Legality of TV Licence visits

[obiter dictum]

Having recently moved into my new local authority accomodation like clockwork the dreaded TV Licence threatograms start to appear.

 

To be clear i have a wide screen TV but i used it as a computer monitor due to my poor eyesight. I have no airiel to receive live TV broadcasts

 

Anyway ignore the first letter, nice and diplomatic, i have now received the second in the escalation process. This states:

 

Visit has been authorised

Investigation into my property has begun

 

I am fully aware of what they can and cannot do

 

TV Licence is administered by CAPITA

They are a private commercial organisation so under what legislation/statute can they:

 

1. Say they are sending their Goon squad to intimidate me at my property

2. State an investigation has been instigated at my property

 

I am after legislation that gives them these powers to intimidate someone in their own home.

 

CAPITA being an agency of the BBC will still be subject to Article 8 ECHR. Right to a private and family life with no uneccessary interference from the state. Article 6 gives the presumption of innocence. So why am i being classed as guilty just because there is no statutory requirement for me to hold a TV Licence?

 

The BBC is under state control.

 

I WANT TO NAIL THESE BARSTEWARDS AT CAPITA with the law and statute as to their business model

[Sparks_]

Easy way to deal with them...throw the letters in the bin/hamster cage and refuse to answer any questions if they do knock on your door! That oncludes your name...if anyone asks for your name/identity ask who they are and if TV goons just shut the door

[obiter dictum]

TV licence has the power to investigate any property without a TV licence under the Communicatins Act

 

TV licence use the implied right of access under Common law to send their goons to my front door

 

Besides giving notice witdrawing that common law right i am trying to use Article 8 ECHR right to privacy

 

ALL UK statute has to be compatible with both Common law and the ECHR when drafting legislation

[JoeyJoeC]

If they come to your door with the police and a warrent, do you have to let them in? I've seen videos on YT which show this, but some people still refuse entry and they simply leave.

[ericsbrother]

When you tell them to go away they undoubtedly will but may try and get an entry warrant and come back with it

and maybe a police officer (makes them look serious but they invariably big up the need for plod to be there

otherwise they wouldnt bother accompanying the goons). I

 

 

believe that they have to make the warrant claim public in the court so that would mean it will be possible to attend

and object to them entering your property on the grounds that you do not have use of receiving apparatus.

 

 

They will then make a note that they should leave you alone

but this address marker only lasts 2 years so they will be back after then.

 

98% of properties have a telly and 95% of those need a licence but they treat the ones who dont have or need a licence as criminals

in the same way as they treat the 2 or 3% of those who evade paying.

 

If they do pitch up invite them to return with a police officer as you would let them in but not capita

and they have an "instrument" in the form of a warrant card.

That winds them up.

[Sparks_]

Easier to just dont talk to them!

[SabreSheep]

use your phone and start filming them too. that normally makes them disappear

[obiter dictum]

I am more interested in this implied right of access they say they have to intimidate people until that implied right is removed

 

Where under Common Law do they get that implied right??

 

You hear of it with postman ,milkman etc, i am after the source

 

Link please

 

I am more logic and referenced facs than the freeman twaddle

[Hacked_Off]

TV licence has the power to investigate any property without a TV licence under the Communicatins Act

 

TV licence use the implied right of access under Common law to send their goons to my front door

 

Besides giving notice witdrawing that common law right i am trying to use Article 8 ECHR right to privacy

 

ALL UK statute has to be compatible with both Common law and the ECHR when drafting legislation

 

That's not correct, common law fills the gap and or interprets statute, there a fair bit of wiggle room via the rules of statutory interpretation.

 

Furthermore, the case law has already said that to the way to lisence operate is compatible with article 8.

[obiter dictum]

I am not interested in common law and equity/Stare decisis

 

If case /common law states it is compatible with article 8 then i would appreciate a link, and not Margin of Appreciation either

Edited October 8, 2015 by obiter dictum

[Hacked_Off]

I am more interested in this implied right of access they say they have to intimidate people until that implied right is removed

 

Where under Common Law do they get that implied right??

 

You hear of it with postman ,milkman etc, i am after the source

 

Link please

 

I am more logic and referenced facs than the freeman twaddle

m

 

 

Lawful visitors to whom occupiers owe the common duty of care for the purposes of the Occupiers Liability Act of 1957 include:

 

Invitees - S.1(2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - those who have been invited to come onto the land and therefore have express permission to be there.

 

Licensees - S.1(2) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - those who have express or implied permission to be there. According to S. 1(2) this includes situations where a licence would be implied at common law. (See below)

 

Those who enter pursuant to a contract - s.5(1) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - For example paying guests at a hotel or paying visitors to a theatre performance or to see a film at a cinema.

 

Those entering in exercising a right conferred by law - s.2(6) Occupiers Liability Act 1957 - For example a person entering to read the gas or electricity metres.

 

 

 

 

Implied licence at common law

 

In the absence of express permission to be on the land, a licence may be implied at common law where there exists repeated trespass and no action taken by the occupier to prevent people coming on to the land. This requires an awareness of the trespass and the danger:

 

 

Lowery v Walker [1911] AC 10 Case summary

 

 

 

Repeated trespass alone insufficient:

 

 

Edwards v Railway Executive [1952] AC 737 Case Summary

[obiter dictum]

Thank you

 

I will burn the midnight oil looking into those cases on Westlaw

 

Much obliged

[Hacked_Off]

I am not interested in common law and equity/Stare decisis

 

If case /common law states it is compatible with article 8 then i would appreciate a link, and not Margin of Appreciation either

 

Common law and stare decisis are essentially the same thing..

[Hacked_Off]

Thank you

 

I will burn the midnight oil looking into those cases on Westlaw

 

Much obliged

 

Not nessesary to read 7 zillion pages just go on elawrescources and read the summary

[obiter dictum]

That i will

 

Thanks

[Deadyankee]

98% of properties have a telly and 95% of those need a licence but they treat the ones who dont have or need a licence as criminals in the same way as they treat the 2 or 3% of those who evade paying.

 

Just interested in hearing your thoughts on how you think they should tackle the 5% of those who don't pay but should, with those that don't need a license?

[mikeymack2002]

I was going to start a thread regarding the TV license but decided to post it here. Has anyone read the new report from here

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/468381/51658_Un_Num_TV_Licence_PRINT.pdf

[Consumer dude]

The letters go round in circles anyway, the investigations come to nothing for me as I don't have a television, then after a while the cycle starts again..