TV license enforcement visit

[speedfreek]

Thanks civilcid I understood that bit.

 

What I'm more interested in is

 

would having a PC (or any device e.g. phone, Xbox, PS3, Wii, etc) that is capable of streaming live TV over the internet i.e. has access to the internet and a screen be enough to secure a conviction for license evasion under present rules.

 

As Buzby pointed out the offence isn't based on what you do with the equipment just that you have it.

 

So even if it has never been used for streaming live TV would I still be found guilty of license evasion in a Court for owning it?

[civilcid]

As the rules stand today computer equipment is exempt from being classed as a TV unless expressly modified or sold as such (Reg 11). So I can't see how owning such equipment is enough to secure a conviction.

[speedfreek]

Thanks civilcid

[andydd]

Thanks civilcid I understood that bit.

 

What I'm more interested in is

 

would having a PC (or any device e.g. phone, Xbox, PS3, Wii, etc) that is capable of streaming live TV over the internet i.e. has access to the internet and a screen be enough to secure a conviction for license evasion under present rules.

 

As Buzby pointed out the offence isn't based on what you do with the equipment just that you have it.

 

So even if it has never been used for streaming live TV would I still be found guilty of license evasion in a Court for owning it?

 

Good point, as it is possible to be found guilty of not having a licence but simply the ownership of a TV, appying the same logic it should also apply to PC's and increasingly mobile phones as they are all capable of recieving live TV broadcasts, however this would be a big step to take and it therefore unlikely although as suggested in another thread, it would no doubt be theoritically possible to snoop on people and see if they watched live tv on the web by tracing IP addresses, etc.....

 

Andy

[freemycatfish]

I read at the tpuc.org site (while researching another subject) that you DO NOT have to buy a TV licence at all and all the threats, court summonses and so on are easily avoided or overcome if you know how. It was interesting but as I have said, not the subject I was looking for and so I did not delve too deeply. Might be worth looking at though as apprently many people have used their techniques without too much hassel and now watch TV without a licence or further threats.

[buzby]

How is this relevant? The 'article' you refer to actually proves nothing - simply that the 'witness' made an error. In fact of the cases I have seen being adjudicated, on the evidence provided by the defender, he has actually confirmed his law-breaking, and the prosecutor should have asked the judge to disregard the witness statement and prosecute based solely on the defenders submitted 'evidence'.

 

The law is clear, you require a licence to watch terrestrial TV as it is broadcast. Boasting of a dismissal because a Sony TV was some other make is laughable. Just try that with a parking ticket because you 'grey' car is actually blue. You still get done!

 

I would doubt the authenticity of this story.

[freemycatfish]

How is this relevant? The 'article' you refer to actually proves nothing - simply that the 'witness' made an error. In fact of the cases I have seen being adjudicated, on the evidence provided by the defender, he has actually confirmed his law-breaking, and the prosecutor should have asked the judge to disregard the witness statement and prosecute based solely on the defenders submitted 'evidence'.

 

The law is clear, you require a licence to watch terrestrial TV as it is broadcast. Boasting of a dismissal because a Sony TV was some other make is laughable. Just try that with a parking ticket because you 'grey' car is actually blue. You still get done!

 

I would doubt the authenticity of this story.

 

 

 

OK Well look. I have never met such a hostile, defensive and aggressive bunch as those of you on this site are. Well, OK, maybe the YouTube kiddies are a little worse. Instead of arguing with you or urging you to re-read what I wrote, take some Valium and explore the article a little more deeply and with more thought than you seem to have done, I will just slip away into the fog of the bits and bytes and leave you people to your Wode applying evenings. Or, whatever it is that you lot do around here in your spare time. (Human Sacrifice?)

 

Bye bye children.

[buzby]

Oh dear, take chill pill.

 

What makes you think my remarks are personal to you?

 

They are an observation based on my experience in court following up prosecutions by TVLO and their factual outcomes. Left uncommented, it would appear you have discovered some wonderful backdoor into a viewing nirvana that requires nothing more than minimal luck in order to save paying £100 plus pa, whether required by law or otherwise.

 

If you are unable to see this - it's a shame, but the bottom line is not to mislead, and the link you referred to was highly suspect as to its authenticity, and this was being pointed out. If it is this you object to, your reference to 'children' is misplaced.

[The Chez]

First off, it is for TVLA to prove you don't have a TV license, not you. They have about as much right to access your property as Jane Doe down the street. aka none. The only way they could do this is to apply to a judge for a warrent, which is extremely expensive, and I think (don't quote me) they would also need a police presence there too.

 

Humans don't run the TVLA, it's all machine operated now, anyone Capita (the contractor who the BBC employ to collect the license fee), just tell machines what to do. All of the letters you receive are computer generated. What I would do is simply ignore any more mail from them. They know you have a license, you know you have one, so you are not guilty of anything.

 

Just keep the license in a safe place, and if anyone does come, don't answer the door, show them the license document through the window, let them have a good look, then just close the curtain and ignore.

 

If they become persistant or threatening, just call the police and tell them whats going on. Remember, there is no crime on your part, so if the police did arrive and find you with a valid, up to date TV license, and an 'enforcement officer' standing outside your house, that is harrassment.

 

My parter pays monthly on a card, he pays every month, 12 months a year and is always in credit, they owe him! Dispite this, we still get a letter from time to time to say a payment wasn't made blah blah, usualy when they renew his card. He is very good at dealing with these agencies over the phone, and usualy gets it sorted pretty quick.

Edited April 16, 2010 by The Chez

[buzby]

First off, it is for TVLA to prove you don't have a TV license, not you

 

Er no.

 

You have to display your licence when asked by a representative. It can be through a window, letterbox or net curtain - the the initial premise that you need do nothing is incorrect.

 

In the absence of displaying your licence on demand (and their records showing there is none covering that address) these records are enough to ensure a convictrion.

You need to prove you DO have a licence, otherwise enforcement takes place.

[The Chez]

Er no.

 

You have to display your licence when asked by a representative. It can be through a window, letterbox or net curtain - the the initial premise that you need do nothing is incorrect.

 

In the absence of displaying your licence on demand (and their records showing there is none covering that address) these records are enough to ensure a convictrion.

You need to prove you DO have a licence, otherwise enforcement takes place.

 

If TVLA claim you are watching TV without a license, then it is up to THEM to prove it, not you.

 

You don't have to show the officer anything or give out ANY details, he has no rights without a warrent, all he can do is try to intimidate you into letting him in or paying, thats it.

 

Whatever they may say or accuse you of, it's a bluff to try and gain access to your home illegaly. I imagine this tactic works on a lot of older or more vaunrable people who do not know what their rights are in this area.

 

They will only get a warrent from a court if: 1 you are stupid enough to admit to receiving a TV broadcast signal without a license, or 2, the officer has seen/heard a TV being used in the property, if your TV is visable through the window for instance.

 

They claim to have 'tv detection vans' etc, so if you don't own a TV set, then they should be able to sit outside your house in one of these vans, and see if thats true or not. However, it is most likely these 'vans' are just another myth, designed to scare the nieve into paying for a TV they don't even own etc.

[buzby]

The FIRST question asked by an inspector after identifying themselves, is to state they have no records of a licence for your address and could they see it. Your obligation to show the licence remains, and if you do not, leaves you at risk - as your refusal will work against you as you are being unreasonable.

 

Your response is to tell them to go away becasue they've no right to...? . They get paid irrespective of your response, so if you've not got anything better to do than deal with their insistent requests that approach is pretty good.

 

Most people would simply show the licence, and get them to move on to harass non-licence payers.

[hightail]

You need to prove you DO have a licence, otherwise enforcement takes place

 

Does this mean that if I can't find the piece of paper I am guilty even if I can show I have paid? I honestly believed I was only legally obliged to furnish the correct fee to receive a TV signal. Is it like the tax disc for the car then where there is the offence of not displaying?

[the_freedom_trail]

No, not at all.

 

If you don't display your VED disc you are not guilty of not having VED, you are guilty of failing to display which is a seperate and different offence.

 

A TVLA Inspector can request evidence of your license in the same way that you can request a Big Mac from McDonalds; however, it is only a request - they have no power to demand you show your license like you have no power to demand McDonald's serve you. TVLA Inspectors do not have any sort of Police powers although they'll have you believe otherwise.

 

The only way they can prosecute you is if you are silly enough to confess. Otherwise they have to get a warrant and then they must have reasonable grounds to believe that you are watching TV or using recording equipment in a manner that requires you to have a TV license.

 

TV license evasion is easier for some than it is for others. For example, it is far more difficult for a TVLA Inspector to see if you are watching TV if you live high up in a secure apartment than if you live in a bungalow.

 

Trust me, I'm a recent graduate so have been at the beating heart of tv license evasion It's a well discussed topic in student circles lol

 

TFT

[The Chez]

Also, if you are stopped by police in your car, and they ask for driving documents such as license and insurance, it isn't an offense not to have them on you, they give you a grace period to present it at a police station.

 

TVLA (or Capita), are not a law enforcement agency, they have no legal powers to demand or ask for anything, they have as much power as a door to door sales person. Even if they want to apply for a warrent, they must have reasonable grounds to do so, such as you tell them you own a TV & no license, or a TV set is visable in the property etc.

[loopinlouie]

I sent an email to capita asking for them to explain what is and isnt the case regarding ownership of a telly, but not using it, as in I said I would dispose of sattelite box and cut the analogue aerial, which is soon no use any how and said I only wanted the telly kept for dvds and games machine.

 

I got no reply at all. I even asked why the tvl site giving advice giving impression as long as you do not use live broadcast is is okay to have telly is not the impression given by their enforcers, as in you own a telly, pay up.

 

No reply.

[the_freedom_trail]

Of course they didn't respond, they are unable to read or write - think of them all as being like the stig but without the driving capability

 

TFT

[andydd]

I sent an email to capita asking for them to explain what is and isnt the case regarding ownership of a telly, but not using it, as in I said I would dispose of sattelite box and cut the analogue aerial, which is soon no use any how and said I only wanted the telly kept for dvds and games machine.

 

I got no reply at all. I even asked why the tvl site giving advice giving impression as long as you do not use live broadcast is is okay to have telly is not the impression given by their enforcers, as in you own a telly, pay up.

 

No reply.

 

The more you investigate what the requirements of a TV Licence, the murkier it becomes, we have already established that the information provided by Capita/TV Licencing is vague and not a true representation of the law, the information they provide has to some extent become clearer in recent years, (it used to be simply..'youve got a tv, you need a licence'), although it has become clearer in some aspects it is still only an interpretation of the law and it is still possible you could find yourself in court and found guilty despite following all their guidelines.

 

The introduction of the internet, iplayer, tv-on-demand, phones with tv capabilities, games consoles only makes the already murky waters somewhat darker.

 

I personally use a Windows media center PC to supply all my entertainment needs, I'm sure the TV can in theory pick up a an analouge signal but I've never tried and I certainly havn't bothered to 'de-tune' it (even if such a thing is possible), nearly everything i want to watch is available on a on-demand service and as long as I watch them after they are shwon live then I am within the law, of course the difference between watching live or after is a few clicks of a mouse. Personally i dont bother telling TV Licencing that I don't need a licence, I just let them waste their time and money writing to me.

 

Andy

[jaguarcy]

Ok nobody's asked this yet here, so here goes.. I don't pay for a tv license, as I believe I don't need one. My TV is connected to a PS3, a Wii, and a Mac mini, I have a collection of over 800 dvds digitized and several subscriptions to iTunes for TV shows. My house does have an aerial but it was here before I moved in - I'm not going to uninstall it as the house isn't mine.

 

I've been getting the letters as well as I bought my tv online and had it delivered here (that was creepy btw - but whatever, besides the point). I went online and filled out the declaration that I don't watch any broadcasted content, ever, in any medium, which is true. My question is this: What are the chances that an officer will pay a visit, and how to I prove I don't watch broadcasted tv? the aerial is there but its not connected to anything...

[the_freedom_trail]

What are the chances that an officer will pay a visit, and how to I prove I don't watch broadcasted tv? the aerial is there but its not connected to anything...

 

I wont lie to you, there is a chance that you will recieve a visit but it's a slim chance - after all if TVLA were able to visit everybody without a license recorded at their address then they would not have to resort to sending out all of their spam. There are some specific tactics you can employ in order to minimise the chance of a visit - search TV license resistance in google and you will find loads of ideas.

 

TFT

[loopinlouie]

I am in two minds what I will do end may. Dont know if I could deal with the harassment and thats where they probably get people who dont need a license to pay up.

 

It doesnt help they like the license paid in advance also. I when going to consider reknewing it asked to pay by monthly direct debit when license due and they insisted they wanted it paid six months in advance of the new license start date.

 

When you get a water bill. You are given a bill and installment plan for that year, I am fine with that.

 

I begrudge then expecting the next years license being paid six months before the old one had run out.

 

I would consider reknewing it to save hastle, if they allowed me end of may to pay a monthly direct debit that would reknew year on year and I wouldnt notice it as much then, even if dont really need one.

 

I think the alieanate a lot of people by expecting full payment in advance and the staff being rude tops it off. My energy supplier and phone allow three monthly payments based on years usage, so why cant the tv expect it that way.

 

Greedy sh*** want their cake and eat it. Force you to have a license you dont need and make you pay in advance.

 

If they have changed their payment since I last called I would be happy to know. All I ask is fee devided by 12 when due not in advance.

 

I know like car tax that is paid in advance, but things move on with utilities.

[civilcid]

I pay for my TV License by monthly DD so can't see why you couldn't also.

 

You'll usually pay for your first licence within six months, in instalments of around £24 per month. (If we have to spread the cost into four or five monthly instalments, the cost may be slightly higher). From then on, you pay for your licences in 12 monthly instalments of just over £12 - six before your licence is due and six after.

Just one of the ways to help make paying more convenient at no extra cost.

 

TV Licensing > Payment Methods > Direct Debit

[loopinlouie]

It works out quaterly dd would work out best for me even though slightly more expesive, 3.50 extra a year. So I would like to know why pressure me into paying six months in advance when I can pay on a pay as you view basis. At least if I decide to reknew I know I only have to find 37.00 a quater starting june, much better than weekly and less hastle.

 

See I told you their own staff alieanate people.

[loopinlouie]

Answer to my own question, weekly makes it seem less for a person who really doesnt need a license other than to avoid harassment.

[griffzilla]

Even the staff don't understand this scheme... it is a strange one!

 

However the arguements TVL make are that if you went and purchased a years licence - you'd then be paying for 12 months in advance.

 

If you do monthly, and then no longer require a licence - you get the 6 months back - small consolation I know!

 

G