TV Licence

[weegirl]

Just had a question from my lodgers. I have a house rented out to students, who have been getting letters to buy a TV licence. The letters don't come addressed to me anymore as I have notified them I have moved, just to 'The Occupier'. They haven't responded to them, (they haven't bought a licence either though) and have recently received another letter saying the file has been passed to the enforcement division.

They are adamant that they will not be buying one, and see the whole thing as a big laugh. I'm a bit ****ed at them as it is my house, and may end up with a black mark against the credit on it, so I just want to check if the TV Licence people can fine them if they don't get into the house. I am aware that the onus is on the inspector to prove that a TV is receiving UK television, how can that be done if they don't get in, and what do they need to get a warrant?

[greenrizla]

The onus is on TV Licensing to prove that a TV Licence is required. The students have no legal requirement to respond to any communication from TV Licensing, they will continue to receive correspondence until they give in and purchase a TV licence. The likelihood of a search warrant being obtained is extremely slim due to the expense and the evidence required to obtain one.

Ownership of a TV does not in itself require the purchase of a TV licence. A licence is only required when the TV is being used to receive a broadcast signal from the BBC and such like. If a TV is being used only to view pre-recorded DVD's and Video's a license is not required.

[rosysparkle]

Addresses are not blacklisted. Your tenants will be the ones who may end up with a court case and fine if they ought to have a TV licence and don't have one.

How do you know the tenants are receiving letters - are they passing them to you? Pass them straight back, TV licence is the tenants' responsibility.

[Rich44]

Originally Posted by greenrizla

The onus is on TV Licensing to prove that a TV Licence is required. The students have no legal requirement to respond to any communication from TV Licensing, they will continue to receive correspondence until they give in and purchase a TV licence. The likelihood of a search warrant being obtained is extremely slim due to the expense and the evidence required to obtain one.

Ownership of a TV does not in itself require the purchase of a TV licence. A licence is only required when the TV is being used to receive a broadcast signal from the BBC and such like. If a TV is being used only to view pre-recorded DVD's and Video's a license is not required.

I'm afraid thats not quite right if you are using any device that is capable of receiving a broadcast then you need a licence, if you want to get round it and only watch DVDs etc then you need a TV that does not have a tuner built in such as a plasma TV without the external tuner and only have a DVD player connected for example, if you had a VCR or DVD recorder that have tuners built in then you would still need a licence. I went thru all this "theoretically" with an enforcement officer some years back when they called at my house as they didnt think I had a licence (they hadnt amended their records when I moved house) so played with him for a bit before showing him my bank statement showing the DD.

He was most unamused as by this time I had wasted over an hour of his time PMSL

[greenrizla]

Whenever the TV Licensing tells you that you must buy a TV Licence when you have a TV they are misleading you. They prey on the ill-informed and gullible members of the public, they are merely salesmen earning a commission for every TV License they coerce people into purchasing whether or not they require one.

You do NOT need a TV Licence for owning any kind of TV receiver/VCR/Satellite receiver/PC with TV-Card [PC/TV] etc. irrespective of the fact that these devices may have built-in tuners, providing those tuners are not being used to receive broadcast signals, a TV Licence is not required. The onus is on TV Licensing to prove that those tuners are being used for the purpose intended. To make their life less complicated TV Licensing simply assumes that any TV will be used for watching TV broadcasts.

[Zamzara]

Originally Posted by Rich44

I'm afraid thats not quite right if you are using any device that is capable of receiving a broadcast then you need a licence, if you want to get round it and only watch DVDs etc then you need a TV that does not have a tuner built in such as a plasma TV without the external tuner and only have a DVD player connected for example,

That's not correct. No licence is required provided that an aerial or other reception equipment is not installed. The presence of a tuner in the TV is irrelevant, as long it is not set up to receive broadcasts.

[Rich44]

No thats not right whats to stop you having an internal aerial and even if thats techincally true the ONLY way of proving your innocence is not to have equipment capable of receiving a broadcast or do you really think a court is going to believe you or find in your favour.

You cant win against the establishment on this one they have too much to lose the ONLY way to beat them is to have a TV with no tuner period.

It doesnt matter what you think the fact is TV licencing will take you to court and you will lose end of debate if you have test cases that have proved otherwise to hand then id love to see them and I will of course admit im wrong but somehow I dont think so

As far as the onus being on TV licensing have you even been through our legag system when the establishment has something to lose its not down to them to prove you guilty you end up having to prove your innocence sadly

[Zamzara]

Cite

A test case isn't needed as the rules are already clear.

I also find that people who declare anything to be the 'end of the debate' to try and head off a response are usually on very shaky ground.

[greenrizla]

A former prisoner at the forefront of prison law advocacy has overturned a TV licensing conviction on appeal. John Hirst said that he used his television only for watching videos, DVDs and CCTV footage of his own house but was found 'technically guilty'.


Hirst, who tells this week's OUT-LAW Radio about the case, represented himself at Hull Magistrates' Court despite suffering from Asperger Syndrome, a form of autism. Again representing himself, he won his case on appeal to the Hull Crown Court when the TV Licensing Authority decided not to defend the case.


The full text can be found here - http://www.out-law.com/page-7465

[weegirl]

To add to the confusion, my current property cannot receive a signal due to the area I live in, my neighbours all have powerful roof ariels with boosters, which I don't have so an internal ariel is obviously useless. I was mis-informed a few years ago about this from an inspector, and set up a DD until I telephoned and queried it. The call centre person was very nice and informed me that I didn't need a licence. I sent a letter of complaint in, inviting them around to view the snow on my set, and they refunded me and didn't bother me since, maybe they couldn't be bothered though. Sometimes it depends who you get in these matters.

I do agree that they prey on the ignorant and vulnerable though. I put this on another post, but the circumstances they informed me I needed a licence were dubious, my house was getting renovated, I obviously was not living there as the house had no internal floors, ceilings or plasterwork and all of my furniture was in storage in the garage. The inspector just walked in past the builders and seen the TV and video under a dust sheet. The first I knew of this was when I received a letter stating that he had found 'evidence' that I was using a TV without a licence. The letter was worded in such a way I felt like a major criminal, it really got my back up.

The students are aware they are liable for this licence, not me, it is just annoying as they may move on soon though and the next person I rent to may be left with any fallout they create.

Found a site called Abolish the TV Licence [ www.tvlicensing.biz ] which may be of interest to people - a campaign against the licence.

[weegirl]

Just seen your post greenrizla - viewed the test case, liked the quote:

"The TV Licencing Authority assume if you say that you don't watch your TV for live broadcasts you're a liar," Hirst told OUT-LAW Radio. "It's still down to the prosecution to prove guilt, not for the assumption to be there that you are guilty and you need to prove innocence."

Good point - the arrogance they have about the whole thing doesn't do the licensing authority any favours. Even the initial letters they send have a real attitude about them.