I reply to your recent enquiry . I do not require a television licence, and wish to state that I object strongly to the implication that I am one of those who require a search of their homes in order to satisfy your organization that they not lying to you and are in fact not breaking the law.

I appreciate your difficult position in this matter. It is not my intention to stop any investigations that you may wish to conduct regarding TV Licence evasion, however as I do not require a Licence, I do not expect to be repeatedly disturbed in the privacy of my home by unsolicited visits. I feel that it is reasonable for you to conduct any investigations using other means.
I was sure that in cases where you suspected people of breaking the Law you would use your very sophisticated, accurate and highly publicised detection equipment to avoid troubling those who are not breaking the Law.
I can see, by your letter that this is not the case, and you not only intend to continue to send insulting and accusatory letters, but also intend to continue to disturb me in my home with unnecessary visits. I must point out that there are many reasons why a citizen may not wish to allow total strangers access to their homes. One reason, in my case, is that I would wish to know exactly what type of person is trying to gain access to my property. These people do not wish to enter as a normal guest would, but to conduct a search of my premises.

I am aware of at least two of your employees, one Mr David Clark found guilty of assaulting one of your "customers", and two, Mr Richard John Llewellyn, who was found guilty on four counts of false accounting, (falsifying witness statements, and forging signatures), and one count of, " acts likely to pervert the cause of justice", all this whilst conducting your "business". I am aware also of many other complaints of a similar nature made against your employees/agents. I understand that you do not CRB check your employees/agents for convictions.

It is for this reason that I now formally withdraw any implied right of access to my property to yourselves, your employees, and any agents acting on your behalf. This being an instruction not to trespass, and not a request.

If you should trespass on my property after this notice, then I must warn you that I will not hesitate to call the local police to have you removed from the property.
If your employees/agents should trespass on my property it will be taken that they consent to be photographed and filmed whilst the trespass is taking place.
I further warn you that any such trespassers may be cautioned in line with Police and Criminal Evidence guidelines and be questioned as to why the trespass is taking place, a statement will be written from contemporaneous notes, and the statement may be given in evidence to obtain a Court injunction, in order to prevent further harassment by yourselves or your agents/employees. You will of course be expected to pay the costs for these proceedings.

Regarding my reluctance to communicate with your company. I remind you that I have no obligation under Law to communicate with your company. I draw your attention to "written answers" in Parliament on Monday 15-05-06, and a question that was asked regarding whether there was a legal requirement to communicate with your company, or not, ( TV Licensing being the trade mark of Capita PLC, who administer the collection of the TV licence fee.)

Shaun Woodward
Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Department for Culture, Media & Sport.
answered:

"A television licence is required to install or use a television receiver, as defined in regulations made by the Secretary of State, rather than a television set. Members of the public who do not require a television licence are under no obligation to inform TV Licensing of the fact."

I do not wish to enter into either protracted correspondence or conversations with you. I hope that you will appreciate that I am only communicating with you to avoid any unnecessary unpleasantness in the future.