TV License fines....BBC responsible for over 10% of all criminal prosecutions in Magistrates Courts

[ploddertom]

Yes they are very crafty with this one PT. I checked a few things with PRS regarding my use of samples along with my own creations for video backing music, and if third party samples are created and marketed to use in a DAW, a Digital Audio Workstation, they can be used to create a derivative composition, with the PRS able to collect any royalties for the derivative composition, i.e. the backing music, on my behalf, as the copyright belongs to the composer of the derivative work, the samples being expressly just clips for use in that manner, the artist being paid for the session only with no copyright attribution to them. Problem is the system is in need of reform, as the councils and others are using it as a cash cow.

 

Like everything there is a way round it - Headphones or similar.

[lamma]

I recall that the Victims Surcharge helps victims of crime by 'contributing' to the budget of the CPS. The central pot gets allocated of course.

NOTE that it is the "victims surcharge" it is NOT the "victim's surcharge". There is a fundamental difference.

[porkyp1g]

I would be interested to know how many of the convictions were bona fide license evaders. People who needed to have one, but thought they would try and get away with it? If you can't afford the license fee, use the catch up services, simple.

[barry1975]

Hi all,

 

TV detector vans are simply full of seats, no detection equipment or such like, simply a chariot for the purveyance of BBC agents going about they're daily criminal duties....

 

Time to fight back!!.

 

B

[Fulhamboy]

Morning all,

When I last purchased a telly the assistant asked me for my address , does any one

know if this is a legal requirement to give it ?

Ps

At my last address on my license two flat numbers were covered, C and D so my

neighbour had a free ride in spite of me informing them and giving them my neighbours name . Never pursued him, just goes to show

[maroondevo52]

When I last purchased a telly the assistant asked me for my address , does any one

know if this is a legal requirement to give it ?

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/72/contents

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1967/72/part/I

[tomtubby]

Morning all,

When I last purchased a telly the assistant asked me for my address , does any one

know if this is a legal requirement to give it ?

PS

At my last address on my license two flat numbers were covered, C and D so my

neighbour had a free ride in spite of me informing them and giving them my neighbours name . Never pursued him, just goes to show

 

.

In fact a few months ago I purchased a small TV for my kitchen and a sales assistant ( at Curry's ) was really insistent that I had to give my name and address. He said that he could not process the sale UNLESS the information was provided. I refused and asked to speak with a manager who told me that "apparently" this is a legal requirement and that to his knowledge NOBODY had refused to provide their name and address. I told a "white lie" and said that I was buying the TV for my son and his partner who had just purchased their own home ( this part was true) and that giving MY name and MY address would not be a true reflection of who would be using the TV.

 

Needless to say......the Manager would not back down.

 

At the time I was also buying a new Dyson and with the TV as well, the sale WOULD have been over £500. I left both items at the counter and purchased them instead at Asda and although I was asked for my name and address I refused saying that the TV was a present.

 

Nightmare.....

[tomtubby]

Sorry...am I missing something....

 

Is the country run by HM Government or HM Capita ?

[maroondevo52]

Found this from 2003...................

 

High street chain Woolworths was fined almost pounds 14,500 yesterday for breaking television licensing laws.

 

The retailer admitted that its stores in Wimbledon in south west London, Chigwell in Essex and Hull failed to pass customer details to the TV licensing authorities.

 

The company pleaded guilty at Wimbledon Magistrates Court and was fined pounds 14,400, plus pounds 1,350 costs.

 

Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967, all retailers which sell or rent televisions must forward customer information to TV Licensing within 28 days.

[tomtubby]

Found this from 2003...................

 

High street chain Woolworths was fined almost pounds 14,500 yesterday for breaking television licensing laws.

 

The retailer admitted that its stores in Wimbledon in south west London, Chigwell in Essex and Hull failed to pass customer details to the TV licensing authorities.

 

The company pleaded guilty at Wimbledon Magistrates Court and was fined pounds 14,400, plus pounds 1,350 costs.

 

Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967, all retailers which sell or rent televisions must forward customer information to TV Licensing within 28 days.

 

.

 

Thank you for this.

[kcdhs9878b]

It won't be long till we give over our name and addresses to TV licensing when you buy an iPhone, tablet or other device capable of viewing TV. We will have iPad detector vans going round, or an internet connection tax like thay already have in Germany.

[tvlb1]

The law has changed and retailers of TV receiving equipment are no longer under any obligation to grass up their customers to TV Licensing. The change came into effect at the end of June 2013.

[maroondevo52]

The law has changed and retailers of TV receiving equipment are no longer under any obligation to grass up their customers to TV Licensing. The change came into effect at the end of June 2013.

 

Looks like it.................

 

The Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1967 (as amended) has been repealed meaning that from 25 June 2013 onwards, TV dealers are no longer required to notify TV Licensing when they sell or rent out TV equipment.

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/legislation-and-policy-AB9/

[lamma]

Thank you. It is distressing when repealed legislation is posted as relevant. You saved me a task.

[tomtubby]

tvlb1

 

Welcome to the forum and thank you for updating us all with this information.

[tomtubby]

It won't be long till we give over our name and addresses to TV licensing when you buy an iPhone, tablet or other device capable of viewing TV. We will have iPad detector vans going round, or an internet connection tax like thay already have in Germany.

 

.

.

Personally, I cannot see this happening as the public are fast becoming very weary of the way in various government agencies ( and others) are treating them all like "cash cows". If anyone thinks bailiffs are bad they need to start looking at local authorities and sadly, DVLA. The following as just a few of the awful things that are happening right now:

 

The government are currently on course to bring into law legislation that will change the way in which bailiffs enforce debts. In doing so, they have put into legislation the unbelievable provision that if a bailiff levies upon a car that is not owned by the debtor then the "third party" owner will be required to make an Interpleader claim and in doing so, will be required to pay into court a sum calculated as being the value of the car "seized" together with a sum to cover the "bailiff fees". The number of complaints made will go through the roof and the best bit.....the government have scrapped plans for a complaints body. You couldn't make it up !!

 

Last year the government introduced the most crazy legislation of all to cover parking on private ground ( this is of course sites such as supermarkets, retail outlets etc and not private driveways as suggested by some internet sites) !!. In introducing this bill, the government insisted that there had to be an independent appeal body. Welcome to POPLA !! In August it was "revealed" that POPLA staff have been discovered giving "training sessions" to private parking companies on how to "address appeals".

 

Predictably this crazy bill has seen the end of "cowboy clampers" and now....we have private parking companies issuing claim forms at a rate never ever seen before with Parking Eye issuing 1,000 county court claims in ONE DAY !! A brilliant way to encourage the public to abandon the internet and shop instead at retail parks. Again...you couldn't make it up !!

 

I am a member of a DVLA forum and at the last meeting in Swansea it was confirmed that complaints from the public about DVLA selling their personal data ( for a fee of £2.50) is higher than it has ever been. It wont be long before the public start registering their vehicle in the Isle of Man ( not Scotland).

 

PS: Sorry....I am going off topic.

Edited August 25, 2013 by tomtubby

[tvlb1]

tvlb1

 

Welcome to the forum and thank you for updating us all with this information.

 

Glad to be of assistance. I know a fair bit on the topic of TV Licensing.

[Fulhamboy]

Interesting, I have always had a tv license but if a sales assistant insisted that I gave

my name and address I would tell them to frack off. How many sales have been lost

to this ? Would an assistant risk losing the sale of a seventy inch whistle and bells telly by demanding your address in these hard times ? Crapita giving sweetners to the tv people, who would thunk it .!

[tvlb1]

Interesting, I have always had a tv license but if a sales assistant insisted that I gave

my name and address I would tell them to frack off. How many sales have been lost

to this ? Would an assistant risk losing the sale of a seventy inch whistle and bells telly by demanding your address in these hard times ? Crapita giving sweetners to the tv people, who would thunk it .!

 

The old law (remember it's not law now) was farcical. The onus was entirely on the retailer (or "dealer" as the law described them) to collect the information. The buyer was under no legal obligation to provide the correct details; the retailer was under no legal obligation to verify any details they were give. As you can imagine, a lot of people simply made up an address on the spot. They also reckon it cost dealers around 10 pence for each notification they made, plus only 3% of those buying TV equipment were found not to have a TV licence anyway.

 

The Government got rid of "dealer notification" because they thought it was costly, ineffective and unenforceable. On this occasion, I'm inclined to say the Government got it right!

[brassnecked]

The whole issue of TV Licensing is a mess, it should be abolished. as to the changes favourable to bailffs from next year that makes anything adjacent to a property of a debtor fair game, I wonder what will happen when a thick or greedy bailiff seizes a DHL or Parcelforce van parked up whilst the driver is delivering in that street? Will a finance company have to go to interpleader to get their wrongfully seized property back, it certainly looks so in that rats ar*e of a bill

 

This one could be a driver for a riot on a sink estate when someone cannot pay the top up to council tax from their benefit and the bailiff calls on an unsavoury character who is handy with a baseball bat.

[lamma]

"PS: Sorry....I am going off topic."

Au contraire tt. It is the biggest and most important topic there is, all others are subordinate to it.

[brassnecked]

"PS: Sorry....I am going off topic."

Au contraire tt. It is the biggest and most important topic there is, all others are subordinate to it.

Most definitely a crucially important topic lamma, due process and procedural fairness goes out of the window, as this provision gives bailiffs and HCEO a licence to steal a third parties goods if they cannot afford the cost of an interpleader.

[tomtubby]

As I am still in "recovery" mode following surgery I have been "excused" the normal bank holiday duties such as gardening etc and instead, I have had time to analyse the information provided in the following thread and the results are very interesting indeed and they highlight a MAJOR injustice in the way in which TV "fine"enforcement is administered by Capita TV Licensing........

 

http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/2...servation.html

 

 

Firstly, I have assumed that the information is accurate and it is noteworthy that a Freedom of Information request has recently been made in relation to this particular court hearing and I look forward to reading the response online ( on whatdotheyknow.com)

 

The TV Licensing Session took place at North Tyneside Magistrates Court on 25th July 2013 and the "Capita Court Presenter" had 53 cases listed for consideration.

 

During the one hour "bulk application" she advised the court that they did not need to consider 15 of the cases as Capita had either withdrawn or adjourned the cases. That left 38 cases to consider.

 

From the 38 cases only 2 defendants had bothered to respond to the summons !!! This is simply dreadful.....

 

Moving on......of the 38 cases, the Capita court presenter advised the Magistrates that 28 of the defendants were in the bracket of unemployed, on benefits, widowed, receiving DLA or single parents.

 

Of the remaining 10 defendants, the court presenter stated that they were "employed" in positions such as: a fork lift driver, warehouse assistant, chef, domestic assistant, sales assistant, HR Manager and Accounts Director. With the exception of the HR Manager all received a £200 fine with a Victim Surcharge of £20 and Costs of £90.

 

 

In the case of the 28 "vulnerable" debtors, the court imposed "fines" of £55 against 22 of them. Three debtors who admitted to the Capita License Inspector that they had used a TV without a licence for more than 6 months had fines imposed of £82.50.

 

Crucially, the 2 debtors who had bothered to respond to the summons by pleading guilty had their fines REDUCED to £35 for "early mitigation".

 

Strangely one debtor listed as being in receipt of benefits had a £200 fine imposed.

 

In every case the court ordered a £20 Victim Surcharge together with £90 costs.

 

 

More later...

[tomtubby]

Questions to anyone viewing this thread.

 

If an Inspector visits...does anyone know how long the debtor is given to purchase a TV Licence

 

 

Secondly, does anyone know the approx length of time from when the inspector visits to the matter being heard in court?

[brassnecked]

Questions to anyone viewing this thread.

 

If an Inspector visits...does anyone know how long the debtor is given to purchase a TV Licence

 

Secondly, does anyone know the approx length of time from when the inspector visits to the matter being heard in court?

 

If the inspector, oops Capita Salesperson is denied entry, and you say NOTHING just close the door, they have no concrete evidence, as they need a confession, or have to obtain a search warrant to enter and check for a TV or device. If they are allowed in and then find the tv tuned in it's game over kerching for Capita. If they come in with a search warrant and find no TV they will try to get the occupier to admit watching a live feed via a computer or device. If the TV is analogue and connected to a DVD player, they are pretty much stuffed as there is no analogue signal anymore.

 

No search warrant, no entry, say nothing at the door to a capita goon, and like a bailiff they are relatively powerless. No confession no summons.