TV licensing strikes again!

mr_mallon

Vikingaero,

As I am unsure of the legal ground, I will not be doing this.

Even if the law was on my side, I suspect that if I did send such a letter, TVLA would not cease their letters, not pay the invoices and, to be honest I can't be bothered with the hassle of sending another letter, sending an invoice and taking legal action to secure payment over such a small thing.

mr mallon

moonrakerz

mr_mallon wrote: »

I
One thing that does concern me slightly is that there is a definition for "USE" (see 368 - Meanings of "television receiver" and "use") but no definition for "INSTALL"... Convenient...?

I'm confused the other way ........

Why use the word "install" ? you only need a licence if you "use" the TV not to install it. If I install a TV in my house to use as a stand for a table lamp it doesn't have to be licenced. If I install a TV to watch Neighbours as soon as I use it, it needs a licence.

I have "installed" a TV in the house I am doing up, but I don't use it - no licence required.

I really am hoping that one of the "agents" comes to the house, before I move in and transfer my licence there !!!

thin_rasping_voice

Interesting thread. There's a comprehensive lowdown on TV licensing and how to genuinely get around it here. By the end of this year Joost, BBC's iplayer and ITV's broadband media player should make it feasible to ditch the licence for most of us, but as there all still in BETA testing it's worth holding on to see how they pan out.

MrsTinks

My personal gripe is that we've had a new telly which has now broken and been replaced no less than 4 times... (don't get me started) - everytime we take it back - and due to Costco policy you get a full refund and then you buy another telly - and when you do that you have to fill in ANOTHER form... well having told them 3 times what the TV license number for my property is I ignored the last one - frankly I was getting peeved off. After a couple of reminders the TV peeps turned up and got quite shirty with OH - who doesn't react nicely to that He let them carry on for quite some time about fining us (although they didn't try to gain entry to the house to prove the TV was working... guess having a large dog has it's uses...) and after letting them waste 15 minutes threatening him OH calmly informed them the license is in HIS name and is XXXXXX and then slammed the door in their faces... They haven't bothered us since

Milarky

To show what a minefield this question of 'what is the law?' is, here are some slightly enlarged direct quotes from

The Communications Act 2003

362 (Meanings)

"television programme service" (see Note 1) means any of the following-

(a) a television broadcasting service;

(b) a television licensable content service;

(c) a digital television programme service;

(d) a restricted television service;


363 Licence required for use of TV receiver

(1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence (see Note 2)

(2) A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

(3) A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who-

(a) intends (see Note 3) to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or

(b) knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,

is guilty of an offence.

368 Meanings of "television receiver" and "use"

(1) In this Part "television receiver" means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part. (see Note 4)

(2) Regulations under this section defining a television receiver may provide for references to such a receiver to include references to software used in association with apparatus.

(3) References in this Part to using (see Note 5) a television receiver are references to using it for receiving television programmes.

(4) The power to make regulations under this section defining a television receiver includes power to modify (see Note 6) subsection (3).

And

The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004

Meaning of "television receiver"

9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose. (see Note 7)

(2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) (see Note 8) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

I've added Notes below as follows:

(1) These are newer categories of a "television programme service" as we traditionally understand it - not necessarily all tied to the TV License at the moment but you've got to ask yourself why they are in there?
(2) As already stated by other posters "install or use" is confusing when what they must mean is "install AND use" as the trigger for needing a license
(3) Uh oh! Makes it an 'offence' just to think about switching on that 'installed' but not currrently 'in use' telly in your sitting room
(4) Perfectly circular (and unhelpful) statement of the obvious
(5) This looks 'sensible': 'use' means to use to watch telly programmes (and distiguishes from other non-licensed uses by implictation)
(6) But they can stretch 'use' later if they want to if they find loopholes were left in the original law without going back to Parliament to make them express
(7) This is a sensible distinction. However they can roll this back under the powers noted in (6) above and change it completely to catch peeps out later
(8) Again, as others have explained it - what makes a 'programme' a 'programme' (and thus requires a license) is that it 'received' at 'virtually the same time' it is broadcast. Thus time shifted recordings are not covered as 'broadcasts' - and nothing later is either

moonrakerz

Milarky wrote: »

T
(3) Uh oh! Makes it an 'offence' just to think about switching on that 'installed' but not currrently 'in use' telly in your sitting room
(

I shouldn't worry too much about that one - I think it means if you "install" a TV with the express intention of watching it without a licence ! If you "install" it and don't intend to use it, you're OK.

Glad to see you are as confused as I am about the use of "install or use" and "install and use", especially in the same sentence.

Very interesting post, almost poses more questions that it answers.

Freddie_Snowbits

Pause for thought

BBC Income to 31st March 2006 £4234.5 Bn.

This is equivelant to $8,363.14 Bn

This makes the BBC the worlds 117th richest nation!, on a par with Afganistan!

Next time you watch Eastenders, just remember that!

Sources

BBC Accounts
http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/annual_accounts.shtml

GDP
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29

Hapless_2

(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."

this is where we are lucky, even with a TV aerial we cannot get a signal without a freeview box. So when we ditch the freeview box when our license runs out this October we cannot get any signal. (the screen has no tuner without the freeview box)

grannybroon

I work in an establishment which has a tv and video playback because we host a large number of training courses. The tv is not used at all for watching tv - only using the video for training videos. We used to get letters every year about the license but have heard no more in last few years. I used to send my standard letter repy with their form annually explaining the situation.

The only time we were tempted to use the tv to receive programmes was during September the 11th! Must confess we dipped in there!

So, if you have tv and video only used for video playback I would think OK. We are a local authority establishment so would think they would be hot on us if using tv illegally - which we did once (only to best of my knowledge)! They are probably hot on our tail checking after above confession!!!

GB

moonrakerz

Hapless wrote: »

this is where we are lucky, even with a TV aerial we cannot get a signal without a freeview box. So when we ditch the freeview box when our license runs out this October we cannot get any signal. (the screen has no tuner without the freeview box)

It doesn't matter whether you have an aerial or not, whether you have a TV or not, whether you have a freeview box or not - if you don't watch (or record) live television broadcasts you do not need a licence.

Re the post about Afghanistan: would I rather be in my lounge watching a repeat of episode 9,437 of Neighbours or would I rather be in Kabul ? - now that IS a difficult choice !!!!!