TV license enforcement visit

[hightail]

Can someone please confirm for me what rights TV license enforcement officers do (or don't) have when visiting. We have now been 'officially' notified that our property is under investigation and we will get a visit soon if we don't buy a license. I have a valid license, renewed in good time two months ago. Apparently it's still not showing on their database and I am not prepared to bear the cost of yet another phone call to them. This seems to happen to us every year but they're pushing it even further this time.

[reorete]

id be interested to know what they can and cant do .. i havnt renewed my lisence as my tv is broken an i cant afford a new one yet, but am getting these we will be visiting you threats

[andydd]

Just ignore them, the only reason people get prosecuted for these offences is if they 'hang themselves' by admitting to these Enforcement Officers that they do indeed own a TV but have no licence.

 

Andy

[hightail]

If one does visit they will be able to see the TV through the window as they walk up to the door. I have no problem with this and have no reason to hide anything. The TV license was renewed online and I also have them send a paper version by post because they seem to have such a problem with this address.

[reorete]

well you cant see through mine he he

[buzby]

No right of entry whatsoever, they require a warrant (which costs them). If you have a licence you can show it at the door and send them on their way. I have great fun a few years ago where my licence was in my PO Box address. Got 25 letters from them to the actual property address before 'the inspector called'. Asked to see the licence, and showed him it. He protested ' This doesn;t cover this address' - I said look at the licence 'Full postal address' the PO Box IS my postal address, I never use the physical address for correspondence.

 

He turned pink and said it wasn't right. I agreed, and said as soon as they changed the licence to request my full physical address, I'd happly comply.

 

I didn't change, but they stopped writing! 8)

 

PS My dog isa also named as the licence holder.... bless him.

[hightail]

I really do have one Buzby, it was renewed at the end of January as it should have been. It was correctly addressed and is sitting in the envelope on the mantlepiece as we even joked when it arrived that it had better stay there ready for our annual run in.

 

Once they start on this there is no way to get them to accept I have one. Even on the phone they are only interested in you buying one or proving why you don't need one. I'd have thought having got a license was good reason not to need one but that isn't on their list:confused:

[andydd]

I really do have one Buzby, it was renewed at the end of January as it should have been. It was correctly addressed and is sitting in the envelope on the mantlepiece as we even joked when it arrived that it had better stay there ready for our annual run in.

 

Once they start on this there is no way to get them to accept I have one. Even on the phone they are only interested in you buying one or proving why you don't need one. I'd have thought having got a license was good reason not to need one but that isn't on their list:confused:

 

If it was me I'd be tempted to get them to start court action and make them look stoopid.

 

Andy

[hightail]

Well I'm not of a mind to be overly helpful now. That's why I was interested in what they can or can't do if they call.

[buzby]

The two issues I have identified as failings, is when the initial licence is taken out, if there is a transcription error in the postcode and/or house/flat number, as it does not cancel out the flag that says you do not have one. The second being your data is fine, but their error in the unique identifier for your property - which you can extrapolate from their reference number for your property (or at least you could, back in 2002).

 

As for action - in addition to having a licence, it has to be displayed to the inspector on request, so even if there IS one existing for the address, if you are asked to exhibit it, but leave it until you turn up in court, you can lose. You are not charged with not having a licence, but needlessly allowing the forma pursuit by not displaying a valid licence when requested. Pretty mush the same deal as a VED on a car. Why should you be hit for failure to display since they know online whether you have one or not?).

 

In this event, they don't 'look stupid' the licence holder does - for not providing the information in the first place. Invariably, this requires it to be displayed to the enquiry agent on your doorstep, as the call centre staff cannot act on this themselves.

[hightail]

Invariably, this requires it to be displayed to the enquiry agent on your doorstep, as the call centre staff cannot act on this themselves

 

I can renew my license online and it knows the due date, notify a change of address etc. Out of interest what would happen if it hadn't been delivered? I have a confirmation email and can prove payment. It's only my choice to have a paper version delivered, presumably many people don't. I'm legally required to pay for one which I have done.

[buzby]

That can certainly be used in mitigation of any court action, but I have to say, paying money for a 'virtual' benefit that can be lost by a crash of DVLA's computers IMO is a reckless disregard of protecting your interests.

 

It remains a requirement to exhibit on request, as does the VED - saying you cannot display is (currently) not an option supported by law, statute or otherwise.

[hightail]

It remains a requirement to exhibit on request

 

Just so happens I've been down this road once before. Way back in the 1980s TV licenses were forms in a book filled in by hand in the Post Office. My local PO had run out but took my payment and gave me a stamped receipt. As it happened, the PO had filled out a proper license when they got a new book through and it was sat behind the counter waiting for me but it never got mentioned and I forgot about it. I got the doorstep visit and they took it all the way. I can absoloutely assure you that proof of payment is accepted by the court.

[buzby]

Proof of payment is NOT being disputed.

 

The claim was that on being asked to provide confirmation that a licence existed, the viewer wilfully refused to provide this evidence. (In the case I saw, they were fined £50) as they had the licence form, stamped and cancelled by the PO counter). If the licence was lost, then the viewer did not wilfully prevent the inspection of the licence, which is the issue I'm referring to.

[griffzilla]

TVL Enforcement Officers have no right of entry to your property, without a court issued warrant. To gain a warrant, they require evidence that you are using a TV without holding an adequate license for the premises.

 

If they knock on your door, and you invite them in, then they can see that you have a TV. This could, however, only be linked up to a DVD / games console, which doesn't require a licence.

 

You would have to sign a declaration saying that you are receiving a signal broadcast, without having purchased the licence. Once this declaration has been signed, they will check to see if you have purchased a licence. (However as enforcement officers are on commission to sell licences to 'evaders' - they will try and sell you a licence there and then).

 

Simply, do not let them into your property. They can take no further action. Your TV being on, and seen through the window is not evidence of receiving a signal broadcast.

 

In terms of why you could be receiving letters when you have a licence - it is permissible to require more than one licence per household. EG a student house, whereby each student is on an individual tenancy, instead of a joint tenancy. In that circumstance, each student would require a licence if they had a TV in their rooms (however any one licence would cover a TV in the communal areas).

 

As a result of this, the database system can allow any number of ghost licences at an address, despite if an active/purchased licence is present. If you have purchased a TV, the dealer is required by law to inform TVL of this. If your name is Mr Jones, and your partners name is Miss Smith, the system would not automatically register the fact that there is a licence at the address, so would send you out 'enquiry' letters, until you contact them, and advise of the licence number. (In fact, due to Data Protection laws, both Mr Jones and Miss Smith would have to speak on the phone call!)

 

I'm a former employee of TVL - any questions I will answer to the best of my knowledge!

 

G

[hightail]

Have lived here for many years, married couple, never without a valid license, haven't bought a TV for ages and have had this problem for the past 3 years only. Phoning TVL does not solve it. Now expect it and pretty bored by it.

[griffzilla]

Have lived here for many years, married couple, never without a valid license, haven't bought a TV for ages and have had this problem for the past 3 years only. Phoning TVL does not solve it. Now expect it and pretty bored by it.

 

What is it your actually receiving from them? Check that the addresses on 1) these letters and 2) your licence are identical. Even one character difference can mean that its a new address according to TVL.

[buzby]

Your TV being on, and seen through the window is not evidence of receiving a signal broadcast.

 

Very true, however this provides the officer with 'reasonable cause' to pursue the matter. As already established, the law states that nobody has to be 'watching' an unlicensed broadcast to commit an oiffence. Only have 'installed' a device capable of such reception, therefore - if a TVL agent is using common sense, if there is no connection to an external aerial, or satellite or cable feed, it would be reasonable to assume that the device is not being used to view such broadcasts.

 

Yet it is this very segment that TVL pursue, because the receiver has already been 'installed' and has the capability to receive. Conviction is achieved on this point alone, and catches out many (That, and single parent families, who have different priorities).

 

As to your mention of the 'sale' of TV licences, you don;t mention whether such a purchase prevented prosecution for the period UP TO the date of the visit, as I have witnessed cases where the viewer was noted as being in compliance, but not at the date/time of the inspection.

[griffzilla]

Owning a TV isn't cause enough for prosecution. It has to be receiving a signal broadcast (you can have a TV that isn't tuned), and you would have to sign a declaration stating that you were watching TV without a valid licence.

 

In terms of backdating etc - that really does depend on circumstances, and how you pay for a licence.

 

If you pay in full, using a debit/credit card, and there was previously a licence in your name at the address, then it will be backdated to the expiry of the previous licence. If you pay using a direct debit plan, then it will be a new licence starting from the first day of that month.

[buzby]

Could you possibly comment on the successful prosecutions under the 2002 Broadcasting Act (previously the Wireless Telegarhy Acts) where it is the installation of the receiver that is licenced, NOT the act of viewing - which somehow is contrary to what you state.

 

Secondly - this wasn't really the question being asked. You mentioned nothing regarding the viewer purchasing a licence backdated to the previous expiry. What relevance is a 'name'? It is the ADDRESS that is licenced, not a named individual - indeed, my dog is the licence holder at my address and I am fully compliant with the Acts. An agent receiving his commission for the purchase of a licence, and lets be honest, he will not have figures dating back to the previous expiry, simply that there is an unlicenced property.

 

Assuming a licence is purchased - say the fee is paid in cash from under the mattress, would the TVLO seek a prosecution based on there not being a valid licence extant when the agent witnessed the offence? I make a point on being in my local court when these cases are called - previously these were heard in blocks of 10-20 every couple of months, however I've not seen any (again, in my local court) for the last 14 months - which makes me believe that such pursuit is now the exception rather than the rule. Would you agree?

[griffzilla]

The TV Licence is required by the 2003 Communications Act for the installation or use a television receiver to watch or record any television programmes as they're being shown on television.

 

The only situation that I can think of at present is where the TV set is installed AND TUNED to receive broadcast signals, however wasn't being used at the time. So instead of having a detuned TV connected to a games console or DVD player, it is tuned and connected to an aerial source, however is switched off.

 

The licence belongs to a person, not the address. It covers the named person at the address stated, and anyone else living at that property as a family unit. It doesn't cover people living at the same address as tenants or lodgers.

 

The agents have full access to the database whilst mobile, via a palmtop or similar (this is a new addition since I left the company - I only found out when an officer visited my premises on the day I moved house!)

 

IMO - I would agree that these cases are now an exception. TVL would rather not prosecute an individual if they purchase a licence - it costs a significant amount of money, and the court will normally fine the cost of the licence on the first offence. Whilst the back dated period without a licence would be recorded, it wouldn't be pursued unless there were further episodes whereby the person became unlicensed. This would also only occur after the householder had signed a declaration, admitting they were watching TV without a licence.

[buzby]

As i recall from an agent's statement in court, the '...and tuned' issue is irrelevant as this goes back to the good old days when TV's had 'tuner buttons' that required to be locked to the channel frequency - otherwise only 'mush' would be visible. However, this did not alter the fact that (a) this was indeed a receiver that required licencing, and as all it took to receive the correct channels was a twiddling of the fingers, NOT enough to prove to the court that it was incapable of receiving licenced broadcasts. This required a letter from an electrical engineer of firm who confirmed that the relevant tuner/IF stage had been disabled and therefore incapable of receiving such broadcasts.

 

In this new digital age, there are no tuners like this, and indeed Freeview sets now auto-scan, order and update channels without the intervention or any action by the viewer. Because of this, a defence that the set was 'not tuned in' would fail. Similarly, it is not possible to 'detune' such a set as it will always autoscan. The accepted defence, as before - that the tuner(s) have been incapacitated and rendered inoperative the ONLY safe defence in court of action. (We have to remember that the ideals of the agent are not those of the viewer).

 

Moving on to the declaration - there is no requirement on the householder to make any declaration or statement. Indeed, TVLO agents are known to state that they operate under PACE rules. And at the time of a first visit, not with a warrant n hand This of course if a misdirection, they are no more entitled to use PACE than a postman or lollipop lady - if the viewer makes no declaration and simply closes the door (as they are entitled to) is totally permissible and understandable.

 

I fully agree that those who have a TV and watch licenced broadcasts should be made to pay, however, the 'advice' given by the TVLO is just that - it is not anything other than their interpretation of the law. A law which their interpretation may be well-meaning, but meaningless in equal measure only a judge can decide on the interpretation of this.

 

It would be incorrect to state (as they do) that providing you do not watch live TV you are safe from prosecution. The police can secure a conviction on the basis of 'going equipped', and the same holds true for having a working TV. I have seen many who were not spotted viewing, nor admitted to it, but the judge accepted on the balance of probability, the defender had a TV installed without a licence, contrary to the Broadcasting Act, and was found guilty.

 

Afraid the Broadcasting Refers to the ADDRESS being licenced, NOT the person (as this would mean a husband purchasing the licence would be compliant, but the wife and family would not as they didn't buy one. It is the designated address covered by the TVLO's address checker that flags the designation of a household in need of a licence (using the postcode and a unique prefix identifier).

 

Anyone with a TV capable of receiving live broadcasts is already disadvantaged, and needs to take positive steps to ensure no reception of these signals is possible. This, and only this - provides a safe haven from the law as currently enacted. Whilst it is possible the TVLRO might have their own internal rules as to who they should prosecute and under what circumstances, that is their prerogative. This provides some flexibility to them, but not to the viewer who will remain at their mercy and still result in a successful criminal prosecution. It is THIS I find iniquitous. If they plan to be 'relaxed' about it, then the law should be changed to reflect this, removing any possibility of prosecutorial flexibility.

[Aequitas]

Whilst it is possible the TVLRO might have their own internal rules as to who they should prosecute and under what circumstances, that is their prerogative. This provides some flexibility to them, but not to the viewer who will remain at their mercy and still result in a successful criminal prosecution. It is THIS I find iniquitous. If they plan to be 'relaxed' about it, then the law should be changed to reflect this, removing any possibility of prosecutorial flexibility.

 

Not entirely sure I follow you here. Can you expand on what you mean please?

[speedfreek]

Yet it is this very segment that TVL pursue, because the receiver has already been 'installed' and has the capability to receive. Conviction is achieved on this point alone, and catches out many (That, and single parent families, who have different priorities).

 

A couple of questions on this point.

 

Firstly

 

With the switch over to DIGITAL broadcasts would a television/VCR equipped with only ANALOGUE receiving capability now be exempt as it is no longer capable of receiving a TV broadcast signal?

 

 

Secondly

 

In my case I use a 32" LCD (which has an analogue signal receiver) as my PC monitor. I do not have any digital receiving equipment (like a sky or freeview box) and the old analogue signal has been turned off.

 

There is of course the probability that I am streaming TV over the internet via my PC so how would this situation be viewed/judged?

 

I know they are looking at changing the law to include any internet connected device with screen but until that happens am I safe without a license?

[civilcid]

@speedfreek, Regulation 9 of The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 state:

 

Meaning of "television receiver"

9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

 

(2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

 

If you are watching a 'live' stream of a TV channel you are likely to need a licence. If it is simply a catch-up service you are not required to have a licence.