Enforcers DO turn up

[anneemack]

Yes unfortunately they do come round. I have not personally owned a TV in over 10 years, I just find TV boring and would rather read a book.

However, with his crimbo money my sixteen year old son asked if he could buy himself a nice big telly on which to play his xbox360 games, as he had been using a 19inch computer monitor to play on and to watch his DVDs (my mum lives next door and if ever really REALLY wants to see owt on telly, he just goes round to hers).

Yesterday he came in from college and less than a minute later, the door knocked. It was TVLA. The woman asked if she come could in, he asked her if she had a warrant, (got him trained!), no was the reply, then u aint coming in, says he.

She then proceeded with asking him do you own a telly? Yes i do he replied truthfully. How long you owned it? Bout a month says he. Do you have a licence? No he replies. She then asked him all the questions, make, model, colour. She then asked him if watched telly on it. he replied no its for my xbox360 and dvds. She then asked for his name, d.o.b. contact telephone number etc, which he gave (more training needed methinks. Boo to me).

It wasn't until this point that she advised him that he was under caution and anything you say may be used in evidence etc, the standard police caution.

The form that she left behind clearly states that after the question asking:

Do you have a TV licence? Answer: NO

Caution:- You do not have to say anything. But it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court. Anything you do say maybe given in evidence. Do you understand?

This form then goes on to ask all the questions the poor lad had ALREADY answered, so how can he be under caution?

Uderhand, devious and sly are just a few words to describe her method of getting info from someone she knew was under eighteen (from his dob).

AND some of the answers he gave were 'doctored'

Aerial plugged in: ticked,we aint got an aerial, we live in a block of flats!

Channels tested-(list): 12345, no access given, no aerial, no channels, do they employ psychics who can see through the walls?

When did you last use the set for watching TV programmes here? Not sure! never never never!

What is you occupation/status? Unemployed! He's a student in college!

She then put money problems as the reason why he didn't buy a licence.

My understanding is that you only need to buy a licence if you use the the equipment to watch TV, we don't, he hasn't and he aint gonna!

And I'm gonna fight them all the way to court if I have to!

[sea-sidelady]

Good for you. I will move this post to its own thread so we can follow this and see how you get on with it.

[anneemack]

Thanks SSL, was just having a rant and wasn't quite sure if this qualified for a new thread or not

[PGH7447]

I belive that they have to prove that it is for watching the box, so if it is not tuned in or connected to an ariel then there is nowt they can do.

 

but dont take my word for it

[sea-sidelady]

Course it is.

 

There are a few threads in here very similar to yours. It's worth having a read around.

[2ltr16valve]

Had Same thing !

 

They knocked on the door, went through all the same crad above etc...

 

Asked if they could come in to check tv, was told no because dog might bite them... so they put down they had checked tv and all channels, was plugged in on standby, and aerial was fitted ! All from the front door with the curtains closed... there is a wall between front door and front room btw !

 

This went to court and we did not know so they got conviction but was dealt with by stat declaration !

 

The tv licence muppets assumed that my partner was my wife, they asked who I was... I said MR ZXZ ... you the licence holder, no.. Sharran is .... so they wrote sharran ZXZ when in fact shes sandy XZX LOL

 

TWATS

[buzby]

My understanding is that you only need to buy a licence if you use the the equipment to watch TV, we don't, he hasn't and he aint gonna!

 

Unfortunately this is incorrect. And mentioned on CAG many times previously. You have to go by what Statute Law states on the matter. 'Watching' is not a concern. 'Causing the installation'**, is.

 

Which means, it is sufficient to obtain a conviction if there is a TV with the requisite tuners (no aerial is required, as this can be plugged in and removed as required). Neither does the suggestion to de-tune the channel buttons (back in the 70/80s) as nowadays sets auto-seek anyway. The ONLY viable defence is that there IS no tuner, or that the tuner itself has been provessionally disabled/removed and a statement of this fact provided (to the court).

 

Previously, people found it easier to hide the tv in a wardrobe, or trundle it down the street to a neighbours for 'safekeeping'). Both the BBC and TVLRO all refer to yu cannot 'watch live TV', but this has no basis in law, and they have secured many convictions based on having the equipment installed, not that someone was watching it (although this helps secure a quicker conviction).

 

As oyu can see from your inspector's statement, many make it up as they go along. Whewther this is greasing the wheels of justice, I don't know, but if all you son required to do was add an aerial to watch broadcast TV, he will not be believed and a conviction obtained, UNLESS you have the ability to throw doubt on the evidence provided.

 

** Communications Act 2002

[2ltr16valve]

Unfortunately this is incorrect. And mentioned on CAG many times previously. You have to go by what Statute Law states on the matter. 'Watching' is not a concern. 'Causing the installation'**, is.

 

Which means, it is sufficient to obtain a conviction if there is a TV with the requisite tuners (no aerial is required, as this can be plugged in and removed as required). Neither does the suggestion to de-tune the channel buttons (back in the 70/80s) as nowadays sets auto-seek anyway. The ONLY viable defence is that there IS no tuner, or that the tuner itself has been provessionally disabled/removed and a statement of this fact provided (to the court).

 

Previously, people found it easier to hide the tv in a wardrobe, or trundle it down the street to a neighbours for 'safekeeping'). Both the BBC and TVLRO all refer to yu cannot 'watch live TV', but this has no basis in law, and they have secured many convictions based on having the equipment installed, not that someone was watching it (although this helps secure a quicker conviction).

 

As oyu can see from your inspector's statement, many make it up as they go along. Whewther this is greasing the wheels of justice, I don't know, but if all you son required to do was add an aerial to watch broadcast TV, he will not be believed and a conviction obtained, UNLESS you have the ability to throw doubt on the evidence provided.

 

** Communications Act 2002

 

 

only problem I can see with this, is her son is under 18.... so they can not convict him can they ?

[anneemack]

Yes i understand that the devious TVLA get round such matters as de-tuning etc. My point is about the fact the agent asked my son all the questions THEN cautioned him

[anneemack]

The police cannot interview a juvenile under caution without an appropiate adult in attendance, except in extenuating circumstances, my son in sixteen, what gives the TVLA the right to do so

[anneemack]

OOH hello guests

[buzby]

Criminal responsibility is 12 (in E&W) believe. 8 for Scotland.

 

Was there anyone else present other than the two parties mentioned? In issues where there is a difference of versions, the court would rule on the basis of the evidence, invariably siding with the inspector who's job it is to brimg evaders to book, than those who might perjure themselves to get off!

 

It all hinges on probabilities, and this problem isn't going to go away. Corroboration is vital, and would sahow the inspector was making it up, but without this you are disadvantaged.

[anneemack]

Criminal responsibility is 12 (in E&W) believe. 8 for Scotland.

 

Was there anyone else present other than the two parties mentioned? In issues where there is a difference of versions, the court would rule on the basis of the evidence, invariably siding with the inspector who's job it is to brimg evaders to book, than those who might perjure themselves to get off!

 

It all hinges on probabilities, and this problem isn't going to go away. Corroboration is vital, and would sahow the inspector was making it up, but without this you are disadvantaged.

 

My son is sixteen, if the police can't interview him under caution without an AA in situ, surely that goes for any one else?

The issue is not about having the licence, its about the lying devious tactics of the TVLA

criminal responsibility is aged 10 in England

Edited February 5, 2010 by anneemack
further info

[2ltr16valve]

Criminal responsibility is 12 (in E&W) believe. 8 for Scotland.

 

Was there anyone else present other than the two parties mentioned? In issues where there is a difference of versions, the court would rule on the basis of the evidence, invariably siding with the inspector who's job it is to brimg evaders to book, than those who might perjure themselves to get off!

 

It all hinges on probabilities, and this problem isn't going to go away. Corroboration is vital, and would sahow the inspector was making it up, but without this you are disadvantaged.

 

maybe so, but under 18 you have to have an appropriate adult present... if the op was not standing next to her son then afaik they cant be deemed present ? So to be interviewed under caution without the above would render the interview void or inadmissible wouldnt it ?

[anneemack]

TV Licensing said: 'Anyone caught watching or recording TV without a licence risks prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000.

[buzby]

Can't help you with the vagaries of English Law, as I'm only up to speed on matters as they relate to Scotland, however - the issue of teTlro tactcs is not the core issue. That does not have any criminal ramifications (unless it can be proved), and from what you say there is no corroboration, so that;s a non-starter.

 

What is off and running that there was a TV Reciever installed at the address without a licence, and according to the Act, that needs a licence.

[anneemack]

Watching or recording! Not playing xbox or watching legally bought pre-recorded dvds

[buzby]

TV Licensing said: 'Anyone caught watching or recording TV without a licence risks prosecution and a fine of up to £1,000.

 

Irrelevant. I already pointed out (Message #7) their 'guidance' is flawed. It is what the LAW saysa that matters in court.

[anneemack]

Buzby my point is about the interview of a juvenile under under caution WITHOUT an appropriate adult present, TVLA cannot make the law up to suit themselves. He is not denying the fact that he doesn't have a TV licence. What next, fiften, fourteen, thirteen or even twelve year olds being interviewed without an AA present?

[anneemack]

As with administering a caution, anyone is free to interview anyone else in accordance with PACE. To do so simply means that you are following the same rules that a police officer would, and does not give you any additional authority. As with administering a caution, anyone is free to interview anyone else in accordance with PACE. To do so simply means that you are following the same rules that a police officer would, and does not give you any additional authority.

[anneemack]

The same rules as a police officer would.

[loopinlouie]

Hi my thread has just been moved to this forum. I was told today(taped) that as long as not watching live tv you do not need liceinse, xbox, vidoe, dvd etc ok. It took a while to get this as original rep of tvl became aggressive as soon as said I was not reknewing end may as will stop using live tv. I thought as long as sattelite box binned, aerial wire snipped in and out then as she said they would update system not watching live tv.

 

Looks like a good idea to have house cameras on if they call.

[buzby]

TVLRO are only interested in licence evaders. Courts have held that on the balance of probability, someone with a TV capable of recieving transmissions will in all likelyhood actually succumb to temptation and view, unless you can prove there could never be any viewinng, whether the accused wanted to or not.

 

As for administering cautions - if that's an abuse of due process, then that needs to be dealt with, but this would be pursued as a seperate matter, and has no relevance to their pursuit of licence 'evaders'.

 

Assume that their statement is thrown out, and your son is asked COULD he have viewed TV programmes on the telly (even though he hadn't) he's still be a slam-dunk inter the Comms Act, unless a solicitor managed to discredit the questioning completely.

[anneemack]

You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch programmes on your computer after they have been shown on TV. If this is the case, please let us know, as this helps us to keep our database up to date and means you won't receive the standard letters we send to unlicensed addresses.

 

The above statement is straight from the TVLA website.

The problem I have with filling in their on-line declaration form is that you are then laying yourself open to intrusion by these commision paid vultures.

Is the law of this land not "Innocent until PROVEN guilty"

Or did it change and only change to apply in the case of not having a TV licence?

[buzby]

(1) Already covered. This is their interpretation of the Act of Parliament. It has no vasis in law and is 'advice'.

(2) Innocent until proved guilty? No, I don;t believe this is the law of the land anymore. Witness speed in introducing confinement orders all without trial.