TV Licence fines to substantially increase and could double if household has Sky, Netflix, BT TV, or Amazon

[Peterbard]

LOL yes, I suppose a bit of an understatement.

[ploddertom]

Sorry got my channels mixed up - meant Channel 4.

 

After all the BBC already does advertise even if it is self promoting themselves. Do they still promote Radio Times which is now owned by a private company. They have too many double standards and should stand for being more accountable instead of just doing what they want willy nilly - and paying stupid sums to people.

[Peterbard]

Sorry got my channels mixed up - meant Channel 4.

 

After all the BBC already does advertise even if it is self promoting themselves. Do they still promote Radio Times which is now owned by a private company. They have too many double standards and should stand for being more accountable instead of just doing what they want willy nilly - and paying stupid sums to people.

 

Yes I agree there is an issue of accountability which needs addressing, as they are "our BBC" or should be. And they are respected throughout the world, I think there is no argument about that ?

 

There is also a major issue about fees paid to "celebs" which needs addressing I agree, also transparency issues.

[Peterbard]

Feel like I'm applying for a job there.

[Bailiff Advice]

The problem that we now have is that an ideas as to overhauling the BBC, are at an end. The time for suggestions was when the Consultation paper was issued. Mind you, I still think that BBC knew which direction they wanted to go and wild horses would not alter their plans.

 

I can remember a couple of years back reading the Hansard report from the House of Lords when the subject of BBC licences was debated. Many Lords ( and Ladies) had to declare an outside interest with the BBC Corporation.

[Coughdrop]

Sorry got my channels mixed up - meant Channel 4.

 

After all the BBC already does advertise even if it is self promoting themselves. Do they still promote Radio Times which is now owned by a private company. They have too many double standards and should stand for being more accountable instead of just doing what they want willy nilly - and paying stupid sums to people.

 

No, I don't believe they advertise the Radio Times. I agree totally about the salaries, but I'd say the same about many areas, not just TV presenters. They are going to make salaries public I think, though I doubt it will bring more accountability.

[Peterbard]

There is a bit of an emotional attachment with those of us of a certain age perhaps clouds our judgment(a little).

[Coughdrop]

There is a bit of an emotional attachment with those of us of a certain age perhaps clouds our judgment(a little).

 

I don't think you need to be that old. As I type, the news is on with a Scottish presenter talking about the plane crash. It's not that long ago you'd never hear regional accents on the BBC.

 

It is a frightfully British establishment, but it needs reigning in somewhat IMO. I'm not at all convinced that will happen though.

[Swoosh84]

Note this thread mentions Netflix. I currently don't have any TV Arial so have no way of watching live TV. I was cancelling the TV licence with effect of 1st June but I do use Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. Are these allowed without a licence?

[Peterbard]

I don't think you need to be that old. As I type, the news is on with a Scottish presenter talking about the plane crash. It's not that long ago you'd never hear regional accents on the BBC.

 

It is a frightfully British establishment, but it needs reigning in somewhat IMO. I'm not at all convinced that will happen though.

 

Yes i was thinking more of Mrs Dales Diary at tea time listen with mother. Later on the TV, Tales of the Riverbank LOl, the potter's wheel., Bill and Ben.

[Peterbard]

Note this thread mentions Netflix. I currently don't have any TV Arial so have no way of watching live TV. I was cancelling the TV licence with effect of 1st June but I do use Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. Are these allowed without a licence?

 

Sorry swoosh missed your post in my revelry

 

Yes currently you do not need a license for these as they are "on demand" services.

[brassnecked]

It looks like only I-Player content will need the license, Amazon, and Netflix along with Google on behalf of their YouTube channel owners will probably take some sort of action if their purely on demand content is dragged in to help fund the Biased Broadcasting Corporation. I think the word Scheduled comes in somewhere, Live "SCHEDULED" broadcasts viewed or recorded as they are transmitted, so On Demand unscheduled may still be OK apart from I-Player.

[Coughdrop]

Note this thread mentions Netflix. I currently don't have any TV Arial so have no way of watching live TV. I was cancelling the TV licence with effect of 1st June but I do use Netflix and Amazon Prime Video. Are these allowed without a licence?

 

Currently, you're absolutely fine using Netflix and Amazon Prime for films or past series'. You need a licence for live TV, however it is received - TV aerial, satellite, internet or any other way there may be - it has to be live TV. If it is not live, and that is ALL you watch, then you don't need a licence. If you watch live TV just once a year, technically you must have a licence.

[brassnecked]

Currently, you're absolutely fine using Netflix and Amazon Prime for films or past series'. You need a licence for live TV, however it is received - TV aerial, satellite, internet or any other way there may be - it has to be live TV. If it is not live, and that is ALL you watch, then you don't need a licence. If you watch live TV just once a year, technically you must have a licence.

Absolutely, and even after the changes it looks like that will continue, as only the BBC I-Player will be brought into the TVL net.

[dx100uk]

popping back to what was actually reported.....

 

 

it looks a bit suspect if you say 'I don't watch live tv'

when you pay for sky or virmin TV service

that gives you the capability of live tv.

[Bailiff Advice]

 

Yesterday, it was announced that substantial changes are being proposed by the Sentencing Council in relation to TV licence evasion. These proposals (if approved) could see many of the fines significantly increased, and in many cases....doubled. The most significant part of the Sentencing Council's proposals concerns the new 'culpability factors'.

 

I have been passionate about the subject of TV Licence fines for a very long time and in particular given, that it is fines for this offence that we receive most enquiries about via my website. It is for this reason, that I am taking part in the current consultation outlined above.

 

As outlined above, 13% of all convictions are in relation to TV licence evasion. Not surprisingly, of the 180,000 people convicted each year, approx 70% are females and the vast majority are classed as “vulnerable” (i.e. out of work, on benefits, single parent or in receipt of ESA or DLA etc).

 

By way of example, figures made available from a TV Licence 'bulk' application hearing in 2015 showed that 37 cases were brought before the court on that one day. Of these, 27 defendants were either unemployed, on benefits, widowed, receiving DLA or single parents.

 

Of the 37 cases being heard that day, none of the debtors attended the hearing but more seriously:

 

Only 2 debtors responded to the summons and submitted a Means Enquiry Form!!

 

It is the failure of defendant's to respond to the summons that is the root cause of them being given a much higher level of fine than they should.

 

With the summons there will be a Means Enquiry Form and an additional form to allow the defendant to enter a plea (guilty or not guilty). If the defendant fails to enter a guilty plea, they will not benefit from the reduction in court fine (currently 33% of the fine).

 

Most seriously, if they refuse to complete the Means Enquiry Form, then the court must proceed to set the fine by assuming that the defendant is in receipt of a RWI (Relevant Weekly Income) of £440 per week....when in fact, the vast majority of defendants are in receipt of a RWI of £120 per week.

[brassnecked]

popping back to what was actually reported.....

 

 

it looks a bit suspect if you say 'I don't watch live tv'

when you pay for sky or virmin TV service

that gives you the capability of live tv.

yes, but they even want the ISPs to give details, so even legally license free if you have Sky Broadband but no TV or Sky+ box, BT, Virmin Talk Talk etc they will still have to pass on the data to allow TV Licensing Crapita to harass those who don't need one into buying one as they do now..

[Bailiff Advice]

 

It is the failure of defendant's to respond to the summons that is the root cause of them being given a much higher level of fine than they should.

 

With the summons there will be a Means Enquiry Form and an additional form to allow the defendant to enter a plea (guilty or not guilty). If the defendant fails to enter a guilty plea, they will not benefit from the reduction in court fine (currently 33% of the fine).

 

Most seriously, if they refuse to complete the Means Enquiry Form, then the court must proceed to set the fine by assuming that the defendant is in receipt of a RWI (Relevant Weekly Income) of £440 per week....when in fact, the vast majority of defendants are in receipt of a RWI of £120 per week.

 

The importance of entering a guilty plea and completing the Means Enquiry Form is demonstrated by the new proposals (which if approved), will take effect from the autumn. There will be just two fine 'bands'...Band A and Band B.

 

 

Band A: (RWI £120 PW): £60 before plea.... £40 after plea

 

Band A: (RWI £440 PW): £220 before plea.... £147 after plea

 

 

 

Band B: (RWI £120 PW): £120 before plea.... £80 after plea

 

Band B: (RWI £440 PW): £440 before plea.... £293 after plea

 

PS: The above figures are excluding prosecution costs and victims surcharge.

[ploddertom]

 

 

 

By way of example, figures made available from a TV Licence 'bulk' application hearing in 2015 showed that 37 cases were brought before the court on that one day. Of these, 27 defendants were either unemployed, on benefits, widowed, receiving DLA or single parents.

 

Of the 37 cases being heard that day, none of the debtors attended the hearing but more seriously:

 

Only 2 debtors responded to the summons and submitted a Means Enquiry Form!!

 

It is the failure of defendant's to respond to the summons that is the root cause of them being given a much higher level of fine than they should.

 

 

 

It would be of interest to know how many out of that total were not aware of the case against them because of an old address given that some of these seem to take their time getting to Court. Could it be that it is in Capita's interest to do this so they can maximise their "fees"?

[brassnecked]

It would be of interest to know how many out of that total were not aware of the case against them because of an old address given that some of these seem to take their time getting to Court. Could it be that it is in Capita's interest to do this so they can maximise their "fees"?

The whole Capita stitch up up on TVL fines with prosecutions instigated by a private company is under any other circumstance unlawful, the "Inspectors" are commission driven salespeople, they must get one prosecution per hour to get commission, The truth is that people incriminate themselves by engaging with the Capita Goons instead of saying nothing and closing the door..

[Coughdrop]

yes, but they even want the ISPs to give details, so even legally license free if you have Sky Broadband but no TV or Sky+ box, BT, Virmin Talk Talk etc they will still have to pass on the data to allow TV Licensing Crapita to harass those who don't need one into buying one as they do now..

 

Many people don't have a single TV in their house, but watch live TV streamed over the internet. There are a myriad of sites where you can watch all Freeview and Freesat programmes live, as well as TV from around the world. The assumption that you need a Sky subscription, Virgin subscription, BT etc.... is wrong, if you have a reasonable broadband connection, you can watch to your heart's content using nothing more than a mobile phone.

 

Given the above, I think it would be reasonable to assume almost everyone has the facility to watch live TV, so surely legislation needs to allow for this. I appreciate the consultation is over (I wish I'd known it was even underway - I wonder how many did?) but I can't help but think they are trying to use this as a money making exercise, rather than anything else.

 

PT - I think you make a very good point regarding old addresses and the motives of Capita.

[brassnecked]

If you don't watch live scheduled programmes, then the license isn't required.

[Coughdrop]

If you don't watch live scheduled programmes, then the license isn't required.

 

Absolutely right, but live TV can easily be watched on any computer or mobile with internet access.

[brassnecked]

Absolutely right, but live TV can easily be watched on any computer or mobile with internet access.

The Capita Goon has to prove it, most people incriminate themselves when the goon calls. They have to gain a confession.

[mikeymack2002]

Absolutely right, but live TV can easily be watched on any computer or mobile with internet access.

 

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/watching-online-and-on-mobile-devices-TOP14