Tv License question....just curious

[rontocknell]

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.

[GSMGuy]

TVL are just arses - Sorry, but they rely on Bully tactics, I remember reading somewhere that about 90% of people prosecuted were single Mums with kids, who were "coereced" into giving a doorstep "admission"

 

I always chase the cheeky fookers, and yes - we do have a licence, but only because my OH wouldn't let me go without....

 

Mike

[robert_harper_2000]

So to confirm. If they want to enter your premises they need to apply for a warrant through a Judge at which point you would have been notified? If they turned up you could simple say "no thank you".

[IdaInFife]

correct Robert.

 

 

 

Idax

[Conniff]

So to confirm. If they want to enter your premises they need to apply for a warrant through a Judge at which point you would have been notified? If they turned up you could simple say "no thank you".

 

Absolutely Robert. They have less power than your paperboy, cannot 'demand' anything and are called 'officers' as an intimidatory measure. They can only enter if you invite them in or with a warrant issued by the courts, but of course they don't tell you that, they use the air of authority to make you think they have some kind of power, but they have none.

 

You do not have to respond to any letters they send you either as these have no legal standing, and it is up to them to prove that you are using a television receiver to receive 'live' broadcast, and not mearly that you own one.

 

A post earlier mentioned that detector vans do not work. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they do. A cathode ray tube television emits a very strong rf field and that can be picked up in quite a wide circle around where it is being used and in the normal house that is in the street, and they can tell you which channel you are watching as well, so I am afraid that the privacy laws do not cover it either.

 

Modern LCD and Plasma televisions or computers with the same monitors do not radiate this rf field so it is they that cannot be detected.

 

When we have all changed to these type of screen at some time in the future, their job is going to be made a lot harder

 

And never ever sign anything. They are as devious as debt collectors and will say it is to acknowledge they have called when it is in fact an admission that you are using a television without a licence even if you don't own a television, and a court summons will probably appear soon after.

 

Just one other thing. TVL is the BBC, they use an outside contractor to collect the fee and it is not a statutory body set up by the government or anyone else

[sillygirl1]

I had the same problem, had a mobile home which was used for the odd weekend and one weekend they came round, no tv visible and they asked the neighbours if I lived there permanently and had a tv... neighbours didn't know as they were 'weekenders' too and the bloke was well miffed. He went to the site manager and he confirmed that I didn't live there permanently.

 

When I moved I got my license for my old address stopped and as I am in rented property and the landlord pays the tv licence here they couldn't make me take a new licence as I am not a separate household... I now watch tv from a tv tuner card on my digital PC screen.

[Conniff]

I now watch tv from a tv tuner card on my digital PC screen.

 

That is supposed to have a licence if you watch live tv on it.

[sillygirl1]

I know, as already stated the landlord pays for the tv licence here so I am covered. I wasn't going to pay twice when I didn't need too. I am not a separate household from my flatmates.

[robin9342]

A post earlier mentioned that detector vans do not work. Sorry to burst your bubble, but they do. A cathode ray tube television emits a very strong rf field and that can be picked up in quite a wide circle around where it is being used and in the normal house that is in the street, and they can tell you which channel you are watching as well, so I am afraid that the privacy laws do not cover it either.

True, but my understanding is that of all the "detector vans" you see in the street, only one or two are actually functional, the rest being dummy vans to re-inforce their scare tactics. I have also read that there has never actually been a prosecution based on detector van evidence. Only on "confessions" obtained on the doorstep/in the premises by TVL

[Blossomandebony]

Everyone HATES paying for tv licences but EVERYONE doesn't avoid paying them through deception.

 

Yes, the tactics of TVL are atrocious but this doesn't give anyone the right to avoid payment when they use a TV, thus increasing the cost of licences for poor buggers like me who pay it!!!

 

Those who avoid paying when they have a TV are not screwing the BBC, they're screwing the licence payers, i. e. me and 99.9% of people on this site who I am certain will be disgusted by some of the ignorant remarks on this thread.

 

What next - let's stop paying council tax and say we don't use the roads, bins and pavements . . .

[davefirewalker]

 

 

Modern LCD and Plasma televisions or computers with the same monitors do not radiate this rf field so it is they that cannot be detected.

 

When we have all changed to these type of screen at some time in the future, their job is going to be made a lot harder

 

 

yes but we are all going digital soon..........

 

wont be that long before they can "turn you off" for not paying .......

 

The agency they use to collect the tvl is I believe CAPITA.......responsible for among other things collecting and enforcing the london congestion charge.

 

rgds

 

Dave

[HSBCrusher]

Everyone HATES paying for tv licences but EVERYONE doesn't avoid paying them through deception.

CAG certainly encourages everybody who watches television to pay the licence fee, and distances itself from comments to the contrary.

If you watch TV, pay the fee.

If you do not, then don't be bullied.

[Conniff]

I agree with the cag view, but I don't think there is any real advocation to avoid paying the licence in this thread and I can't see the 'ignorant remarks' refered to above.

[HSBCrusher]

I agree with the cag view, but I don't think there is any real advocation to avoid paying the licence in this thread and I can't see the 'ignorant remarks' refered to above.

just that we are clear about it

[Annoying Twit]

I didn't have a television for some years, though I have one (and a licence) now. During the time I didn't have a licence I started off sweet and innocent, writing them letters saying I didn't have a television. After a while I worked out that keeping up your side of the bargain was a complete waste of time, so I just started ignoring the letters. Only phoning occasionally to complain about misleading wording.

 

I've read (TV Licensing – and the non-viewer – an FAQ) that there is a simple way of getting rid of TV Licencing Inspectors. If they are going to interview you under caution, then under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act, they have to provide you with a lawyer should you demand one. So if you demand one, they'll go away. The link I doesn't look too conclusive concerning this, so confirmation/other evidence might be useful.

[Conniff]

They use those words as further intimidation.

 

You do not have to speak to them at all, unless they turn up with a warrant, (even then you don't have to say anything).

 

I like your way of thinking AT but unfortunately you will have to pay for that legal eagle as you can only get free legal advice if you are being interviewed in a police station.

[Annoying Twit]

They use those words as further intimidation.

 

You do not have to speak to them at all, unless they turn up with a warrant, (even then you don't have to say anything).

 

I like your way of thinking AT but unfortunately you will have to pay for that legal eagle as you can only get free legal advice if you are being interviewed in a police station.

 

OK, HSE - Questioning of Suspects supports your claim. But they can't continue on with the "interview" without legal advice having been taken, so it ends there. I would presume.

[crash3903]

CAG certainly encourages everybody who watches television to pay the licence fee, and distances itself from comments to the contrary.

If you watch TV, pay the fee.

If you do not, then don't be bullied.

 

Really?

 

Of course they do have a bit at the bottom (almost called it a link then) saying you should write to them if you don't have a TV, but given how aggressive and hostile their letters are, I didn't see why I should. Instead I decided to be as uncooperative as possible

 

The evidence suggest otherwise

[Hippy-chick]

Sorry, crash - how is this advocating not paying a licence fee? I agree with webby. If one does not have a tv, why should one make it easy for them? Why should one write to them? Surely the onus is on them to prove that one watches tv?

 

This is not avoidance of paying the licence at all.

[crash3903]

Instead I decided to be as uncooperative as possible

 

You right sorry mush have been too much brandy

[Conniff]

As further intimidation, these people who obviously use the DCA collection manual as their instruction manual, attempt to make it look as though your house must have a licence, and you may receive a letter begining:

 

Official Warning - This Property is Unlicensed

 

You are hereby notified that we have authorised officers from our Enforcement Division

to visit you home and interview you under caution, as our records show there is still no TV Licence at this address.

Maybe, on second thoughts, these people wrote the manual that the DCAs use for collection.

 

Surely this type of thing must come under the 'Harasement' regulations.

[Annoying Twit]

So basically because my friend only has a dvd and his games console attached to his tv, he does'nt have to pay....Cheers for that.

 

Careful! I amused myself by reading up on TV licencing some time ago. It appears that there is case law which means that a TV capable of receiving transmissions requires a licence even if it isn't connected. The advice that I read (not written by lawyers, nor am I one), said that anyone wanting to use a TV for purposes other than receiving broadcasts should disable it so that it cannot receive such signals. Even that won't help you though if a TVL inspector fools you into signing a confession, which is, I'm told, easier to do by accident than you'd think, with key phrases hidden in larger documents etc. It is claimed that TVL doesn't publicise these precedents (though it uses them in court) as it's easier to get a conviction if people aren't familiar with them.

 

On the lighter side, I also read a story where someone had a TVL inspector on his doorstep. The TVL inspector asked to come in. The householder said no. The TVL inspector said that he was going to stand there until he was allowed in. It was raining heavily and there was no shelter outside the door. The householder said "fine" (or similar) and just stood there for some time until the TVL inspector realised that the situation was ridiculous and left.

[Conniff]

To disable does not mean removing some part so that it can't receive. It is satisfactory to have the television detuned.

To enter your home they have to have cause, ie they have seen it through the window (and believe that it is a live tv picture) or captured it on a detector. They will still even then, need a warrant from the court to enter.

 

If the set has an aerial plugged in or a set top box, and on switching it on a live television picture appears, then I am afraid that no denial will be good enough.

Just a television and a dvd is fine. Remember though that a video is a television receiver and some dvd have receivers in them (rare), and also a computer with a television card is also classed as a television.

 

One of the reasons to try and educate is that there is nothing tvl has that you need to sign.

[Annoying Twit]

To enter your home they have to have cause, ie they have seen it through the window (and believe that it is a live tv picture) or captured it on a detector. They will still even then, need a warrant from the court to enter.

 

I have read some horror stories of what TVL inspectors will do if they believe that the person they are (in my opinion) harassing does not know the law. In theory they need to follow the process you describe. In reality there appear to be some "bad eggs" among TVL inspectors.

 

There are also more mild examples where inspectors will use bullying or manipulative, erm, "strategies" to get the homeowner to give them permission to enter. As a fictional example, imagine the inspector putting his hands on his hips, saying in an officious voice "I need to inspect your property to ensure that you do not have a television. Show me to the lounge." Wouldn't work on one of us I'm sure, but on poorly educated unemployed people, sometimes effective.

[Conniff]

They are probably on a bonus scheme and that is why they try so hard.