Tv License question....just curious

[davey77]

I don't see you would need to take any steps tango34. If you are not watching a tv signal as it is broadcast and not visiting BBC wesbite for live tv then you are not required to have a license.

 

I personally would send them (when you are ready) a recorded delivery letter stating your position and the reason why you will not be watching tv any more, thanking them for post broadcasts and 'wishing them luck in reversing the trend of inane and patronising programs.. and leave it at that. You are not actually required to inform them that you no longer wish to receive their service. Just cancel it like you would with BT or Orange.

 

I'd love to try that one day (but my old mum needs her tv).

 

All you will get is what this guy has: Letters from BBC Television Licensing/intro (although i would take them to Court myself long before i started getting more than a couple of letters like he has received on the grounds of Fraud.) One day...

[Conniff]

If you are not watching any live broadcasts, (you can watch them via the internet without payment), then you have to pay nothing.

You can also get a refund for all the complete months left on the license just as you can with car tax.

[davey77]

Still need a license for watching live internet broadcasts tho don't you conniff:

 

This page suggests that: BBC NEWS | Video and Audio | News Channel Live | BBC News Channel

"The BBC News channel is available in the UK only. Don't forget, to watch TV online as it's being broadcast, you still need a TV License"

[Tango34]

but I wont be watching internet broadcasts as I wont have a licence so there is no way I would use iplayer, and I have no idea where else you can get access to all the TV stations from

[davey77]

There you go then.. nothing to worry about. Get your sky to an end next month and then tell the BBC to get knotted. Save yourself £142.50 a year

[robin9342]

A licence is only required to watch or record TV programmes as they are being broadcast. That includes live programmes on the internet. "Live" also means "near live" to allow for the delay caused by digitising the programme in order to stream it.

 

A licence is NOT required to watch iPlayer and equivalent players as long as you are watching after the broadcast.

 

Conniff, TVL will only refund unused whole quarters of a licence, not single months. Thieving scumbags

[Tango34]

This is good, as not only will I save the £142.50 from BBC, but with no SKY I should also be better off by around another £240 a year!

[Conniff]

Conniff, TVL will only refund unused whole quarters of a licence, not single months. Thieving scumbags

 

Thanks for that, I know it used to be months.

 

There is also some 'skullduggery' afoot to ward off the growing campaign against the BBC licence.

 

They are thinking of awarding some of the licences funds to the other terrestrial channels. I bet it won't be enough to support them, but will be a contribution so no one will be able to complain they never watch the BBC so shouldn't pay the 'penalty'.

[Tango34]

Well (not that it will my issue) that the other stations stop adverts once they get some of the fee...... im sure they wont, and im also sure that they will back dopwn at the last moment, once all hell breaks loose as people work out what they are doing!

[Conniff]

They haven't said that's what they are doing, but we all know about Browns lies and stealth taxes which he thinks no one noticed because he classes the working people as stupid peasants. But my betting is that will be the real reason plus they might just raise it more to take account of that.

[Conniff]

Still need a license for watching live internet broadcasts tho don't you conniff:

 

This page suggests that: BBC NEWS | Video and Audio | News Channel Live | BBC News Channel

 

"The BBC News channel is available in the UK only. Don't forget, to watch TV online as it's being broadcast, you still need a TV License"

 

Yes you do, or 'simulcasts' as they call them.

[buzby]

Two observations - it it NOT a 'BBC' licence. it is a licence that permits you to recieve terrestrial or satellite digital or analogue broadcasts from UK broadcasters. The fact BBC is the main benificiary is immaterial, especially with talk of 'top slicing' to fund ITV News and Channel 4 in the future.

 

Secondly, there is talk of the 'internet loophole' on non-live content being closed BEFORE any move to end the licencing regime. This would then bting all those who no longer view live programmes into the fold or make them liable to prosecution).

[Conniff]

I remember you having this with someone else buzby, (and I agreed), but lets not fool ourselves, the fact remains, it is for the BBC, It is the BBC that can change the terms and conditions of the licence in which case it is a BBC licence in all but name.

It is also the BBC that are charged with the collection of the tax.

 

As for the internet loophole, this is just another way to make money, that is all they do, sit in a pub all day with the one quest - how to increase the revenue without the public being aware. Anyway, it's not really aloophole, they never had to put it on the internet, they know exactly what they are doing.

Edited August 8, 2009 by Conniff

[robin9342]

Thanks for that, I know it used to be months.

Actually, they are not legally obliged to pay any refund at all - its at their discretion:

"Section 365(3) of the Communications Act 2003 gives the BBC a discretionary power to refund payments made in respect of a licence under the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004."

[GSMGuy]

Here's one for you = My elderly Dad, has a TV but no licence... Now there is actually no aerial or STB connected to the set ONLY a DVD player - I record episodes of what he likes, or grab them off the 'net and burn to DVD - He prob only watches 4 or 5 hours a week anyway.. So by rights, as he is not recording or viewing "as it is broadcast" then I presume he does not need a licence?

 

Mike

[buzby]

It is a POSSIBILITY that he could be held liable. Under the strict reading of the act, he is in possession of 'recieving equipment'. The fact he doesn't have an aerial or STB connected is not a valid defence. If he hoesn't have the capability to RECIEVE, then he is immune from prosecution on that score.

 

There have been many cases where a conviction has been obtained not because someone was watching (a slam dunk) but had all the equipment available, lead a 'reasonable' person to assume that by adding a set top aerial the full service can be viewed, making a conviction a certainly.

 

There are suggestions of 'de-tuning' the pre sets, but since all that is require is to press auto-scan for them to reappear, this isn;t safe wither. Disabling the internal tuner removes all doubt, and TV repair shops ften provided letters proving the tuners were removed or made inoperative.

[GSMGuy]

For years we didn't have TV when the kids were very small as we felt that it would be a negative influence on them. Nevertheless, we were badgered frequently by the TVLA because we had no TV licence. On one occasion, we were visited by an inspector who asked if she could come in and check if I had a TV. I told her no but she was welcome to park a detector van outside my home indefinitely as far as I was concerned.

 

A week or so later, we got a letter from the TVLA expressing concern that an inspector had been denied access to check whether or not I had a TV. At the time, I was doing illustration work and my income depended on copyright licence fees from companies (mostly greeting card companies) using my designs under the terms of the copyright licence. So I wrote to the TVLA expressing concern that I had no record of ever having received a licence fee for the use of any of my designs and asked if they could arrange a time and date at their convenience when I could call into their offices and check through their stationary and literature to ensure that they weren't using any of my designs without a copyright licence.

 

I did receive a reply. It stated that it would not be possible to allow members of the public access to their offices for the purposes requested but went on to assure me that the TVLA was not in the habit of using copyright protected work without appropriate consent.

 

In response to their initial letter, I sent a copy of this letter along with a brief note from me that it would not be possible to allow officers of the TVLA access to my home for the purposes requested but I assured them I was not in the habit of owning TVs, vehicles or any equipment requiring a licence without the appropriate licence. I added that any further demands for payment, threats of legal action or demands to enter my home would be regarded as harrassment and appropriate action taken.

 

I very much doubt that I actually had the law on my side but they never bothered me again.

 

Classic response!

 

 

Mike

[buzby]

I remember you having this with someone else buzby, (and I agreed), but lets not fool ourselves, the fact remains, it is for the BBC, It is the BBC that can change the terms and conditions of the licence in which case it is a BBC licence in all but name..

 

Sorry - totally wrong. The BBC has no say in the matter. What they can do is laid down in an Act of Parliament, they have no executive authority to vary it - indeed i was only recently they had the responsibility for collecting it (which they sub-contract to Capita). You must also know they cannot even decide what the fee is -they can ask and suggest, but it is the government of the day that sets the fee. Hardly in tune with your understanding.

 

Next - I've already pointed out that the prospect of ITV being funded partially to keep their local news services going, along with CH4's public remit. Continuing to bank on about it being a 'BBC licence' with all that going on will lead to more misconceptions and errors.

 

Wouldn't you think it better to be accurate than fall for 'Daily Mail' bluster?

[robin9342]

GSMGuy - No, your dad does not require a licence, but you may fall foul of copyright law.

 

Buzby, how can you possibly state that Conniff is wrong? The TV Licence is nothing more than a tax which funds the BBC. Whatever proposals there might be for "topslicing" etc, does not change the fact that the money currently all goes to the BBC. (Minus collection costs) There is no misconception or error: It IS a BBC Licence in all but name!

[robin9342]

It is a POSSIBILITY that he could be held liable. Under the strict reading of the act, he is in possession of 'recieving equipment'.

Sorry, wrong again. It is not an offence to own equipment capable of receiving a broadcast signal. It is only an offence to use or install with intent to use the equipment to receive a signal. It may well be prudent to disable the tuner, but it is not a legal requirement.

[buzby]

(1) The Act of Pariament also agrees with me - when they callit it the 'BBC Licence' I'll be minded to agree, but not until then. It is both sloppy an inacurate. Let's look at the Road Fund Tax. Do you think any of the money paid goes into maintianing the road network? It is properly Vehicle Excise Duty - nothing more. When you're accurate, there's less change of mistakes being made.

 

(2) Read what I said, and look at the defining document, the Communications Act. It's precise working, not your colloquial interpretation of what you think is a reasonableexplanation of it.

 

A IV set in a house, capabe of recieving pictures has already been 'installed' - the risk is in having a judge not believing when you say that you 'don' use it'. If you are not believed, you are guilty. End of.

 

By disabling the tuner, you have a full defence, and can send them packing. And yes, I've witnessed several cases where the judge rejected that because there was no aerial connected, a TV licence was not required. This kina blows a hole in your argument.

[robin9342]

(1) It is common knowledge that very little revenue from Vehicle Excise Duty is actually used to maintain the road network. If it did, we might stand some chance of having decent roads! Accurate or not, the terms "Vehicle Excise Duty", "Road Fund Tax" or just "Car Tax" are widely known and interchangeable.

 

Similarly, it does not matter if you call it "TV Licence", "BBC Licence", "The Licence Fee", "TV Tax" Accurate or not, everyone knows what you are referring to. In this case, most of the billions of pounds fleeced out of the Licence payers goes to the BBC. Around £3.5 billion last year in fact. Thats a lot of zeroes : £3500,000,000. Crudely estimated, thats enough to build 14 large new hospitals, several hundred miles of new roads, you get the picture. I'm definitely not an apologist for the BBC!!!

 

(2) It is not just my interpretation of the law - The BBC themselves have stated under a Freedom of Information request a licence is NOT required for simply owning a TV set. TV Licensing -aka BBC, also stated that detuning a TV was sufficient action to render it incapable of receiving broadcasts.

 

However, if taken to court, the magistrate may very well not believe your version of events. It is well known that TVL employees have falsified evidence in court cases. Unfortunately most magistrates are sympathetic to TV Licensing/Capita/BBC and usually believe them over the "evil evader" stood before them

[buzby]

(1) Agree of the first part - but the point being made is that what they are 'known' as has no relevance to what their actual purpose is.

 

Clearly, your terminology makes you against the TV Licence regime. As is your right. However, since ITV has suffered a collapse in fortunes and is allowed to share in this TV Tax or whatever you're going to call it - referring to it as a 'BBC Licence' may well be prejudicial as well as inaccurate - so why perpetrate the error?

 

(2) What the BBC says is also of no consequence. An FoI request has no more relevance than the opinion of the BBC Trust chairman. The SOLE arbiter of was is 'legal' is contained in the Communications Act alone, nowhere else. If called to court as a witness for the defence, you think for a minute that 'the BBC' would turn up?

 

Actually, I wasn't talking about falsifying evidence - only genuine statements of fact. If you add to the mix that someone might also mislead the court, the defender has the opportunity to rebut and call evidence to disprove their assertion (which you will already have been notified of).

 

My interest is in the probability - and if you do not find it reasonable to assume that someone who has a working TV with RF tuners won't actually use it to save on paying the annual licence fee, you must have led a sheltered life!

 

With no reception ability, they are whistling in the dark, and you have a cast iron defence. There's little point being a sacrificial lamb if there's no need to be. The system isn't ideal (what is?) but if I'm being forced to pay it for the little I watch and listen to - you're right, anyone who has the ability to take these services whilst stating they do not - should be hung out to dry. If they're not - law abiding payers will question the fairness.

[Conniff]

referring to it as a 'BBC Licence' may well be prejudicial as well as inaccurate - so why perpetrate the error?

 

I think it is you buzby that should read the regulations:

 

TV licences may be issued by the BBC subject to such restrictions and conditions as the BBC think fit.

 

A TV licence shall continue in force, unless previously revoked by the BBC

 

The BBC may revoke or modify a TV licence, or the restrictions or conditions of such a licence

 

TV Licence lasts for as long as specified on the licence unless it has previously been cancelled or revoked by or on behalf of the licensing authority the BBC

 

We may also revoke licences by publishing a general notice on the BBC's website and, if deemed appropriate by the BBC, in other national communications.

 

What the BBC says is also of no consequence.

 

I think the above makes it quite clear that the BBC does have a say and that it is a BBC licence.

 

All quotes are from the Communications Act 2003 except buzbys who made his up.

 

 

Sorry, wrong again. It is not an offence to own equipment capable of receiving a broadcast signal. It is only an offence to use or install with intent to use the equipment to receive a signal. It may well be prudent to disable the tuner, but it is not a legal requirement.

 

That is exactly correct. (my bold)

Edited August 9, 2009 by Conniff

[robin9342]

However, since ITV has suffered a collapse in fortunes and is allowed to share in this TV Tax or whatever you're going to call it - referring to it as a 'BBC Licence' may well be prejudicial as well as inaccurate - so why perpetrate the error?

Since when? As far as I was aware, no licence fee money is currently being paid to ITV - Its just a proposal at the moment. so calling it a BBC Licence is indeed completely accurate!

My interest is in the probability - and if you do not find it reasonable to assume that someone who has a working TV with RF tuners won't actually use it to save on paying the annual licence fee, you must have led a sheltered life!

One must not assume anything. In this country, it is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". I personally do know of people using a TV set with a functional tuner solely for DVDs and games consoles. Why should such people have to go to the expense of disabling their tuners? What if they later decide that they do wish to watch TV and pay the Licence fee? The BBC have stated that it is sufficient to detune a set and I'm sure a court would take notice of such statements.

Actually, I wasn't talking about falsifying evidence - only genuine statements of fact. If you add to the mix that someone might also mislead the court, the defender has the opportunity to rebut and call evidence to disprove their assertion (which you will already have been notified of)

Unfortunately, TVL have been known to falsify evidence but even when the defendant tried to rebutt them, the magistrate, as is often the case, took the side of TVL.