for spreading the cost.

Same business model.

Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 19,984
Thanks: 3,617
Fixes: 389
Registered: ‎06-04-2007

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case

I have recently moved and currently no longer require a licence.

 

I contacted Licencing and got the outstanding pre-paid months' fees returned to my bank account. They don't repay part month, though.

Forum Moderator and Customer
Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear - Mark Twain
He who feared he would not succeed sat still

Community Veteran
Posts: 4,047
Thanks: 532
Fixes: 7
Registered: ‎05-04-2007

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case

Yes @Mav

Whilst I am on my soapbox (sorry mods forgive me a bit!), reminds me of one other thing.

When I moved out from my parents in 2006, it was something like the 20th June. So I did the right thing and paid the TV Tax.

So when did it expire? I was thinking it should last a year, hence 19th June 2007. Nope.

It runs out on the end of May .. so where have my 19 days gone then?

What a scam, if it wasn't government and any other business you paid for 12 months of 'service' (I say that loosely as with the TV Tax people, all they do is send out nasty letters and have no powers to actually do anything).

Still if you paid any other business for 12 months of something, and they actually offered 11 and a bit months you could take them to the Trade Descriptions Act I would assume.

Ok will try to calm down now :smiley:

Jonpe
Aspiring Hero
Posts: 2,898
Thanks: 1,057
Fixes: 9
Registered: ‎05-09-2016

Re: Cliff Richard Court Case

Yes, @Alex, I bought my first TV just before Christmas (1977 I think it was) and duly went to the PO to get a licence (£21 in those days).  It expired 30th November the following year, so - like you - I paid for the whole of the month in which I bought the TV.  I got the last laugh though because for many years thereafter the annual increase would be announced in November, and if your licence expired at the end of that month, you got it at the old price for the following year provided you renewed it by midnight on the day the increase was announced.