The BBC have been fined for it's competition phone scandal. The licence payers will end up footing this bill. Why did the courts not make them pay a rebate to all licence payers instead? Then, at least, the BBC would lose out and not the licence payers.
Yes, that'll teach 'em eh? A stiff fine for the publicly funded organisation. Didn't this happen with something else recently - werent the police or government fined for something recently? can't remember, help me out somebody.
All fines by these regulatory bodies go to HM Paymaster General, just as when Postcomm fined Royal Mail �11.7m in 2006 and the OFT fined supermarkets and milk processors �116m for price fixing last December. Therefore when a private company or public service receives a fine it will return to the Treasury for the (supposed) benefit of the general public.
My favourite nonsensical penalty was the FSA handing out a �980,000 fine to Nationwide BS for security lapses after mislaying a laptop containing customer information. The Nationwide is a mutual society (i.e. the members are effectively the shareholders) therefore any fine imposed on the institution is a fine on the customers - net effect: customers pay the Treasury for the privilege of having their details compromised.
How can the BBC ever lose out without licence payers also losing out - any penalty removed from the licence income will ultimately be reflected in the broadcast output.
Not quite sure how giving a �250million rebate to licence payers, as you propose, would not reduce the quality of service more than the current �400,000.