We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Tv Licence Summons
Comments
-
The offence is having the CAPABILITY to receive, not the actual viewing. The judge is asked to decide whether he believes the defendant did not watch live programming, and is asked questions to decide whether they can/should be believed. A witness statement confirming reception capability is a slam dunk, but a number who had TV's but denied viewing live, were disbelieved and fined.0
-
Wrong - it is the actual viewing (or recording).The offence is having the CAPABILITY to receive, not the actual viewing.
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-oneCheck if you need a TV Licence
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.Time has moved on (much quicker than it used to - or so it seems at my age) and my previous advice on residential telephony has been or is now gradually being overtaken by changes in the retail market. Hence, I have now deleted links to my previous 'pearls of wisdom'. I sincerely hope they helped save some of you money.0 -
The offence is having the CAPABILITY to receive, not the actual viewing. The judge is asked to decide whether he believes the defendant did not watch live programming, and is asked questions to decide whether they can/should be believed. A witness statement confirming reception capability is a slam dunk, but a number who had TV's but denied viewing live, were disbelieved and fined.
Wrong.
The offence is watching live TV without a licence.
Just having a TV does not matter.
It isn't about not believing people about it, its about them having to have the evidence that the person was watching live TV.0 -
The offence is having the CAPABILITY to receive, not the actual viewing. The judge is asked to decide whether he believes the defendant did not watch live programming, and is asked questions to decide whether they can/should be believed. A witness statement confirming reception capability is a slam dunk, but a number who had TV's but denied viewing live, were disbelieved and fined.
The offence is to receive a live TV broadcast. It is perfectly legal to own a TV with the capability to receive live TV but not to use it for that purpose. You can use it to receive by watching the picture or by recording the signal.
Unless the invesigator has specialist equipment he would need to be in a position to see that reception of live TV or recording is happening. With specialist equipment he could detect reception from the street from the emissions in the receiving device, including any arising from a previously tuned receiver picking up a weak signal without an aerial.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
WelshBluebird wrote: »Wrong. Not entirely
The offence is watching live TV without a licence.- No its receiving live TV which you would be if you were watching it. You could also receive it if you were recording it.
Just having a TV does not matter. True
It isn't about not believing people about it, its about them having to have the evidence that the person was watching live TV -or recording it or otherwise receiving it
See above correectionsFew people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
I think that the last few posts are missing the point......the OP has actually signed some sort of admission of TV "use"......so the technical arguments do not apply in this particular case.0
-
And those that ccontinue to waffle on about 'live viewing' and the requirement to be seen or admitting to doing so are nonsensical. TVRO spout this in their advice, but the only definitive source is the Communications Act which does not make this distinction.
Having the capability to view is the benchmark, leaving the decision to the judge on whether the defendant actually did or did not. If they are believed, they're fine. If not - the case is proved. NOT having the equipment removes this balance of decision.
I've seen enough cases gone against the defendant because of this - the judge finding their explanations unreliable at best, or unbelievable at worst.
Only the Comms Act can be taken as the sole defining arbiter of requiring or using a licence, NOTHING ELSE matters.
A non-Freeview TV, with no add-on box would be safe. A freeview TV would not.0 -
A non-Freeview TV, with no add-on box would be safe. A freeview TV would not.
A freeview TV is fine to own if it is not installed to receive, no aerial connection and not tuned is not installed for use.
Feel free to post the relevant part of the communications act you feel best demonstrates your advice.0 -
And those that ccontinue to waffle on about 'live viewing' and the requirement to be seen or admitting to doing so are nonsensical.
Having the capability to view is the benchmark......
Only the Comms Act can be taken as the sole defining arbiter of requiring or using a licence, NOTHING ELSE matters.
.
CA2003 states:
(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.
It is not illegal to own a TV unless you also install or use it for the purpose of receiving or intend to do so. As you say waffle is irrelevant what matters is the CA2003 and this is what it says! The " capability to view" is not defined in CA2003 as far as I recall. Any device that has a tuner of the right specification has the "capability to receive" but you need to install or use it.
The OP needs an advocate to explain what he has done or not done. THere is no other advice he can be given other than to get one. Signing something you do not understand or being pushed into doing so by someone on commission is potentially an issue to be explored.
I do agree that in many situations people have installed or used a receiver but try to argue they have no aerial or intent yet its all set up and tuned in so that they just need to install an aerial. In these cases it does amount to whether they are believed.Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.0 -
I dont understand this.
Didnt the OP say he was staying at a friends for two weeks? Didnt he say he. He also said in a later post he owned nothing but clothes.
how can he be guilty here? he doesnt own the TV, and doesnt own or rent the property. How can he be guilrty of anything here?
The owner of the TV may be guilty, or the occupant of the house - but not the OP surly.
Surly the defence if any would go along the lines of "I was a guest at the property and neither lived there permantly or owned the TV in question". This can be prooved as well so??0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.6K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.3K Spending & Discounts
- 245.2K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.9K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 259K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards