Advice on Court Summons

helloaali

Hi,

I have recently received court summons after having a visit by TVL inspector. existing licence just expired a month ago before the visit.
I did bought the licence after the visit on a different person's name living at same place assuming they will check address not person name before proceeding to court.
now even after buying the licence I have have to face this court hearing and I am planning to not plea guilty. my point of action is that TV was not used for watching live or recorded TV programs it is used only for playing video game or online videos. Although I have a sky box but it is there just because we have a complete call, and broadband package. but there is no wire connected from sky box to TV so TV can not be used for watching or recording live programs. In the interview against the question "when was TV last used for watching TV program" is written "TV in use now".
But there is no definition of what a "TV Program" means so even if I signed the interview that I was watching a TV program at that time. There is no evidence that the program was broadcasting live. it was a program on youtube and was being watched on TV via broadband. the inspector did not came in and saw that TV is used for watching live or recorded TV program.
I need experts advice on it.
Please advice me the hearing is next week.
thanks

Ali

Kurtis_Blue

So if you do not watch Live TV, why did you have a licence the month before and why did you buy one straight after the visit? why did you have the Sky package, it never free with phone and broadband so that arguments out the window, and whatever you did say to the TVL guy you clearly didnt explain why you did not have a licence.

Cant see you have a hope but a lot will rest on the paper you signed when doorsteped, for other readers:

Never sign anything, never say anything.

helloaali

I bought the licence before and now because I was not aware that its ok to use TV for gaming and web contents without licence. my understanding was that if you have a TV in your home you should have it with licence. its only now I got this information after reading forums that you dont need it for games and non live or recorded stuff.
regarding Sky box i got a deal from my friend who work in sky, just for £10 all three. atleast I know there is no broadband service available less than £10 with only 12 months contract.

BLT_2

helloaali wrote: »

I bought the licence before and now because I was not aware that its ok to use TV for gaming and web contents without licence. my understanding was that if you have a TV in your home you should have it with licence. its only now I got this information after reading forums that you dont need it for games and non live or recorded stuff.
regarding Sky box i got a deal from my friend who work in sky, just for £10 all three. atleast I know there is no broadband service available less than £10 with only 12 months contract.

When is your court case, I want to be there when you tell the judge you don't watch TV but you have one which was playing a programme at the time (you tube ), and it is sat next to the sky box you don't use, but you can produce the licence you rushed out and bought after the visit.

He will have to pronounce you not guilty, I can't see why he would assume otherwise :rotfl:

helloaali

well according to your thinking you are right, but i see it in this way: sky box can only show you what it wants to show you, youtube shows you what you want to see.

if a person does not know about the complexity of TV contents and some asks if TV is in use he will say yes it is in use, no matter if it is used for youtube or gaming.
and to make the argument more compeling I can say I was playing game on it. and yes I have only used my TV for playing games, watching movies on DVD and streaming contents from my laptop to it.

BLT_2

helloaali wrote: »

well according to your thinking you are right, but i see it in this way: sky box can only show you what it wants to show you, youtube shows you what you want to see.

if a person does not know about the complexity of TV contents and some asks if TV is in use he will say yes it is in use, no matter if it is used for youtube or gaming.
and to make the argument more compeling I can say I was playing game on it. and yes I have only used my TV for playing games, watching movies on DVD and streaming contents from my laptop to it.

Notwithstanding all your debates on the utility of Sky vs You Tube and you statement that you could say you were only playing a game on it, the fact remains that the magistrate is going to look at the evidence......TV, Sky Box, rushing out to buy licence day after, and you are on a one way street to a hiding.

In these sort of cases you are guilty until proven innocent. Have to admit if I were the judge there would be a couple of hundred pound find coming your way (although personally I disagree with this scandalous charge geared around funding second rate TV and radio programming)

PNPSUKNET

stop trying to scam licensing, you got caught with your pants down now you have to pay the fine

Pikeyp

I suppose you could plead ignorance .. ie: you did not realise the license was out of date and your 'room-mate' rushed out and bought one as soon as possible!

In the eyes of the law ignorance is no excuse of course but if you have made the effort to buy one , as seems to be the case , you might be OK.

terryya

My wife was caught in a similar scenario when she was in halls at uni. Some numpty had allowed the inspector into the halls and she happened to answer the door when he called on her floor. She told him the truth and he told her to get one. However, like the OP, a different housemate bought the licence in their name.

A few weeks later a summons dropped throught the letterbox for my wife, but when they phoned up and explained they'd bought one straight away but in a different name they agreed to drop the case as long as my wife paid her own fees (£0) :beer: