Beware - TV License scam

Just don't go clicking on any links or open any attachments in the email. They have now put this message on their website:

Warning - refund email scam

A small number of our customers have received scam email messages saying they are due a refund. A link directs customers to a fake version of the official TV Licensing website which asks them to enter personal information and bank details.

If you receive a similar email message, please delete it. If you have already clicked the link, do not enter or submit any information. TV Licensing never sends refund information by email and is investigating the source of this fraud.

If you suspect an email might be from a scammer, do not click on any links or open any attachments in the email. Scammers may trick you into installing viruses or giving away your personal and bank details on a fake, fraudulent or scam website.

Here’s how to tell if an email you’ve received is genuine or a potential scam.

We will never:

email you to tell you that you’re entitled to a refund.

We will never:

email you to tell you that you’re entitled to a refund.

That's true.

i'm not sure what is the biggest scam- being forced by law to pay the bbc license tax for something you never watch or listen too and thus contribute to people you cannot stand the sight off or being scammed by this crew for having a tv license.

I resent paying extra for products to pay for advertising that annoys me even more, knot in wood.
I think I'm right in saying that the extra we pay for TV advertising is about 3 times more than the licence fee, it certainly used to be the case.

I'm listening to the radio now and will have BBC4 on later, probably.
Sky charges more than the BBC and still has advertising - largely for its own rubbish.

WHAT IS A TV LICENSE

You won't be getting a refund then!

studyform- i would gladly give the £140/150 to the nhs, i think we should have a choice.

why should i be forced to pay for something i never watch, leave them stand on their own too feet see how long they last.

that's my little rant over for today, let's pick some winners.

cardenden.... it's a bit like a licence

The tv licence is the scam.
Using whitehall to bully residents to pay the mob first so they can then pay to watch the sport the BBC sold off to fund dancing.

...and then overpaying for 'talent' on the basis there is fair competition between services.

knot in wood if you watch television and honestly don't ever watch the BBC then your viewing habits must be a pile of crap or more likely you are telling porkies and just want to integrate yourself with the anti BBC mob on here.

Woman on the telly defending the BBC.

She said the BBC must be value for money or so many people wouldn't choose to pay the licence fee to watch it.

That is called taking the pee.

The only reason it's cheaper than the likes of sky is that almost every household in the land is forced to pay the license fee, which adds up to quite a lot.

I've withheld the licence fee for years, I'll be damned if I'll pay those charlatans a penny. There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth at first in the form of threatening letters which got ever more aggressive. I ignored them all and refuse to let their bully boys anywhere near my property.

Haven't heard anything from them for ages. :)

My view on this subject is heavily coloured by the fact that I think the licence fee represents excellent value for money for the entire package.

I do understand the people who take a stance and claim that they do not pay, even though I do not agree with the action.  I do though firmly believe that the majority who claim the "I am not paying cos I never watch or listen to any of it" are telling very fatty porkies.

From the Telegraph - 24 Jan 2017 - With more than 180,000 people charged with not paying their licence fee each year, prosecutions currently account for around one in 10 of all criminal cases in England and Wales. More than 99 per cent of all those convicted receive a fine of up to £1,000, which nets the government almost £30 million a year.

Here's a plan for those who don't like the BBC.   Don't pay the licence fee, which goes virtually directly to the BBC.  Instead, get fined, and be reassured that your fine goes directly into government coffers, part of which will fund the NHS.

If 180,000 folks are charged each year, a rake of only £30,000,000 suggests that the majority don't pay the fine. Are those who are charged given the opportunity to pay the standard fee? And, if so, does this sum count towards that £30,000,000?

its a fine of up to £1k.  Presumably as many of them are skint and on benefits they get fined a small amount.

Dont forget the collection firm will get most of the money.

Pokerdane - do try to keep up.   The 180k folks is only those charged, not necessarily prosecuted, although you would expect the "success" rate to be high. Re the £1000 fine, note the quote says "up to". Apparently the £30m is a good number, according to the Telegraph. Hth

Blackburn: As I was making a general observation and a polite equiry for further information the "do try to keep up" and sarcastic "hth" were rather unnecessary, sir, but thank you anyway.

Blackbarn, not Blackburn. Sorry, autocorrect error.

I think you're underestimating the sheer number of smug, droning bores now employed by the BBC who are completely unwatchable. Attenborough, Brian Cox, Lineker, Toksvig, Balding, Fry, Dimbleby, Marr ... plus the dozen or so self-satisfied, middle-class, mindlessly swearing "comedy" panel show guests who circulate through every possible remaining hole in the schedule.

Apart from the Avengers/Capt. America films at Christmas, and Yeovil Town vs Man. Utd last week, I find it impossible to watch anything on their four channels. And having had to pay for it, I really do try. But the output seems targeted solely at making the people fronting it feel important and pleased with themselves.

Pokerdane - No prob with username and thanks for your courteous response.  My do try to keep up was given with a "wink", as I thought it was a simple set of numbers.  sorry!   No sarcasm intended with Hth, but perhaps I should be more cautious

Screaming - Perhaps you've described almost precisely where we differ  No not really, each to his own I guess.

No argument with "each to his own" at all. If you enjoy enough of the BBC output to want to pay for it, then be my guest. It's the bit about making ME pay for it which I find annoying.

Does no-one realise that the BBC has other streams of income than just the licence fee?

Every time you use a product that's been advertised on TV you're paying to watch the channel it's advertised on. There's still no choice.

Does no-one realise that the BBC has other streams of income than just the licence fee?

Of course we do. That's precisely one of the grievances. They sell the watchable stuff, which pays for itself. So a big "well done" to Jeremy Clarkson, Dr Who, etc., for making viable series, which also go towards also subsidizing plenty of other, unviable ones.

So where's the justification for then going on to tax every household in the country on top of that? It's a horrible tax, because it's completely regressive. You and I pay the same tax as wealthy, privileged viewers such as the Duke of Westminster or Jeremy Corbyn.

Re adverts, I have a choice of buying a heavily advertised product for one price, or a less advertised one for another, lower price. Unilever, for instance, spend a fortune on TV adverts, giving us all free viewing, yet if we can't or don't want to pay that, we can go to Lidl and pick up the same for less. Thus the wealthy subsidize the poor. In that sense TV advertising is a progressive tax.

Netflix doesnt have adverts.

That's rather written to suit your point rather than to prove it, screaming.
For one thing, Lidl advertise the same as every other supermarket.
The wealthy - as in most things certainly do not subsidise the poor. In fact a majority of TV advertising is aimed at C2 D and E now... The poor!

I listen to BBC Radio, look at BBC weather, watch BBC TV - probably as much as most people. Mostly though, I HATE adverts, they're annoying, invasive, too many and whether you'd care to admit it or not, more expensive than the TV licence. As is a SKY or Virgin subscription.

You don't have much choice in what is purchased unless you know everything you buy or use isn't advertised on TV. It's an idea to boycott Unilever, Proctor and Gamble, every bank, every supermarket. Therefore viewing is not free. We just don't get charged an amount we can see.

I also think it immensely unlikely that everyone who moans about the BBC doesn't watch or use it. Probably more than they use Sky at about £30 a month + Ads.

Personally I don't listen to BBC radio, on account of being deaf. But I still have to pay a proportion of my TV licence so you can enjoy it. I never look at BBC weather, because it's several hours behind the information posted on the UK Met Office site.

You (and others) are really wrong when you state that Sky subscribers are somehow deluded if we claim to watch hardly anything on the four BBC channels any longer. I can easily list everything I've watched over the last 12 months:

SS-GB - and I only persisted with that out of a fondness for the novel; the BBC adaptation was a painfully missed opportunity, and turned an atmospheric and thought-provoking book into a bit of a laugh;

Two documentary series, each of three programmes, on French and Dutch art, on BBC 4 - very good, as was the same presenter's one-off programme on art theft (Andrew Graham-Dixon);

The Avengers: Age of Ultron film over Christmas - had to pause it a few times to put the kettle on / have a leak - could have done with some adverts;

Yeovil Town vs Man. Utd, on account of not being able to make it to the match.

And that is it. The lot, in 12 months. If you don't believe me, take a look at the list of faces I posted above, who all make me surf straight onto the next channel. What else could there be on BBC TV which I would actually watch? Dongs of Praise?

I subscribe to sky too. All I said about it was that it is much more expensive than the BBC.
Do you think it fair to say that most people use the BBC more than you do.
I'd say, for most, in general, more time is spent on the BBC than on Sky.
I'm sorry you can't hear the radio - some of it is OK.
We're all different in what we want to see on TV, my entire point is that we all have to pay for all we watch and in actual fact the BBC costs less than the other channels.

Maybe some of my wasted Sky subscription pays for some of your Sky viewing.

No doubt.

But there are two big differences between a Sky sub and a BBC one: one is that I can choose to pay a different sub according to which menu I need or want; and the other is that if Kay Burley, Jamie Redknapp, those adverts with that Trivago girl, and everything else that's annoying about Sky telly get on my nerves too much, I can just cancel the sub, and that's the end of the matter. It's up to the Sky shareholders to insist their firm offers better content, if they want my money in future.

What they can't do, is send Rupert Murdoch round to my place to check whether there's a dish outside, and, if there is, take me to court and get me fined £1,000. And forced to renew my Sky sub as well.

Anyone being caught out by such Scams , Needs to stop using  any email accounts Immediately .....

Banks Hmrc Etc are regular ,Very easy to spot as 1 their Address is Wrong 2  No one is emailing about refunds .. EVER .

First giveaway in the opening post was "dear customer" - unfortunately some people will be caught out by it.

Loads of scams on the go. Every top company used. Amazon. Argos, Sainsury and etc etc from the shopping world.
Hover over name as most use any old combination of letters in the addy howewver others do use addys very similar to the real thing.
I never open links from any e-mail and go on site to respond/see offer etc.