TV Licensing wrongly accused an 89-year-old woman in West Yorkshire of watching BBC iPlayer without a licence, despite her television not even being connected to an aerial, consumer columnist Sally Hamilton has revealed.
The reader, identified only as D.O., told Hamilton's Sally Sorts It column that she does not know what iPlayer looks like, does not watch live television, and only uses her set to view DVDs and videos.
It is illegal to watch or record live television on any channel, or to use BBC iPlayer in any form, without a TV licence, which costs £180 a year or £60.50 for a black and white set. Viewers who only watch on-demand services such as Netflix and never tune into live broadcasts are exempt, but on-demand viewing through iPlayer still requires a licence.
Householders do not have to declare that they do not need a licence, but making a 'no licence needed' (NLN) declaration, which can be done online and typically lasts 24 months, helps stop repeat reminder letters. An estimated 3.7 million residential and business premises have made such a declaration. Properties that have not registered as NLN can receive reminders as often as once a month, with the wording growing increasingly threatening and warning of possible visits from enforcement officers and fines of up to £1,000, or £2,000 for residents of Guernsey.
D.O.'s family arranged her NLN declaration a couple of years ago because she was anxious about technology and wanted to end the stream of reminder letters. She was relieved when the letters stopped, but recently TV Licensing wrote again to say it suspected she had been watching iPlayer, which left her deeply unsettled.
How the mix-up was traced
D.O. told Hamilton she watches only her own collection of DVDs and video cassettes, including old episodes of the Western series Bonanza and the comedies Cheers and Sgt. Bilko, and gets her news from two radios, one tuned to BBC Radio 4 and the other to the World Service, neither of which requires a licence.
Hamilton asked whether D.O. had any visitors and learned that her daughter calls round regularly, raising the possibility that she had logged into iPlayer on her phone while there. Even so, since the daughter holds her own licence, that alone should not have caused a problem.
At Hamilton's request, TV Licensing investigated and, after speaking with D.O., found the real explanation: a relative who manages her NLN declaration uses the same email address to sign into their own iPlayer account, which triggered the alert. There was no suggestion the relative had accessed iPlayer inside D.O.'s home.
A TV Licensing spokesperson said: "We have spoken with your reader and clarified the circumstances surrounding the NLN declaration. A review was prompted after activity suggested that licensable content may have been accessed from the property. Having established the relevant facts, we can confirm that the NLN declaration remains in place."
D.O. can now return to watching her favourite shows without fear of further reminder letters.
World Cup bet dispute with Coral
In a separate case, a reader from Warlingham, Surrey, identified as P.S., contacted Hamilton after the bookmaker Coral refused to pay out on a £10 bet that Spain would win the football World Cup final.
Her husband placed the bet at a local Coral shop, with the slip reading "Spain to win World Cup final." When Spain went on to win, Coral refused to pay because the team had not won inside the first 90 minutes of normal time, a restriction that P.S. said was never explained when the bet was placed and did not appear on the slip.
Spain won 1-0 in the second half of extra time, meaning the standard match result bet, which covers only the 90-minute outcome, was void.
P.S. complained to Coral's customer services but was told staff had followed rules displayed in the shop. Coral confirmed the bet had been accepted on the match result market, a standard wager in football and rugby betting for games that can go to extra time, priced at 23/20. A win would have paid £21.70 including the stake.
P.S. had not realised there was a separate market, "Spain to lift the trophy," which covers extra time and penalties and was priced at 4/7, offering winnings of £15.71 including the stake.
After Hamilton raised the case, Coral agreed as a goodwill gesture to honour the bet under the trophy market, and P.S. can now collect £15.71. The shop has been reminded to make the difference between the two markets clearer to customers unfamiliar with betting.
A Coral spokesman said: "While the bet was settled correctly under the applicable market rules, we recognise why the customer feels the distinction between the two markets may not have been sufficiently clear from the wording on the slip, particularly for someone who only places occasional bets on major sporting events."
Other complaints resolved
A couple whose easyJet flight from Madeira to Liverpool was cancelled in April due to strong winds were rebooked onto a flight to Bristol instead and told to arrange their own accommodation and claim the cost back later. Reader T.M. said easyJet had reimbursed only half the expenses and refused to compensate for the cancellation itself. easyJet told Hamilton the original claim had mistakenly been submitted for one passenger rather than both, and it has now paid the remaining reimbursement along with a goodwill gesture.
Reader J.W. bought a full kitchen from Ikea in 2019. When the fridge freezer developed a fault under warranty, Ikea replaced it with a different model, but the replacement then developed a similar fault and was declared unrepairable by the manufacturer. Ikea initially said the five year warranty had expired, based on the original purchase date, but J.W. pointed out the replacement unit was under two years old. Ikea apologised for the confusion and has offered a refund or a replacement.
Reader M.U., from Essex, booked a hotel in Sicily through Booking.com in June and paid in euros but was charged twice. Booking.com refunded the incorrect transaction, but currency exchange rates and fees on it left M.U. £68.43 in debt, and customer service messaging insisted the bank statements were wrong. Booking.com has since emailed M.U. to confirm the extra charges have been credited to the account.
