Undercover with TVL - an analysis

The investigation

An undercover investigation into TV Licensing was carried out by the the Mail Online and published on their website in February of 2017. A reporter attended an interview for the role of TV Licence Inspector and was interviewed by Area Manager Ian Doyle. The video footage was extremely revealing.

The undercover reporter asked numerous key questions throughout the interview and many of Doyle’s answers about how TVL conducts itself and its general attitude towards members of the public were somewhat troubling.

Why are we reviewing this story again now in 2020? The issue of the TV licence fee has never been so prevalent after the events of the last few months, where the BBC has lurched from one public relations disaster to the next in quick succession. Now is a very good time to take another look at the tactics used by TVL in collecting the licence fee.

Below is the video footage that was recorded during the interview. In this article we’ll break down what was said and examine the relevant statements in detail. I’ll be calling upon my own professional experience of law enforcement and technical knowledge to analyse some important points.

What actually is TVL?

To answer that question, I’ll refer to Wikipedia:-

TV Licensing is simply a brand or a badge used by the BBC for Capita PLC, the company it hires to collect the licence fee. The BBC has a duty to appoint a suitable company to collect the TV Licence fee and is, therefore, at least somewhat accountable for the actions of Capita PLC and Area Managers such as Ian Doyle.

The TVL commission system

With Doyle’s very first statement in the video, the main problem with Capita becomes blatantly obvious.

“We will drive you as hard as we can to get as much as we can out of you, because we’re greedy.”

To place the power to prosecute members of the public in the hands of what amounts to commission driven salesmen was, in my opinion, a disaster waiting to happen. It was only a matter of time before an unsuspecting member of Capita slipped up and let the cat out of the bag. And Doyle most certainly slipped up here in catastrophic fashion.

Police officers have the power to carry out criminal prosecutions but are carefully selected and intensively trained before being allowed anywhere near members of the public. They wear an easily recognisable uniform and spend a significant period on probation in the company of experienced officers before being regarded as fully trained and qualified.

Police training involves in-depth study of the law and interviewing skills, complex role play and mock courtrooms that encourage high standards. This process also exposes any weaknesses or undesirable character traits in trainee officers. Officer training continues after passing through police training school and for a good while after they are first sent out on division.

It’s extremely worrying that civilians can be plucked from the street, given training that falls far short of the standards expected of a police officer and set loose on the public in plain clothes with the power to prosecute for criminal offences. Police officers have to spend a fair amount of time in uniform before they are allowed to serve in a permanent plain clothes role.

Worst still though is the fact that such individuals are set to work on commission, where their pay is at least in part related to the number of successful convictions they can secure.

What we see in this video, with Doyle’s aggressive attitude to members of the public and his hard sell of the TVL commission scheme to prospective TV Licence Inspectors was apparently endemic throughout Capita’s TV licence collections department at the time this investigation was carried out by the Daily Mail. This assumption is supported by numerous accounts of disturbing encounters with TV Licence Inspectors by members of the public, many on film within the public domain.

It would appear to anybody watching the Daily Mail video that the entire Capita TV licence collection operation was run on greed, commission and profit. If Doyle’s attitude was typical then it is the kind of system that actively creates the perfect conditions for abuses of power, undue coercion of suspects and potentially the manufacturing of evidence in order to hit sales targets to make more money.

To quote Doyle…

“You can only get the sale with a conviction statement, so basically you’ve got to take 28 conviction statements before you can start hitting extra money.”

Linking convictions directly to pay is a toxic policy, particularly where TV Licence Inspectors might be under any pressure at home to make more money or possibly be struggling with significant debts. Ending up in significant debt is a disciplinary offence for a police officer. This is unlikely so for TV Licence Inspectors.

Negative conditioning of trainees

Doyle made clear all the way through this interview what his feelings and attitudes were towards his job and towards members of the public. Where he was in a senior managerial role, this is a good indication that such attitudes featured strongly in basic training and throughout the organisation.

Particularly alarming was this statement from Doyle…

“You get signed off and then that’s it. You’re out on your own in the cold wet London streets, attacking poor and unsuspecting villains, for want of a better phrase.”

All the way through the interview, it appears that the candidate is being conditioned to believe the following:-

• That the job of TV Licence Inspector is all about money and commission. Not once did he mention job satisfaction or any idea of performing a public service.

• That inspectors should get with the TVL mindset of being greedy and securing convictions for maximum profit.

• That on the whole, people are liars and criminals to be “attacked”. There was not one mention of people who legally watch on-demand only TV without a licence.

• That defendants entering a not guilty plea are an inconvenience, more easily dealt with because of magistrates who are, according to Doyle, often inappropriately friendly to TVL.

• That obtaining a search warrant equates to a guaranteed conviction on every occasion.

Here again we can use the example of the police force to make a stark contrast and an important point. Were modern police officers found to be sharing the same attitudes expressed by Doyle about members of the public or the criminal justice system there would be outrage, and rightly so.

Just imagine the reaction if police officers were suddenly offered generous commission payments according to the number of convictions they could secure?

It would never be allowed so why are these low standards and and policies which actively invite abuses of power tolerated by politicians and the general public?

How did we end up here?

Most of us know of and understand the reasons and history behind the TV licence. However, we find ourselves living in times of far more choice when it comes to TV entertainment being offered by numerous live and on-demand content providers. The media and technological landscape generally has changed beyond all recognition.

The BBC is unique in the way in which it funds itself. The inherent problem with live TV in the UK as it stands is that people cannot be cut off from the service using the same methods employed by utility companies and providers of internet and encrypted satellite entertainment services.

For decades, the BBC has felt compelled to enforce the licence fee through campaigns which seek to instil fear of prosecution for failing to comply. It has had to effectively monitor and spy on the general population to try to ensure that citizens are not watching live TV or BBC iPlayer without a licence.

The BBC is the only supplier of a domestic service that can prosecute its customers and land them with a criminal conviction, simply for refusing to pay for their service. The main reason that the BBC needs to hand out criminal convictions in order to survive is that it has failed to modernise and encrypt the TV signal which would have enabled it to fund itself through subscription.

Being delivered over the internet, BBC iPlayer could easily have been presented as an additional subscription service. However, the BBC rejected this option and chose instead to lump it in with their live TV offering, enforcing payment through the same archaic and draconian collection process.

Because of an apparent refusal to change with the times, the BBC has become an anachronism in modern day Britain. Whereas people may not have liked but understood the logic behind the TV licence when it was first introduced, we have long since passed the stage where it makes any sense to an increasingly larger section of the general public.

More and more people and politicians are starting to openly questions the moral, democratic and practical justification for the TV licence. These views are liable to continue growing exponentially and many are now voting with their feet by cancelling their TV licence.

Reform of the collection process

Has any significant reform of the licence fee collection system been implemented since the Daily Mail investigation? That’s debatable.

Back in 2017, after publication of the Doyle video tapes, Andy Parker stepped down as the head of Capita PLC in response to the scandal. Lord Hall, the then Director General of the BBC insisted that an investigation would take place and that remedial action would be taken. There is also some suggestion that Doyle was fired, although so far we have been unable to confirm this.

Ian Doyle was not a rogue, junior member of staff, he was a senior Area Manager for Capita PLC in charge of candidate selection and with at least some involvement in training. It’s stretching the imagine somewhat to suggest that his views and general attitude were not typical of the general culture across Capita’s TV Licence collection operation.

It is now claimed that commission is only paid in relation to TV licence “sales”, not prosecutions. However, when salesmen are also charged with the duty of prosecuting the same householders it’s difficult to see how the two roles could be realistically separated. This being the case, one might fairly assume that the potential for abuses of power still exist.

The implications for law abiding non TV licence payers

I have nothing to offer here for people who intentionally break the law. Whether I agree with the law or not, anybody who breaks the law as it stands knows they are taking a risk and must bear the consequences if caught and prosecuted.

My main concern is for people who genuinely do not require a TV licence and make a formal declaration to TVL to that effect. These are honest people who know the rules and play by them in regard to their viewing habits. They do not view or record live TV or BBC iPlayer.

When people do legally cancel their TV licence they are told they will not be bothered by TV Licensing for two years but that they might get a visit from a TV Licence Inspector to check that their TV equipment is legally compliant.

There is a problem here though because since the release of the Ian Doyle tapes, many people now distrust TV Licensing and Capita and see them as commission fuelled predators, intent on securing convictions at any cost in order to enhance their bank balance. One could hardly blame people for having this impression of them after some of the statements uttered in the undercover video.

In law, a member of the public is under no obligation whatsoever to talk to a TV Licence Inspector on the doorstep or to allow them access into their homes or places of business.

Furthermore, when a person is surprised on their own doorstep by an announced visit from TV Licensing, they have none of the usual safeguards that would usually be afforded them during a formal interview under caution at a police station. Namely, recording of the interview by an approved audio device and the presence of a legal representative.

I will not advise others what to do in the same situation but I am at liberty to give my own opinion as somebody who has professional experience of law enforcement.

I would most definitely decline to engage in any conversation with TV Licensing on my doorstep, even were I confident that I was not in any way breaking the law. This is partly as a result of what I saw of Ian Doyle’s conduct in the Daily Mail investigation video into Capita.

Nor would I voluntarily allow a TV Licence Inspector onto my property without a verified search warrant, particularly now being aware of the apparently negative corporate culture at Capita and when I know that they’re on commission.

However, simply for exercising my rights as a citizen and declining as such to comment or allow TVL onto my property, it would appear from the statements made by Doyle that TVL policy would be to continue to harass me. In the event of my continual refusal of an interview or to provide voluntary access to my property I would then apparently be made the subject of an application for a search warrant.

Given the situation I have just described, were a warrant to be issued then where would be the evidence that I was viewing or recording live TV or BBC iPlayer? It would merely be an unsubstantiated assumption on the part of the TV Licence Inspector and no more. How in these circumstances could it be possible to offer the evidence required to secure a search warrant from a magistrate?

This is a fundamentally important question because we are concerned here with members of the public potentially having their homes entered and searched without evidence, purely on the unsubstantiated hunch of a disgruntled TV Licence Inspector.

I have no doubt that law abiding members of the public are having warrants served against them merely for refusing to cooperate with TV Licensing because of a lack of trust. This does not necessarily mean that they are are being evasive or trying to conceal evidence of a criminal offence.

One could hardly blame people for not wanting to talk to TV Licensing or voluntarily allow them into their homes after the cynical and cavalier attitude on display in the Daily Mail undercover video. A video which potentially millions of British people will have either watched for themselves or heard about.

Here is another extract of the conversation between the undercover reporter and Ian Doyle. The reporter asks what happens when a householder says they don’t watch TV and then refuses entry when requested. Doyle says the following:-

Doyle’s comment above is frankly outrageous. He appears to be suggesting that a search warrant would be issued simply because a citizen had exercised their right of silence and also their right to refuse entry without a warrant. Once again, where is the specific evidence that any offence has been committed in the scenario described by Doyle?

If search warrants are being issued in such circumstances then something is very wrong and this needs looking into further by the appropriate authorities. Who is monitoring Capita PLC in its collection of the TV licence fee? It sounds very much as though it is a law unto itself.

Again, I draw a comparison between TV Licensing and the police force. Police officers would never get away with obtaining a search warrant merely because a suspect refused a voluntary interview and refused entry to their home. On its own, this would never be regarded as being enough evidence to obtain a search warrant.

I have always supported the police and other agencies such as the council in carrying out the job they are paid to do and my level of trust in them is high. It is in my nature to always cooperate with the police and assist officers in maintaining law and order for the greater good of society.

However, when I look at the methods of collection and the attitude I see from individuals such as Doyle, I cannot honestly say the same thing about TV Licensing. It alarms me that vulnerable and elderly people may be being exposed to this kind of unwarranted harassment. Particularly now that free TV licences have been withdrawn from the over-75s.

It surprises me little that the vast majority of people prosecuted by TVL are either women or the less well off. Judging from the statistics, these are people that TV Licence Inspectors appear to view as soft targets and particularly susceptible to their apparently overbearing methods of enforcement. On average, a worryingly disproportionate 70% of TVL convictions involve women.

In conclusion

Back in 2017, Ian Doyle unwittingly blew the lid off of Capita’s TV licence operation, revealing a dark world where greed rules, commission is king and where members of the public without a TV licence are to be viewed as breaking the law by default and judicially “attacked”.

We are told that action was taken in response to the undercover tapes but from all that is currently known, the pay of TV Licence Inspectors is still at least in part commission based.

I still have the same reservations I had back in 2017 about the inadequacies of the TV licence collection system as a whole and the handing of these types of criminal investigations to non-police agencies that do not wear an instantly recognisable uniform.

How could any right thinking person possibly look at the way the BBC is funded and honestly say that it was a fair and acceptable system in today’s world of multiple TV providers?

As a nation, Britain is now way past the time when it was even remotely acceptable for the BBC to levy a tax on every household and extract it from the public through fear based, authoritarian means. Surely this is not the way we want to treat the British people; nor does it paint us in a good light to other nations where successful media companies are conquering the world with web delivered, on-demand content through free enterprise.

We live in age where the rights of the citizen are respected and upheld in just about every way possible, except when it comes to the BBC, democratic freedom of choice and the right of innocent people to be free of undue pressure and harassment in their own homes for simply watching television content of their own choice.

The TV licence system is now entirely incompatible with the growing number of people who choose to exercise their legal right not to pay for a TV licence, not to watch or record live TV or BBC iPlayer and instead view content from non-BBC, on-demand providers such as Netflix and Amazon Prime.

These people are law abiding citizens and should not be made to suffer stress, harassment and victimisation for simply going about their business in their own homes.

The marketplace is still moving rapidly away from live TV towards web delivered on-demand services. It is not acceptable for this situation to be allowed to continue unchecked for the best part of a decade until 2027 when the BBC charter is next up for renewal.

I would encourage anybody reading this article to forward it to their MPs and ask them what they think about the above observations on the way in which TV Licence fee collection is currently carried out.

Hopefully, politicians will start recognising the serious shortcomings of the TV licence collection system in the context of the modern media market and move to make significant and meaningful reforms at the earliest available opportunity.

Further reading:-

If you want more information on the Daily Mail undercover operation then see the articles below:-

• Daily Mail: BBC’s TV licence bullies are exposed

• Daily Mail: TV licences boss is forced to quit his £3m-a-year job

• The Guardian: BBC orders investigation into claims of aggressive TV licence enforcement

Share this article

Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on LinkedIn

Comment on Facebook