TV Licensing must stop prosecuting people in genuine hardship

How do so many women have a conviction for TV licence fee evasion

Part of the problem is that Court reforms aimed at reducing the burden on magistrates have moved much of the process online and to the post service in a controversial system called the Single Justice Procedure (you can read our briefing on this here). This process allows someone to be convicted of a criminal offence without even knowing they are being prosecuted. In fact, 80% of people do not respond to their charges, which normally results in an automatic conviction.

Impact of a TV Licensing conviction

Not only can a criminal conviction come up in a background check for certain jobs or mortgage applications, it can land you in prison if you do not pay your fines. As hard as it is to believe, we still have the Dickensian practice of debtor’s prison going on right under our noses.

Research in 2020 from Women Against Rape also found that hundreds of women who are victims of rape and sexual assault are being denied compensation as a result of minor criminal convictions such as this.

Who are the women behind the numbers?

In 2020 Women’s Justice Caseworker Tara observed a number of TV licensing prosecutions in magistrates’ courts and spoke to many women facing prosecution. Here are some of their stories. Please note that names have been changed to protect anonymity.

Erica
Erica was visited and interviewed by a TV Licence Enquiry Officer (EO) when she was moving back to permanent accommodation from temporary accommodation, literally while she had boxes in her hand. She said that she had always paid her TV licence but she had not been notified when she had to renew. Erica bought a TV licence when the EO called to her house. She thought that was the end of the matter but months later she received a letter saying she had been convicted and owed over £300. The original notice had been sent to her temporary accommodation address and she had not received it.

Fiona
Fiona had difficulties breathing due to health problems. Because she was in hospital over the last Christmas period, she fell behind on TV licensing payments and was visited by an EO while at home recovering. Her carers were interviewed and confirmed that she had health problems. Despite her obvious vulnerabilities, she was summoned to court. She was very nervous going before the magistrates, as she was worried about being without her carers. The fact that a woman who was known to have significant health problems was required to come to court when there are alternatives to prosecution, indicates a seriously flaw in prosecution policies and decision making.

Amy
Amy had experienced a number of hardships in recent years. A member of her family had passed away, whose funeral she had to pay for. She suffered from crippling migraines yet could not afford to take the time off her 6-day work week to rest. She sent much of her money to her ill parent who lives abroad, who she cannot afford to visit. Amy was adamant that she was not in violation of the law regarding TV licensing. She was convinced that a mistake had been made when she switched her method of payment from direct debit to the simple payment plan. She had lots of paperwork with her to show the dates on which she had paid and how this matched up with when she was supposedly ‘interviewed’ by an enquiry officer. Amy said an EO had called to her house but she had not let him inside. She said that he asked her to sign a piece of paper to show that he had visited, but he had not explained that it was the ‘Record of Interview’ document that forms the primary piece of evidence against a person in a TVL case. She said that she was not cautioned about her rights before this was done, as is required by TV licensing policy. Despite being sure of her innocence, she pleaded guilty to the charge, as the prosecutor advised her that this was the best way to avoid the large cost orders associated with going to trial.