Tv License question....just curious

[robin9342]

Dave, if there is no aerial plugged in to your tv set and the channels are "detuned", then you do not require a license. A licensing officer may wish to visit your home and inspect your set-up, after which you should get no threatening letters for 2 years.
TV Licensing - What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?

What is interesting is that you can watch BBCiplayer, 4OD etc without a license: TV Licensing - Will I need a TV Licence to watch programmes on BBC iPlayer?

[buzby]

Two observations - the BBC letters are ambiguous, as the point being illustrated does not address the situation stated of an otherwise perfectly operational telly, plugged in and working(say to a DVD), if by the sole introduction of a television aerial it can be made operational. There is no defence of "we don't view broadcast tv" as the judge would have to decide on the balance of probabilities whether the defendants is telling the truth. Having no aerial or detuning the selectors is a myth, if it is capable of receivieving on a coathanger, then the risk of prosecution is that much greater. I can recall at least 4 cases where the solicitor acting for the TVLO got a conviction because the TV set was 'working'. Therefore to have any secure stab at denying the offence, a plugged in telly needs to have no working tuner (or get pictures from a video or DVD recorder that may be attached, if they have their own tuners).

AIUI, the implied right of access route ad proved not to be successful, as has accusing the TVRO for harassment with the monthly letter. It would be an easy defence for a field agent to state no such notice had been provided, and the very worst scenario is a slap on the wrist. As for the junk mail, as these a normally address 'Occupier' this does not constitute harassment, and Royal Mail also provide advise that these cannot be treated as junk mail, they have to deliver them to the address stated.

[barracad]

Originally Posted by buzby

the BBC letters are ambiguous, as the point being illustrated does not address the situation stated of an otherwise perfectly operational telly, plugged in and working(say to a DVD), if by the sole introduction of a television aerial it can be made operational.

I disagree. If you look at question 4 this specifically states the use of using a TV to watch DVDs. Note the Beeb's response specifically uses the word "receiver" - i.e. a device which is capable of receiving broadcasted transmissions.

[barracad]

Originally Posted by buzby

There is no defence of "we don't view broadcast tv" as the judge would have to decide on the balance of probabilities whether the defendants is telling the truth.

No, this would be a criminal prosecution, not civil - so the standard of proof would be "beyond reasonable doubt"

[buzby]

Again we'll have to disagree. Yes, it is criminal, and yes it is not unknown for investigation officers to plug in their own aerial to provide a sworn statement that the TV was capable of recieving terrestrial broadcasts. They would have to prove intent, and that's pretty easy.

A similar variation on this? Take someone stoned out of their minds in a pub car park, sitting in the driving seat of a car with the keys in THEIR POCKET. This will result in a successful criminal prosecution, as police can assert that the driver's intention would be to drive home "", or that he was ' in charge' of said vehicle.

The engine doesn't have to be running or to be seen driving on a public road. The same holds true with TV Sets. Advice given way back in the 60's when the variation of someone having a (cheaper) B&W licence when they actually used colour equipment, brought this to a head, with the TCRO saying they couldn't detect colour sets as easily as B&W or differentiate... which was the reason the retailers were forced to log all sales .

Back on topic, the non-licence holder does NOT have to be viewing for an offence to be committed.

[Conniff]

Back on topic, the non-licence holder does NOT have to be viewing for an offence to be committed.

Yes they do. It is not an offence to have television 'receiving' equipment in any of it's guises.
You need to read the communications act in conjunction with what the BBC says. The BBC while keeping within the meaning, add words to give the appearance that there are wider implications.
One such example is the use of the word 'installed'. That makes it look like you cannot have a tv sitting on a cupboard in the corner when it should say 'installed for the use of watching live broadcasts".

You cannot be prosecuted for owning a television, you have to be caught 'using' that television.

Using your senario of the car. The police could knock on your door when you have had a few too many and say "do you own a car" if the answer is yes then they could arrest you even if you hadn't or intended to leave the house.

You must not use the BBC or TVLO descriptions to make your judgement, you must use the communications act.

Also the detuning part is just to assist you. It is not a requirement to disable the receiver to use it just for other than 'live' uses.

[dave]

I thought it was an offence to drive on a public road whilst under the influence and I was under the impression that to do so on private land was no business of the government.

It's academic really, the TVLA thing, as if I were 'caught' in possession of my TV set (which has NEVER been tuned whilst it's been in my possession) and subsiquently fined for 'intent' I would simply not pay the fine.

I'm not in the habit of giving money to theives, which is what they would become if I were to be fined for watching TV without a licence when quite clearly I have done no such thing.

All laws that are immoral and unjust should and will be ignored.

[Conniff]

My sentiments exactly dave.

[buzby]

Originally Posted by Conniff

Yes they do. It is not an offence to have television 'receiving' equipment in any of it's guises.You cannot be prosecuted for owning a television, you have to be caught 'using' that television.

Using your senario of the car. The police could knock on your door when you have had a few too many and say "do you own a car" if the answer is yes then they could arrest you even if you hadn't or intended to leave the house.

You must not use the BBC or TVLO descriptions to make your judgement, you must use the communications act.

The only thing I agree with is your last paragraph. It IS an offence to own a TV without a licence, and I'm not going round this again. Let's ignore the BBC and TVLO and run with what it actually says in the Communications Act (2003, C 21 Part 4) this makes it an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they're being shown on television without a valid TV Licence.

The full bit:

http//www.uk-legislation.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/ukpga_20030021_en_34#pt4-l1g364

Note the use of that word 'install' it is not install AND use, and you break the act by installing - in common parlance 'having available to use'. Following your scenario, the pile of cases I have seen in court would have had everyone I saw deemed innocent. Only two admitted to actually using the set, but the judge upheld the complaint because they had a working TV, and a statement from the enforcement officer that it was hidden under a bed or in a wardrobe

As to the police knocking on your door - sorry, that's not the same as being in a car park. They need to prove intent, easy outside a closed pub and your home miles away with no bus available. Sitting in your home, with all the comforts etc, intend would be harder if not impossible to prove - so nice try, but no banana.

[buzby]

Originally Posted by dave

It's academic really, the TVLA thing, as if I were 'caught' in possession of my TV set (which has NEVER been tuned whilst it's been in my possession) and subsiquently fined for 'intent ' I would simply not pay the fine.All laws that are immoral and unjust should and will be ignored.

If you wouldn't pay the fine - like a good few others before you, you'd be locked up, this is a criminal offence, remember. (Yes, I know that's a nonsense, but that's how it stands currently).

Disable your tuner and you've nothing to worry about. Righteous indignation apart, how is this any different from being flashed by a speed or red light camera? You can protest as much as you like but the outcome is assured unless you can provide corroboration that supports your contention. I have a 'spy in the cab' that logs ALL my journeys, and of the 3 times in the last 6 years I've been in receipt of NIPS, I had each and every one cancelled. Sure, I might have been able to 'fiddle' the data I had, but I never was tempted because my GPS track log proved otherwise.

[buzby]

Originally Posted by Conniff

My sentiments exactly dave.

Let me know when visiting time is....

[Conniff]

Sorry buzby you are going to have to accept that you cannot be right all the time. It is the way you are reading it

an offence to install or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they're being shown on television without a valid TV Licence

It does not say it is an offence to install - is says an offence to 'install to watch', that is an entirely different thing.
And of course the recording bit as well.

[buzby]

As with all things, it is all down to interpretation (by the courts), however following your suggestion, anyone with a TV under their bed has got nothing to fear. So why have they been successfully prosecuted? YOu'll be telling me next it's all down to dreadful representation?

I suggest you do as I did, and spend a morning at court when the TVRO have a batch of actions to process. (They're usually heard in blocks of 10). This will correct your misunderstanding.

[Conniff]

Hiding under the bed is a different matter, and I have not mentioned anything about hiding it under the bed.

We were on the subject of 'installation'.

I would put anything on the fact that if I had a television in my house that was for the purpose of watching dvd's or xbox or whatever, I would not be found guilty in any prosecution.

I also should add that the regs only use the word 'television receiver'. By having a television and plugging a dvd into it you are not using the 'receiver', you are only using the modulator.

[robin9342]

TV Licensing - What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence?


Buzby, I'm afraid you are wrong in this case. Please read the above link from the TV Licensing Website. As you can see, TVL ask that you inform them if this is how you use your TV set and they may wish to come and check. Of course, you are under no legal obligation to contact them or let them in.

[phoebepants]

Originally Posted by midge61

Hi
I had a visit from one of their enforcement officers on Thurs. They hadn't sent any warning letters and as it happened it was all paid up anyway!!!!!!!!!

He was a really nice bloke who said crapita are a complete shambles and he keeps being sent to old folk who are intitled to a free licence any way!!

He told me if I get any trouble from them to say he had been and confirmed all was ok and if they didn't believe me he would sort it.

He seemed as embarrassed as me about the call but he was a good bloke.

i can confirm that capita are a shambles, i used to work for them and no-one knew there ar*e from there elbow!i didn't work onTVL but i got offered a job as an enforcement officer when i was made redundant- rubbish pay for a rubbish job and a lot of it was commission so i guess the more you bullied people the more commision you got. Turned them doen flat!

	What are your rights at work Follow this link to read the review of the Guide to your Rights at work, published by Lawpack

[The GodMother]

this is the letter i got last year in reply to my letter regarding the link in post 95.

The letter is very clear that l will not recieve letters for 3 years or any enforcement officer for 3 years.

[patdavies]

So effectively, although you have said that you don't need a licence and because they allege that a minority lies about this, you are not to be believed until their lackey has entered your premises to check the veracity of your claim. And even if they then believe you, they will check again in 3 years.

Ignoring the reverse burden of proof argument, my stance would simply be to tell them to F off and state that any further communication from them will be binned. You will only reply to a Court Summons and will be looking for costs when they abjectly fail to prove their case.

[The GodMother]

Pat have you read this post then. 75 (permalink)

[dave]

I don't like this 'hiding under a bed' thing.

If you don't use the TV you should be under no obligation to get rid of it - no more than you should be obligated to get rid of a car if you don't use it.

If I decide to keep a TV under my bed, or in a cupboard, or in a bloody oven if I wanted to, I don't see what business it is of the TVLA if I don't use it to watch TV on.

I DO have a tv in my living room - it isn't tuned to receive 50, 53, 56, or 66. It IS 'tuned' (in so much as all TVs are) to receive a signal from my XBox, a machine that cannot, at least without serious modification, recieve a tv signal.

I was told over the phone that it was fine not having a license as I am not using the equipment to receive a tv broadcast.

If I am fined for viewing TV, then I simply will not pay it.

The last time I watched TV, there was a 20 year old re-run of a British comedy - this was 'prime time' on a Saturday. I also saw an advert for a programme called, wait for it, "Dog Borstal" - which I honestly thought was a joke and a bit of a dig at reality tv - only to find out that it was actually meant to be a serious programme!!

It was around this time that I decided that I could take no more, and detuned the TV, threw one away and stopped paying for the licence.

I don't see how I can be forced to pay for such drivel if I don't watch it - surely I should be inoccent until proven guilty.