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 - misleading and confusing

1235712

Comments

  • sniggings
    sniggings Posts: 5,281 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Good lord. The communications act clearly 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

    Whats not clear? just cut the sat feeds.

    read the letters from the TV licencing manager, in the link, it covers the point you are making and he says if the equipment is not used for live feeds then just having it installed is not enough for a need for a licence.

    why should I damage my cables, I may wish to buy a licence when I can afford one, atm I can't.
  • Dollardog
    Dollardog Posts: 1,774 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Good lord. The communications act clearly 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

    Whats not clear? just cut the sat feeds.

    How you are looking at it would probably not make sniggings and certainly not me legal, because if sniggings is like me, we still would have receiving equipment in the form of computer or laptop, so cutting sat feeds to a freeview box would not help.

    The letter from the TV licensing people themselves, clearly states that section 363 of the Communications Act 2003, must be read in conjunction with Regulation 9 of the Commincation Regulations 2004.
    Quote (speaking of the second letter in the link):-
    These statements may come as a surprise those who have believed previously that a TV need only be installed for receiving broadcasts to be subject to licensing requirements, as opposed to used.

    Nevertheless, the 3 August letter explains that Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 must be read in conjunction with Regulation 9 of the Communications Regulations 2004, which refers to installation or use of apparatus for the purpose of receiving television programme services. If one does not intend to watch broadcasts, then installation ceases to have that purpose.
  • Dollardog wrote: »
    How you are looking at it would probably not make sniggings and certainly not me legal, because if sniggings is like me, we still would have receiving equipment in the form of computer or laptop, so cutting sat feeds to a freeview box would not help.

    The letter from the TV licensing people themselves, clearly states that section 363 of the Communications Act 2003, must be read in conjunction with Regulation 9 of the Commincation Regulations 2004.
    Quote (speaking of the second letter in the link):-
    These statements may come as a surprise those who have believed previously that a TV need only be installed for receiving broadcasts to be subject to licensing requirements, as opposed to used.

    Nevertheless, the 3 August letter explains that Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 must be read in conjunction with Regulation 9 of the Communications Regulations 2004, which refers to installation or use of apparatus for the purpose of receiving television programme services. If one does not intend to watch broadcasts, then installation ceases to have that purpose.

    That answers my queries then. A friend of my dad's got done in the early nineties because he had a TV even though it wasn't plugged in at the time. Rules obviously changed since.
  • sniggings
    sniggings Posts: 5,281 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Yes, so if you install a TV with no sat feeds or aerial feeds, but you install it only connected to a DVD/video player you are not illegal, but if you install a TV and connect it to a TV aerial or live sat stb you are installing it to receive live broadcast.


    ok I'll give you that :o

    so unscewing those feeds that are only needed for live feeds and not needed for any other purpose will be enough? I didn't have to cut them?
  • Dollardog
    Dollardog Posts: 1,774 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Yes, so if you install a TV with no sat feeds or aerial feeds, but you install it only connected to a DVD/video player you are not illegal, but if you install a TV and connect it to a TV aerial or live sat stb you are installing it to receive live broadcast.

    That still doesn't stop you receiving live tv on a laptop, so that still doesn't make you legal in your eyes.

    I'm not going to argue with you anymore as you obviously know more than the TV licensing people themselves.
    If they say that having the equipment but not using it for watching live tv is legal, I prefer to believe them.
    As it was them that actually told me that they weren't going to take my money, even though I told them truthfully that I had a laptop that in effect could receive live programs, I prefer to believe them.
    I leave it up to others to decide if they want to waste £145 on buying a licence if they don't watch live tv.
  • sniggings
    sniggings Posts: 5,281 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Dollardog wrote: »
    That still doesn't stop you receiving live tv on a laptop, so that still doesn't make you legal in your eyes.

    I'm not going to argue with you anymore as you obviously know more than the TV licensing people themselves.
    If they say that having the equipment but not using it for watching live tv is legal, I prefer to believe them.
    As it was them that actually told me that they weren't going to take my money, even though I told them truthfully that I had a laptop that in effect could receive live programs, I prefer to believe them.
    I leave it up to others to decide if they want to waste £145 on buying a licence if they don't watch live tv.

    i think i read on one of these threads that unless a pc is equipped with a TV card then it is not consider a TV receiving equipment, I suppose if I understand all this correctly now, the test is the equipents sole purpose has to be setup for watching live feeds, if you can prove it is used for another propose then no licence is required.

    a tv with an aerial fitted can only be used for receiving live feeds, a tv without the aerial can be used for gaming, same with a pc, with a tv card fitted it is clear what it's use is.

    it does still leave the fact the the eqitment that has an aerial unplugged doesn't take much to put it back into the tv, I think that is where the confusion lays.
  • sniggings
    sniggings Posts: 5,281 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 18 November 2012 at 1:28AM
    just to add, whether you can have a tv with an aerial plugged in but are not watching the TV, that it is off, I am still unsure of whether it's the fact of the person watching the TV is what requires a licence, rather than that just having equipment that is clearly set up to receive live feeds??

    as the youtube vid clearly showed the inspector checking for a live feed on someones TV.
  • Dollardog
    Dollardog Posts: 1,774 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    Yes but the Capita person is out to trap people into signing things which can incriminate them even if they are innocent. I have a tv which is still plugged into the aerial and a dvd recorder which has freeview. It hasn't been re-tuned since digital tv came in and didn't pick up many channels before that because the aerial wasn't right to get the signal. It hasn't even been switched on for at least 2 years.
    I can't get to the back of it easily to unplug it and I'm blowed if I'm going to bother.
    I have not had a license for a year or so now and apart from one letter asking me to confirm that I did not need a license have heard nothing since.
    If the YouTube person had not let the Capita person in, they couldn't have looked for live feeds. They have no right of access unless you let them in or they have very good grounds - enough to convince a judge - to get a search warrant. As I don't watch live tv and was actually told by the tv licensing people not to buy one, I have nothing to fear. So I will not be getting one, I can't afford one and to be honest don't even bother now watching much catch up tv either.
  • Dollardog
    Dollardog Posts: 1,774 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    sniggings wrote: »
    just to add, whether you can have a tv with an aerial plugged in but are not watching the TV, that it is off, I am still unsure of whether it's the fact of the person watching the TV is what requires a licence, rather than that just having equipment that is clearly set up to receive live feeds??

    as the youtube vid clearly showed the inspector checking for a live feed on someones TV.

    As I see it, it doesn't matter if the aerial is plugged in or not, an unplugged aerial can be plugged in again easily enough, a taped up aerial plug can be un-taped and re-taped easily enough. You wouldn't want to cut the aerial plug off because you might want to use it and be licensed in the future. The law says that you have to be using the equipment to receive live tv to be illegal if you haven't got a license. It doesn't say it is illegal for it to be installed and not used for that purpose.
  • sniggings
    sniggings Posts: 5,281 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 1,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    I agree he shouldn't have let him in.

    But in my case I have an old sky dish on the side of my flat and a TV aerial on the roof too, so even if I don't let them in, what I'm wondering is, is having those enough for a warrant? because if we/them are saying it's not the equipment but the actual act of watching the live feed that requires a licence, then what evidence would they need to get a warrant?

    lol that too was on a youtube vid, an inspector being refused access, seeing the sky dish and saying he was going away to get a warrant as he had a dish.
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
  • 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 454.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 177.5K Life & Family
  • 258.9K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.6K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.