TV Licensing Summons for not having a TV licence for a week

[TKPeters]

Today I have received a Court Summons from the TV Licensing people for not having a TV Licence for a whole week

The TVL Guy came to my house on Sunday 26th October & clearly could see the TV switched on. in the front room.

The TV had only just been replaced by the warranty co 3 days previously, after a 6 week wait for them to see if they could repair the old one.

 

He tried to caution me on the doorstep to which I did not agree with, as he is not an officer of the law & I stated that I would not sign his paperwork.

I told him today was the first day of using the TV & he could see I was still setting it up

I did however pay them for a Years TV Licence with my debit card & he said that would be the end of the matter.

 

I have phoned TVL today to reason with them, as they should allow lapses in the licence when the equipment is not being used & to state on the summons that no TV licence is in between 19th to 26th October is ridiculous & a prosecution is not in the public interest.

 

They carried on saying I had committed a criminal offence & will be prosecuted for it.

 

Also the actual licence stated that the expiry date is 30th Sept 2012, so in fact they've backdated it & I have paid for the period shown

 

 

Does anyone have any advice & what needs to be said in court?

[tvlicensingblog]

Don't panic, because it's not too late to remedy the situation. Just because you had the TV switched on proves nothing. The offence is committed if you watch/record live TV programmes without a licence. You could legitimately say the TV Licensing salesman (who we affectionately term "goons") saw you testing it with a DVD. If you didn't allow the goon into your home or tell him anything then they are hedging their bets and have little evidence against you. What they do have, the fact they saw you playing with the TV, is evidentially worthless. They always backdate licences to cover any unlicensed period - it's one of their little scams.

 

In all likelihood they might still drop the case, but they like to inconvenience the "defendent" as much as possible beforehand. Quite often they will drag someone miles to court and then drop the case on the day of the hearing. If you reply to the summons saying you are going to appear in court to plead not guilty in person it will make TV Licensing pause to gather their thoughts. The last thing they want is any of their sordid little scams being broadcast in open court, so if they have even the slightest inkling you can rebut their claims they'll run a mile.

 

Check out the "Advice for those caught without a TV licence" article on our blog for further information.

[TKPeters]

Cheers for info.

No I didn't let him into the house & I was actually playing a Blu Ray at the time on the PS3.

 

He also had a cheek to call me by my first name when I answered the door, as if he was some long lost friend

On his witness statement he has stated that I accepted the caution [i didn't] & that I refused to sign

I think he can also waste a day in court with me, if this is how he wants to play the game

[tvlicensingblog]

(edit)

 

Court is an occupational hazard to TV Licensing. They book an afternoon of court time and throw dozens of cases at the Magistrates for what is tantamount to a rubber-stamping exercise. Most people don't appear and are found guilty in their absence. By attending you have to be heard and will have the opportunity to put TV Licensing on the spot. They won't like that if there's the slightest whiff their salesman might be flakey or have bent the rules. As I said, there's a good chance they'll go through the motions and cave in at the last moment. The last thing they want is public embarassment, because it shows how pathetic and dishonest their operation really is.

 

As do we, on our blog!

Edited February 2, 2012 by ErikaPNP
removal of unauthorised link

[TKPeters]

With regards to 'If you're putting up a defence then you are entitled to all the documents TV Licensing hold relating to your case. You should scrutinise those documents carefully to make sure they are factually correct.'

 

Are these available before the court date or only on the day?

[tvlicensingblog]

I believe you can get them in advance. The clerk of the court will be able to advise you further.

[TKPeters]

OK, I 'll give the court a ring in the morning, as the case is in 3 weeks

[theghost]

Just tell the court what you have said here - I would be looking at getting proof from the repair peopel about when the TV was sent to you as that is a significant part of your case.

[GamekeeperToPoacher]

I so wish they would take me to court as I have no license and do not watch or record live TV. Despite this I have numerous letters and 3 visits!

I am sick of being harassed.

[tvlicensingblog]

There are literally tens of thousands of legitimate non-TV viewers being harassed by TV Licensing in the same way. Tens of thousands of others, who also don't need a licence, have been coerced into buying one by TV Licensing's hollow legal threats and the half-truths that pepper their correspondence.

[Synergist_]

i have just received a court summons for not having a tv license. The summons are not addressed to myself as it appears that they have spoken with a friend who was staying with me at the time. I am assuming that he did not let them in and they have claimed that they tested ch4, however I do not watch live tv as my property does not have an an external aerial or even an indoor one. Where do I stand? Im assuming they have no right to convict me as I was not responsible for talking to them at the time of the caution?

[GamekeeperToPoacher]

Surely if it is not addressed to you then you have not been summonsed.

[Synergist_]

So the best thing would be to contact the court and explain the situation?

[GamekeeperToPoacher]

In my opinion it depends on to whom it is addressed.

I regularly receive TVLA letters addressed to the legal occupier but choose to ignore them.

The essentials are who it is addressed to and who it is from.

 

If it addressed to a named individual it is there problem.

I do not believe that they can just summons a random person in the house.

Surely if it is from the magistrates court it must name someone.

 

Note I have no legal training and my comments are worth only what you have paid for them.

Hopefully someone more knowledgeable will be along shortly

[Synergist_]

Yes its a magistrates summons and addressed directly to my friend, who no longer lives here. I have my own tenancy agreement which shows me as the named legal occupier since 2010 (a whole 18 months) prior to their "apparent" inspection.

 

Yes thank you for any help you can offer and Im aware that your not legally trained =)

[GamekeeperToPoacher]

Then it is important that your friend is informed of the situation.

Despite it being your tenancy agreement etc he is the named defendant.

I believe that this could be useful as, if he was temporarily visiting how would he be aware that you had no TV licence.

Who knows perhaps he was bored and trying the TV out unaware that it has no aerial?

If I were to visit and put the TV on while you were out a) How would I know whether or not you have a licence b) Maybe his own licence from his own house covers him? (I don't know about this but surely he can't watch live TV in two permises at the same time) and c why should you be penalised for my guilt.

 

I note earlier in the thread that you are entitled to all the TVLA evidence so can they identify who they saw, who gave them permission to enter - assuming they did, and if not what evidence do they have?

 

GK

As it is in his name I feel sure that he must defend himself

Edited February 7, 2012 by GamekeeperToPoacher
typo

[Synergist_]

I have the sheet I assume they ask you to complete at the time of caution and all the details are relating to my friend and not myself, with the exception of the tv details as obviously I did not take this out with me at the time of inspection.

 

Obviously most would assume that a property is covered by a license unless informed and to my knowledge you can only be covered by a license at the address to where it is registered. I cant see myself being convicted if im not the named person on the summons, but im not sure who to contact first CAB/Courts/Tv license

[GamekeeperToPoacher]

Your friend!!

[Synergist_]

Thats for certain... Just hopeful that I dont face any problems.

 

Thanks for your help! =)

[mrveryangry]

Yes its a magistrates summons and addressed directly to my friend, who no longer lives here. I have my own tenancy agreement which shows me as the named legal occupier since 2010 (a whole 18 months) prior to their "apparent" inspection.

 

Yes thank you for any help you can offer and Im aware that your not legally trained =)

 

this is my advice to the poster who has had the summons , Synergist. You are being accused of a CRIMINAL OFFENCE!!! So go and get yourself a SOLICITOR!!!!! Do you understand. Don't waste time, and this applies to anyone else in similar situation, posting on here for help. Go ans see a firm of solicitors who specialise in criminal law. You are entitled to legal aid if you are being accused of a crime!!! They will advise you of the ins and outs of the law, summonses and how they are addressed etc. Furthermore all prosecution evidence MUST be made available to the defendant, and must be supplied a reasonable length of time before the trial!!!!! I invite you to read the European Convention on Human Rights, article six: "A person accused of a crime must be given adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence."

[nohope]

Yes its a magistrates summons and addressed directly to my friend, who no longer lives here.

 

Return to sender, no longer at this address, forget about it, get on with your life, keep tenancy to hand just in case anyone calls at the door about it at a later date, show tenancy, ask them to leave, get back to something more interesting.

 

Done the same when i first moved into the property i'm in now. Last tenant had lots of debts and slowly they all went away. Tv licence was the last one that hassled me and when i showed the prat at the door my tenancy he ran away. I think it was a bailiff to collect for them but didnt give him a chance to say anymore than the blokes name he was chasing..

[TKPeters]

Got my day in court & pleaded 'Not Guilty', so its going to Trial in April.

 

The TVL Guy stated to magistrate that you needed a TV Licence when owning a TV, as its just a case of plugging in a Aerial to watch Live TV, although we don't have Aerial, as I stated on the days in question I have only been watching my DVD Collection & it wasn't setup to watch Live TV.

 

I have a license backdated before the offence date & TVL stated it wasn't valid on the days on question, as they don't backdate licences, so they sold me a 11month & 2day Licence for the price of a 12month one.

 

I've asked for all the evidence relating to the case & they've just sent copies of their database checking for a active license & sending out letters till I had one & a copy of the statement taken on the day their guy cam to the house which I refused to sign.

[andydd]

this is my advice to the poster who has had the summons , Synergist. You are being accused of a CRIMINAL OFFENCE!!! So go and get yourself a SOLICITOR!!!!! Do you understand. Don't waste time, and this applies to anyone else in similar situation, posting on here for help. Go ans see a firm of solicitors who specialise in criminal law. You are entitled to legal aid if you are being accused of a crime!!! They will advise you of the ins and outs of the law, summonses and how they are addressed etc. Furthermore all prosecution evidence MUST be made available to the defendant, and must be supplied a reasonable length of time before the trial!!!!! I invite you to read the European Convention on Human Rights, article six: "A person accused of a crime must be given adequate time and facilities to prepare his defence."

 

Well no. HE is not being accused of anything, his FRIEND is !

 

I agree with some of the posts above, that the 'evidence' and statement of case must be provided to the defendant before, dont know much about criminal law, but under civil law, there are various CPR's such as 18 or 31 that can be used to force evidence to be handed over.

 

Andy

[andydd]

Got my day in court & pleaded 'Not Guilty', so its going to Trial in April.

 

The TVL Guy stated to magistrate that you needed a TV Licence when owning a TV, as its just a case of plugging in a Aerial to watch Live TV, although we don't have Aerial, as I stated on the days in question I have only been watching my DVD Collection & it wasn't setup to watch Live TV.

 

I have a license backdated before the offence date & TVL stated it wasn't valid on the days on question, as they don't backdate licences, so they sold me a 11month & 2day Licence for the price of a 12month one.

 

I've asked for all the evidence relating to the case & they've just sent copies of their database checking for a active license & sending out letters till I had one & a copy of the statement taken on the day their guy cam to the house which I refused to sign.

 

You need to carefully read the ACTUAL laws relating to this, there are i recall two specific pieces of legislation, be careful about getting info. from the TV Licence site as their information can be slightly misleading and get you in trouble, I believe the specific laws and how they relate to non-live tv viewing have been discussed on here on a recent thread.

 

Andy

[Bang!]

I so wish they would take me to court as I have no license and do not watch or record live TV. Despite this I have numerous letters and 3 visits!

I am sick of being harassed.

 

First declare you do not need a licence. Then send this email - I set up an email address especially...

 

From: "- -"

>> Date: XX XX XXXX

>> Subject: Re: TVL1XXXXXXX, Re: Your 'TV Licence not required' declaration

>>

>> Regrettably you have resumed sending letters again. I find the nature of

>> some of these letters to be harassing.

>>

>> Additionally, no card has been left as you had informed would be the case

>> if

>> no one was present to answer the door. Nor has the door been answered to

>> your staff.

>>

>> Accordingly, I am removing the common law right of access to the property

>> at...

>>

>>ADDRESS drive

>> AREA

>> CITY

>> POSTCODE

>>

>> Yours sincerely

>>

>> "The legal occupier".

 

REPLY BACK FROM TV TAX PEOPLE

 

>> Dear Sir or Madam

>>

>> Thank you for your email telling us you don?t need a TV Licence, which

>> we?ve recorded under our complaint reference number above. Please use this

>> number if you need to contact us again.

>>

>> I?m sorry you?re unhappy you?ve received a letter from us. I note your

>> wish to withdraw the implied right of access for TV Licensing's officers to

>> approach your property.

>>

>> It would be helpful for us to have a record of your name to allow us to

>> confirm that you are the occupier. We want to ensure our database is

>> accurate, up to date and also that if we write to the address in the future,

>> we can confirm that you are still the occupier.

>>

>> I would be grateful if you?d confirm receipt of this email, quoting the

>> above reference and providing your full name.

>>

>> We won?t visit you, although we reserve the right to use other methods

>> available for the detection of television receiving equipment.

>>

>> Yours faithfully

>>

>> Georgina Paul

>> Customer Relations

 

MY REPLY

 

> As requested - confirmation of receipt.

>

> You stated "It would be helpful for us to have a record of your name to

> allow us to confirm that you are the occupier." - As you clearly do not have

> a contact name presently, then there is no way you could use any name

> offered as confirmation of anything. Furthermore, it would be illogical to

> offer any name/s to an organisation already found to be a source of

> harassment.

>

> Additionally, you state "I note your wish to withdraw the implied right of

> access for TV Licensing's officers to approach your property", can you

> confirm if accepting or ignoring the removal of your common law right of

> access without the name of an occupier being furnished?

>

> I would also like to submit a Freedom of Information request, to discover

> the complaints made against your organisation, including any related

> correspondence from your organisation that prompted that complaint - it is

> only the grounds/basis of the complaints I am requesting, and nothing to

> identify who submitted the complaints.

>

>

> Yours sincerely

>

> "The legal occupier".

 

THE RESULT AFTER A REMINDER...

 

Dear Sir or Madam,

 

Thank you for your email.

 

 

In respect of your query, I would like to confirm that we have accepted your removal of the common law right for us to visit your property. Although we won?t visit you, we reserve the right to use other methods available for the detection of television receiving equipment. I am sorry if this wasn?t clear in my previous response.

 

Your Freedom of Information requests have been passed to the BBC as 'TV Licensing' is a trade mark of the BBC and is used under licence by companies contracted by the BBC to administer the collection of the television licence fees and enforcement of the television licensing system. The BBC is a public authority in respect of its television licensing functions and retains overall responsibility and directly answers all Freedom of Information requests that relate to TV Licensing. There is a twenty working day time limit for responses to FOI queries, and the BBC will be in touch with you in due course.

 

I trust this is helpful.

 

Yours faithfully

 

Georgina Paul

Customer Relations