Tv licence agent threatening behaviour

Swan_2

GillM wrote: »

Can I ask a dumb question? I have a couple of TVs in my house and I also have a current colour licence but the comments above about watching live broadcasts has made me curious. Like many people I watch TV via a PVR. I do watch some live TV but actually, the bulk of my viewing tends to be what I've recorded on the PVR and watched at a time that suits me. Are you saying that if I only watched recorded programmes at a time other than when first broadcast I wouldn't need a licence? Sorry if I've misunderstood what has been posted

it's not a dumb question, the information provided is (intentionally I believe) confusing

you'd still need a licence to do what you propose

'You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.'


LINK to the info on the TVLA site

sarahg1969

p00hsticks wrote: »

My mistake - I was under the impression that the OP was getting severely hassled - if not, why is he posting ?

No, he thinks he has a problem, which is causing him worry. He doesn't have a problem. He now knows that he can ignore the TV licensing people and has no need to prove anything to them.

kwaks

Fruitcake wrote: »

This is not correct. There are two sections of the Telecommunications Act and both have to be fulfilled for an offense to have taken place.

TV receiving equipment is licencable, but a licence is only required if it is being used. The Act then defines the term Use as watching or recording live TV programmes.

You do not need to have a TV licence just to own TV receiving equipment. You do need a licence to watch or record live TV.

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.

So, in the case of the OP, he may still have the TV which he used to use. A court could come to the opinion that as he did not dispose of it then he intended to use it again at some point. Therefore he breaches the act and would be guilty of evasion.

Yes its a lot of its and buts, however the point is that the info that you must watch live broadcasts to breach the act is wrong. Intent or the probability can be enough.

Gers

kwaks wrote: »

n.

Yes its a lot of its and buts, however the point is that the info that you must watch live broadcasts to breach the act is wrong. Intent or the probability can be enough.

You really are confusing things. How on earth is any court going to be able to prove 'intent' or 'probability'? Interestingly enough the film 'Witchfinder General' is on TV today - look what he did!

I can not imagine any judge saying to a defendant 'I think you may watch live TV so am going to give you a criminal record'. That makes liars out of everyone who abides by the law as it stands. :rotfl::rotfl:

So all of us who own kitchen knives COULD be taken to court as we MAY stab someone? :rotfl:

Capita salespeople are known for lying under oath, falsifying witness statements and even downright making things up! Have a trawl through the two websites which have been posted here and see what law-abiding people are being put through by SALESPEOPLE working for commission.

Of course, if someone is watching live TV without a licence then that is a different matter completely.

(disclaimer - capital letters for emphasis and not for shouting)

sarahg1969

Probability cannot be enough for a criminal conviction.

irenee

You can still be hassled by TVL even if you HAVE a TV license

Just this week I received a letter and the same day a visit from one of their 'inspectors'

Background - for several years we had a TV license 'free' as my husband was over 75; last year my husband passed away; I informed TVL of the fact and that I was under 75; they replied that I would need to pay when the license renewal date came round; they reminded me by letter and I renewed and paid using the online facility; received (and printed) my paid for TV license

Their letter was abrasive and very threatening stating that there was no TV license for this address

Their inspector demanded access to my home' I refused; nor did I show him the TV license I have - merely told him to check the records as I had a license; he seriously suggested that more than one TV license is required if the property is multiple-occupancy - excuse me! - I live in a small 1 bed-roomed semi-detached bungalow!!!!

I shut the door on him - went in to my livingroom and found him peering in through the front window - I called the police and noted his vehicle number

PCSO came round within 5 minutes and had words with the inspector - I await the 'promised' apology letter (but definitely not holding my breath)

kwaks

Gers wrote: »

You really are confusing things. How on earth is any court going to be able to prove 'intent' or 'probability'? Interestingly enough the film 'Witchfinder General' is on TV today - look what he did!

I can not imagine any judge saying to a defendant 'I think you may watch live TV so am going to give you a criminal record'. That makes liars out of everyone who abides by the law as it stands. :rotfl::rotfl:

So all of us who own kitchen knives COULD be taken to court as we MAY stab someone? :rotfl:

Capita salespeople are known for lying under oath, falsifying witness statements and even downright making things up! Have a trawl through the two websites which have been posted here and see what law-abiding people are being put through by SALESPEOPLE working for commission.

Of course, if someone is watching live TV without a licence then that is a different matter completely.

(disclaimer - capital letters for emphasis and not for shouting)

Courts decide on a balance of probability. The only sure way to avoid the conviction is to shift the burden of proof to the prosecution by disabling the device from being able to recieve the broadcasts.

As it clearly says in the communications act being in control or owning a set with the intent to use it is an offence.

I point this out because if someone finds themselves in from of the court tries to use the defence "I do not watch live broadcasts" is still open to prosecution.

The guidlines from TVL and the law differ, so anyone finding themselves in court had better know the difference between the two.

kwaks

sarahg1969 wrote: »

Probability cannot be enough for a criminal conviction.

They will, I fear, have to go further and will if necessary have to persuade the court to draw the inference that the apparatus in question was used by the defendant during the relevant period. But I trust and believe that if, for example, a television set in working order is found in the sitting room of a house occupied by the defendant, it will not be difficult for a court to draw the necessary inference in the absence of some credible explanation by the defendant to the effect that it was not being used.

From Judgement in the appeal of Rudd vs. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, 4/6/87

Seems they were happy for the court to draw their own inferences.

Gers

kwaks wrote: »

They will, I fear, have to go further and will if necessary have to persuade the court to draw the inference that the apparatus in question was used by the defendant during the relevant period. But I trust and believe that if, for example, a television set in working order is found in the sitting room of a house occupied by the defendant, it will not be difficult for a court to draw the necessary inference in the absence of some credible explanation by the defendant to the effect that it was not being used.

From Judgement in the appeal of Rudd vs. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, 4/6/87

Seems they were happy for the court to draw their own inferences.

Anything more recent? And was this actually about a TV Licence?

In edit: nothing to do with a TV Licence case at all - it's pirate radio broadcasting.

http://www.jifvik.org/tv/jewell.htm

An important sentence is near the bottom of the website:

This last paragraph is just an example by the judge to illustrate his point, and is not as precisely phrased as the main judgement

So - still able to own a TV set capable of receiving live transmissions!

You don't work for Capita do you Kwaks???

And I quote again:

Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it a criminal offence to install or use a television receiver, for the purpose of receiving television programme services, without a valid licence.

kwaks

Gers, you are miss quoting section 363, a clue to that might be seen above where I quoted section 363 in its entirety.

No I do not work for Capita.

However I know employees of Capita have been know to lie in order to get people into court, and thus by passing their own guidlines where the TV needs to have been used.

Once at court however, the TV not being used is no guarrantee against conviction.

Do you not see I am simply trying to ensure people are simply aware of the difference?

TVL guidlines say using the tv to watch live broadcasts
The law says "(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",

That can be a world of difference and can lead to people tripping themselves up in court.

And yes, the Rudd appeal was to do with pirate broadcasting, but if you do a little more research you will see it is very relevent as it has been used as precedence in cases of licence evasion.