tv licence court summons - non resident

System

Cornucopia wrote: »

Yes, this is true.

However, these cases are bad PR for BBC/TVL and they may drop it, if the OP presses them on it..

Since it is a monopoly then bad PR will have no effect. Whether you love 'em or hate 'em they will carry on collecting

Cornucopia

!!!!!! wrote: »

Since it is a monopoly then bad PR will have no effect. Whether you love 'em or hate 'em they will carry on collecting

We'll see.

I'm aware of a similarly dubious case being dropped by them only this morning.

Watchkeeper

From the TV Licensing Website:

Would you prosecute a person at an address that uses TV receiving equipment without a valid TV Licence, if that person doesn’t live there?

TV Licensing’s activities are carried out in accordance with specific policies and guidelines, which set out the criteria for prosecuting evaders. One of these criteria is that a person who is charged with a TV licensing offence must be an adult who resides at the address, or is the landlord or person responsible for licensing a television receiver at the premises. For example, a genuine visitor or babysitter at the premises will not be prosecuted.

I'm not allowed to post links, but it's on the TV Licensing Website underFOI: Administering the TV Licensing system part 2. You'll have to manage as best you can.

Watchkeeper

!!!!!! wrote: »

The offence is WATCHING live TV without a licence, residency/tenancy are not factors.

It's not that simple, because it's the PREMISES which are licensed not the person. Therefore it is the usual RESIDENT who is liable for the TV licence not a visitor.

See the statement from the horse's mouth above.

Cornucopia

Watchkeeper wrote: »

It's not that simple, because it's the PREMISES which are licensed not the person. Therefore it is the usual RESIDENT who is liable for the TV licence not a visitor.

See the statement from the horse's mouth above.

It does beg the question as to why they summonsed the GF in the first place.

Perhaps it's another of their policies that is honoured more in the breach?

Heinz

Cornucopia wrote: »

It does beg the question as to why they summonsed the GF in the first place.

Commission!

Watchkeeper

Cornucopia wrote: »

Perhaps it's another of their policies that is honoured more in the breach?

I'm sure that's so.

When you sub-contract your law enforcement duties to a rogue firm which treats the situation as a sales exercise with the aim of raising as much dosh as possible, and when you adopt a "nuffink to do wiv me, Guv - it's that Capita" approach to your responsibilities, what can we expect?

Heinz hits the nail squarely on the head.

Cornucopia

Watchkeeper wrote: »

I'm sure that's so.

When you sub-contract your law enforcement duties to a rogue firm which treats the situation as a sales exercise with the aim of raising as much dosh as possible, and when you adopt a "nuffink to do wiv me, Guv - it's that Capita" approach to your responsibilities, what can we expect?

Heinz hits the nail squarely on the head.

Hmmm.... a sad situation for our noble justice system.

Ectophile

stunews wrote: »

TV licensing!

She is scared and doesn't want to go to court, and would rather plead guilty by post without having to go.

Bear in mind that watching TV without a licence is a criminal offence. So if she pleads guilty, she will end up with a criminal record for something she didn't do.

She will then have to disclose that record to every insurance company and every employer for years to come.

Get proper legal advice.

[Deleted User]

If she isn't on the lease/tenancy, CT, utility bills etc, you could always return the summons, marked "ADDRESSEE NOT RESIDENT AT THIS ADDRESS".

If you do, then it might be an idea for you to "stay over" at her address, rather than vice versa, for a while.