Tv licence agent threatening behaviour

Gers wrote: »

There are a number of people who have done the WOIRA thing to Capita and they have complied.

Are you saying that they don't have to comply?

On the contrary, of course they have to comply.

What I find interesting, and very underhand, is the letter they send back to confirm they have accepted WOIRA, below shows what they have written:

Thank you for your recent letter, which has been passed to our Customer relations Department, for my attention.

I have received and acted upon your instruction refusing access to your property by TV Licensing personnel. I have instructed the local TV Licensing Enquiry Office that permission for them to enter upon your property has been withdrawn.

I should advise you that this will not prohibit other forms of enquiry, such as periodic letters to the address.

One last letter may already be on its way however, as they are prepared some time ahead of posting. If you find that another has arrived in the next few weeks, please ignore it.

I hope you will find this information helpful.

Yours sincerely,



No doubt you would agree the highlighted part puts TVL in breach of the statutes if they are suggesting right of access and right of entry are one and the same.

lucylucky wrote: »

"No doubt you would agree the highlighted part puts TVL in breach of the statutes if they are suggesting right of access and right of entry are one and the same."

I read it slightly differently in that using the phrase "enter upon" as opposed to "enter" indicates they have agreed not to access your land.

It may however be semantics and they are playing games:cool:

Are you suggesting TVL are being deliberately ambiguous in their wording, shall we agree to it being incompetance or sneaky then? :rotfl:

kwaks wrote: »

363Licence required for use of TV receiver E+W+S+N.I.
(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.
(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—
(a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
(b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
is guilty of an offence.

As the above act shows, it is an offence to own the equiptment if they can show that you could be temped to use it at some point in the future.

Kwaks, time for a bit of education on the Act.

Firstly, yes section 363 makes it appear that anyone with a tv needs a licence, however, section 368 says

Meanings of “television receiver” and “use” E+W+S+N.I.
(1)In this Part “television receiver” means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part.

Ok, still seems you probably need a licence... until, The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 come along (just in case it needs explaining, these regs are just the type of regs section 268 is referring to)

These regs state:

Meaning of “television receiver”
9.—(1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

Which means that the "receiver" in english language terms is not a receiver in law unless it is installed, or used, for the purpose of receiving television programme services.

What this means is that even though a television is capable of receiving a broadcast, if it installed for the purpose of watching DVD's/playing Xbox/use as a cctv monitor, and not at all for the purpose of watching tv then no offence has been committed.

I'm sick of this same discussion coming up on these forums all the time and there's always someone, usually a first year law student, who reads one section of the act, fails to consider that legal definitions often differ from English language ones and starts telling everyone that owning a tv means you need a licence and that tv licensing are doing everyone a favour by saying it's only if you actually install or use it for watching tv, when in fact they're actually just following the law.

A television receiver does not legally become a television receiver until it is installed for that purpose.

i have 3 tvs and five computers capable of internet tv signal reception. i do not pay my tv licence for 3 yrs now.
i never watch live tv
and i have had tv licence people in to check that i am honest.

i use one tv for one xbox and another for the wii and one more for a second xbox used as a dvd player

my gate clearly has do not enter dogs running free on it
if
anyone was stuid enough to enter and both my big dogs tore him to bits i would not be liable
i have clearly displayed, it is my property and my dogs will act in a protective manner on their teritory.

so if the tv licenec man had been bitten , he could not sue op, as he had not been given permission to enter.