I AM delighted to hear from Mr Warren Carr of TV?Licensing that Derek Probert's situation has now been resolved (Television licensing, October 12, 2011). However, I also understand that Mr. Probert's situation had been 'resolved' on a number of occasions prior to the article appearing so whether this actually stays resolved remains to be seen.

As my name was mentioned in Mr. Carr's letter, I looked for a contradiction of points I had raised. I don't recall suggesting that a licence is not required for watching TV programmes at the same time they are being broadcast so I don't see the relevance of that point to anything I had said. In fact, Mr Carr didn't refer to or address any of the points I had made in my letter. It was simply a PR kneejerk exercise in damage limitation because the article had appeared and a letter followed it up. Contrary to his opening statement, it was not in response to my letter at all.

Mr Carr states that a licence is required for watching programmes as they are being broadcast regardless of the equipment that is being used. True.

He adds that 'All our mailings make this very clear'. Er? Not exactly. The standard threatening letter (wash my mouth! I mean 'reminder') states that a licence is required for all TV broadcast

receiving equipment capable of receiving programmes as they are broadcast.

Now how clear is that? My computer is capable of receiving live broadcasts. Do I need a licence?

Actually, no. I don't need a licence for the computer. I need a licence if I choose to use it in order to watch live broadcasts. Slightly misleading.

The TVLA receive hundreds of letters on a daily basis complaining about the way in which these letters are worded. The most common objection is the fact that the letter seems to imply that, if you do not have a licence, you are watching TV illegally.

The letters make the assumption that you own a TV. The letter states that you can ignore the reminder 'if you have recently purchased a licence'.

It does not state that you can ignore it if you do not own a TV or watch live broadcasts.

Surely that should be the first thing to make absolutely clear.

The second most common complaint is the ambiguity of the letter that leaves many people wondering if they should have a licence or not.

There have been hundreds of repeated calls for the TVLA to adjust the wording on these letters in a way that removes the implied assumption of guilt and clarifies the ambiguities. The TVLA has consistently resisted making these changes. Why? Could the fact that hundreds of people purchase licences they don't need because they are intimidated by the threats on these letters have anything to do with it?

Letters of this nature can only be justified if sent specifically to addresses at which there are reasons to believe TV broadcasts are being received illegally. The fact that a licence is not issued to an address is not a reason to suspect that the householder is breaking the law. No other business would be allowed to operate in this way!

So, Mr Carr, if you wish to follow up on this, kindly only use my name if you intend to address any of the points I have raised. My advice would be, if you don't like letters of this nature, change the nature of your letters or put up with it just as we have to put up with yours.

– Ron Tocknell, Whitecross Road, Lydney.