Tv licence summons,i want to plead not guily

EssexGirl

I'm not suitably knowledgeable to comment on the legalities, as I've always held a TV licence. But it seems to me that you got caught without one, and now you're running scared and trying to dig your way out of the hole.
There are so many people that try to wriggle their way of fines for things that they have been caught doing, that I'm sure the court would take a dismal view to you saying you moved in yesterday, when in fact you have lived there for 4 years. It's not a hard question to answer.

They caught you, buy a licence, pay the fine etc, end of story.

inconfidence

so to clarify, in august 2009 i had a TV, no disputing that, but was using it for non live purposes, i was happy to admit this and to give my name as i thought i was doing the TVL a favour and i didnt have anything to hide, in my panic i must have said, or appeared to say that i had only just moved in, i have infact been there over 4 years and no watching live TV

ive had a freeview box since new year, and i have watched it sparingly and was going to sort licence out this week (illegal, i know, no argument in court)

so the offence is for back in august saying i watched tv programmes on the day of the interview, my apparent answer on the interview report says i last watched it 'yesterday' (this incidentally i didnt say)

so the two dates, one on the offence claiming i watched TV and the date on the interview saying when i last watched tv are different, does this make the offence void as there is solid evidence, or will the judge assume because i watched it one day then i probably watched it the following day

this is a technicaility and may or may not stand up in court if i plead not guilty

and thats besides the point that i was agreeing that i had a tv but not agreeing that i watched programmes on it

i only recieved the summons 10 days before the hearting and it leaves little time to take up a complaint with the TVL

I dont want to get myself into a deeper mess and risk being fined loads

and i spoke to a solicitor this morning and he said a tv being watched or with the capabilities of being watched needs to be covered.

oh and i do believe some of 'my' answers in the interview record are not actually mine, but that would be claiming purgery

anyway im on low income, so as much as i want to fight, i think the odds are in TVL's favour, and ill plead guilty but put in my many mitigating circumstances and detail my financial situation, and just hope i get a compassionate judge, fingers crossed

but any more advice please do let me know

glider3560

inconfidence wrote: »

and i spoke to a solicitor this morning and he said a tv being watched or with the capabilities of being watched needs to be covered.

I'd be getting another solicitor if I were you. You DO NOT need a licence to be in possession of TV receiving equipment. You DO need a licence to watch TV.

See here: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/what-if-a-tv-licence-is-not-needed-top12/ where it says

If you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes at the same time as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you only use your TV to watch DVDs or play video games, or if you only watch programmes on your PC after they have been shown on TV - you don't need a TV Licence. If this is the case, please let us know.

sagalout1954

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/ Might help clarify things a bit.

You'll have attend the Magistrates Court if you want to plead 'not guilty' (a guilty plea can ordinarily be accepted by letter). It's a distinct possibility your case will be heard there and then (not rescheduled for later just because or your not guilty plea), ring the Court and they'll advise you whether that is their normal procedure for TV licence evasion cases (it certainly was when I was working in the parking offence field).

Whether you get off or not will depend on the Magistrates on the day, legalitities and technicalities can sometimes sail right over their heads given that they are pretty much laymen/women - no legal qualifications required. During your case they may even keep disappearing out the back with the Clerk of the Court given that their legal knowledge/qualifications is often far superior to the Magistrates, so they go out to receive his/her advice on various points whenever necessary during a hearing.

'Costs' requested by the other side if you lose are probably going to be a standard amount for all the licence evasion cases they might be bringing that day, regardless of your income (or lack of it). The fine lumped on top will also probably be the same for all the cases but the Magistrate may choose to lower that if you show you don't have much dosh. He/she can also lower the request for costs but they do tend to keep more uniformity on those. Might be wise to take along a bank statement or two to show income/expenditure.

You may be fortunate and get a couple of Magistrates who are happy to take on board your 'defence' issues, equally they may say "you had a TV, you've been watching it & you don't have a licence, GUILTY, costs and fine awarded". It is HIGHLY unlikely that costs requested and fine levied would be set higher just because you entered a plea of not guilty so you may feel it's worth a shot (the Courts are not in the business of making people too frightened to plead not guilty just because they're worried a fine might be higher if proven guilty), I've seen Magistrates let people off on the merest whim before.

Good luck (but not too much, I pay for my licence )

inconfidence

so it may sound dumb, but if i plead guilty and all my statements and mitigating circumstances make the judge feel i may be not guilty, can he effectively overturn my plea and find me innocent, or is it that once i plead guilty that is that, and maybe ill just recieve a lesser fine

i am still confused as to the official line on tvs and use of tv's and what needs to be covered, citizen advice bureau and a solicitor i had a brief chat with both said that a tv with the capability of receiving live tv needs to be covered, yet there are countless sources online saying there has to be evidence of watching live TV, anyway ive just signed up to a tv licence so's to cover all grounds from now on

but back to the summons, because of a miscommunication during the interview, it appears i suggested that i was watching live tv, but at the time i wasnt, so my offence is based on me using it back then, however i dont think i can plead not guilty based on the notion that somehow our lines of communication were crossed, am the guilty party and i dont have a signed document of my own to prove anything

So i think i will plead guilty, say it was an extremely unfortunate misunderstanding, that i thought i didnt need a licence for just using the tv for games and dvds etc, but note down in my statement the concerns i have about how i felt the original interview went and that it was not made totally clear to me what i was signing and was not informed of what i should next do, also mention that the offence states that i watched tv on a certain date and infact the record of interview does not substantiate that, say how i am an honest and upstanding member of the public with no previous convictions, have no history of summons for late payments, and ask that my financial situation is taken into consideration when sentencing me

sound like the best option?

i just wish i hadnt get the summons so late in the day, i would really like to fight these guys because at the time i didnt do anything wrong and was 'tricked' into saying that i was, these TVL investigators need to be taught a lesson

glider3560

inconfidence wrote: »

so it may sound dumb, but if i plead guilty and all my statements and mitigating circumstances make the judge feel i may be not guilty, can he effectively overturn my plea and find me innocent, or is it that once i plead guilty that is that, and maybe ill just recieve a lesser fine

My understanding is that if you plead guilty, there is no trial. It just goes straight through to sentencing. (although I may be wrong about that)

inconfidence wrote: »

i am still confused as to the official line on tvs and use of tv's and what needs to be covered, citizen advice bureau and a solicitor i had a brief chat with both said that a tv with the capability of receiving live tv needs to be covered, yet there are countless sources online saying there has to be evidence of watching live TV, anyway ive just signed up to a tv licence so's to cover all grounds from now on

The TV Licensing website even says you don't need a licence if you are just using a TV for DVDs or video games. A read of the Communications Act 2003 should confirm this.

Did you sign the interview record and were you cautioned before the interview?

spike7451

OP,
Take a butchers here-
http://tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php

ckerrd

"i am still confused as to the official line on tvs and use of tv's and what needs to be covered, citizen advice bureau and a solicitor i had a brief chat with both said that a tv with the capability of receiving live tv needs to be covered, yet there are countless sources online saying there has to be evidence of watching live TV, anyway ive just signed up to a tv licence so's to cover all grounds from now on"

Shame that both the CAB and your solicitor have given the wrong advice in this instance

duggie1982

JohalaReewi wrote: »

This does not require a TV licence.

Also, the intention to watch live TV does not automatically follow if you purchase a freeview box...
The freeview box could have been a gift for someone else.
The freeview box could be to listen to the radio channels (no licence needed).

Still need licence for radio e.g. radio1, 2, etc. Thats my understanding.

Andy_L

duggie1982 wrote: »

Still need licence for radio e.g. radio1, 2, etc. Thats my understanding.

Your understanding is incorrect
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ102/
"No, you do not need a TV Licence to listen to the radio."