Tv licence agent threatening behaviour

KimYeovil

I think the OP has the wrong target. They should be complaining about the fitters of the secure gate who have installed a system that any old TV licensing agent can open with abandon. Or is the OP confusing 'closed' with 'locked'?

lucylucky

kwaks wrote: »

Which is exactly where the prosecution bring out the Rudd case as precedent.

Which I think is where they would fail.

Gers

kwaks wrote: »

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.

Some links to recent cases where this has been used would be helpful.

kwaks

Gers wrote: »

Some links to recent cases where this has been used would be helpful.

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

Good explanation here, and how to fight it as a precedence.
This is a well written report of one persons experience of being prosecuted.

darkblue_2

Interesting reading regarding 'implied right of access':
http://www.lime-marmalade.net/philip_dean.html

Essentially, unless otherwise stated, people have the right to assume you allow them into areas of your property up to and including the door. If you withdraw this implied right, they cannot legally come up to the door.

adouglasmhor

Dealmad wrote: »

Last time they said a van detected i had a tv so he said this is all the proof they need.

Their Vans couldn't find a TV at Folsom Street Fair. Propaganda device and not much else.

adouglasmhor

darkblue wrote: »

Interesting reading regarding 'implied right of access':
http://www.lime-marmalade.net/philip_dean.html

Essentially, unless otherwise stated, people have the right to assume you allow them into areas of your property up to and including the door. If you withdraw this implied right, they cannot legally come up to the door.

As the OP appears to have a sign denying access is that not a withdrawal of implied right?

darkblue_2

I don't think it's the same thing. A denial of access instruction has to be sent directly to the organisation.

adouglasmhor

darkblue wrote: »

I don't think it's the same thing. A denial of access instruction has to be sent directly to the organisation.

I hope anyone who tries that at my dad's house can explain that in Alsatian language. He doesn’t bite but you don’t get into the yard unless one of the family says so.

darkblue_2

I'm sure that's deterrent enough!

I do think there is a difference between a sort of 'no cold callers' sign and denial of implied right of access.

If it were the case, the postie wouldn't be delivering your mail.