TV licensing strikes again!

mpython

Anyone got any idea how much the commercial chanels cost us?

I don't mean how much some people pay them via phone quizzes, I mean how much advertising adds onto our purchases throughout the year?

marleyboy

That would be interesting to know, I guess it depends on how many channels theyre are as well as commercials. What if the BBC went commercial, they advertise themselves enough times, as well as theyre own products (dvd's, Music, etc). I wonder how the internet affects the TVLA, Should I not have a tv, I can watch BBC on the internet.

moonrakerz

marleyboy wrote: »

I went one better, I used a phone and asked, something you should try if you are capable.

I am capable of using a phone but not stupid enough to waste my money dialling TVLA's 0870 number.

I don't know who you claim to have spoken to at the TVLA, but your "quotation" is absolute rubbish !

"Unfortunatley, you are wrong. I have double checked this, and the TVLA have specifically said, and I qoute "Any applience that is capable of receiving BBC signals, requires a licence". I would suggest you phone them and ask if you dont beleive me."

1. IF your "quotation" had come from the TVLA they wouldn't have said "BBC signals" - you need a licence to watch ANY TV !

2. You don't need a licence for something that is "capable" - only if you are using that item to watch or record television.

If you are going to dispute someone else's post, at least get some facts that stand up to scrutiny before you sink to infantile comments about being able use the phone !

Voyager2002

pinkshoes wrote: »

Voyager, your tv DID work at some point, so I presume you had a licence then, and if you're planning on getting your tv fixed, then it's hardly worth cancelling the license just for the sake of a week or two. For all the hassle, I'd rather pay the extra £5 for having no tv for 2 weeks.

TVs often break just outside their warranty,and they often give you an option of extending this warranty. These extensions are expensive. Why?? - because in this extended period they expect things to go wrong, and the expense will cover the cost of the repair parts!!

SO just pay your tv licence, pay for your TV to be fixed (it's outside the warranty - so YOUR problem and not the manufacturers!!) and voila, life can go on!

Not a question of cancelling a license. My TV broke around the time that my license expired. Hence I found myself with no license and no working TV.

According to Trading Standards, if the TV is "fit for purpose" it would have lasted longer than a couple of years (it was rather pricey). They advised me about what letters to write, etc. All this is taking rather longer than the two weeks you mentioned, partly because contacting Trading Standards and writing letters has to wait while I do more urgent work.

Alfie_E

moonrakerz wrote: »

JohalaReewi wrote: »

Voyager2002 wrote: »

maninthestreet wrote: »

If you have a set-top box, doesnt this require a TV licence?

Why? It provides a great radio signal, and you also need a working TV in order to watch TV programmes that it supplies. Rather like needing a license if you live in a house with an aerial, except that few people pay a monthly subscription to have an aerial on their roof.

Unfortunately, it is capable of receiving TV transmissions so if you use it, you will need a TV licence. Even if you only use it to listen to the radio.

Sorry folks - please read the TVLA website - you need a TV licence to WATCH or RECORD live television, NOT to possess a piece of equipment that is capable of doing this ! Technically this does include radio from satellite "listened" to through a TV.

A defence of “I was using TV receiving equipment, but only to receive radio” is an extremely technical defence. From other reports, this is unlikely to get you very far in a magistrates court. As moonrakerz has pointed out, it’s possible for a TVLA employee to become a serial perjurer. This is only going to be possible if the testimony from a TVLA employee carries significantly more weight than that from a member of the general public. So, even if you didn’t possess a TV on the day in question, and you get up in court and state that the TVLA employee is lying, you still have no guarantee you will be found not guilty.

moonrakerz

If I could chip in once more:

I know it is a case of being wise after the event for the OP - but it may help someone in the future.
Because of my own situation (empty house, constantly being threatened by TVLA) and also having done fair bit of research because of this and related threads, this is my understanding of where you stand with the TVLA - if they suspect that you have no TV licence (for whatever reason!).

TV Licence “officers” have “implied right of access” to your premises. This means they have the same rights as the postman, the person delivering your free newspaper or someone delivering menus from the local Chinese takeaway.
You are at liberty to withdraw this ‘implied right’. If you inform the TVLA that you withdraw this right (as has been done), the TVLA personnel are not allowed to set foot on your property without a Court Warrant. If a TVLA man turns up on your doorstep and says he wishes to interview you, all you have to say is that you do not wish to speak to him and ask him to leave your property.
You do NOT have speak to them, no name, no address, no admission that you even live in the house - zilch ! All their bluster about interviews under PACE is meaningless. You do not have to speak to a Policeman, let alone the TVLA. A Policeman CAN arrest you, the TVLA can NOT.

A question was asked in Parliament as to what effect withdrawal of this implied right would have on an individual so doing. The answer was clear and unambiguous; the TVLA stated that they would not apply for a Warrant on the basis of non-cooperation with them. This would then leave the TVLA with a dilemma – how can they prove that you are using a TV when you have no licence ?

The detector van perhaps ?

No evidence from any kind of detection equipment has been used by Capita (TVLA) in any UK court case to date. There is speculation that such evidence would be inadmissible because information about how such equipment works is not known (unlike for example, Gatso speed cameras and police car speedos, which require regularly updated calibration certificates); however, a more likely reason is that use of the detection equipment would constitute covert surveillance - evidence from which is inadmissible in court unless properly authorised in line with the Police Act 1997 and The Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000.

Perhaps not !

From this, is it a reasonable assumption to draw that all the convictions for not having a licence are gained through ‘guilty’ pleas ?
It does appear that the first priority of the TVLA is to get you to admit to having no licence and to agree to buy one immediately, in writing ! – without prejudice. This means that you can (and probably will) still be prosecuted, although the implication might be given that buying a licence would be enough to let you off the hook. A typical TVLA ploy !

If you wish to gather more info on this subject try: http://www.marmalade.net/lime/

I rest my case !!

deanos

Bernie

...of when my children went to Uni a few years ago and we had a similar run in with the TV License people.

Both of our children went replete with all their electronic goodies but our daughter decided to buy a smaller portable TV to use with her Playstation, DVD player and a VHS tape player (note, only a player unit, no tuners fitted, USA sourced item). Unfortunately, she gave her Uni address at the time of purchase.

Our daughter got the usual threatening letter and asked us for advice. I wrote to the TVLC and asked for clarification if a license was needed since none of the bits that my daughter owned could receive and play a TV signal (no aerial in the room, warned her not to connect an indoor aerial). All the other electronic gubbings were connected to the TV via scart and phone inputs.

No response. I wrote again, sent by recorded delivery this time but with a suitable worded paragraph that said that unless advised otherwise, we would assume that the TVLC agreed that a license was not necessary. Again, no response. We kept copies of our one-sided dialogue as did our daughter and we never heard from them again.

:beer:

Alfie_E

deanos wrote: »

A handbag?!

Cousin_I.T.

Interesting thread

Voyager2002 I think you're on a hiding to nothing, unless you're prepared to argue, for a long time.
Generally the Beeb don't do a bad job, what I dis-agree with is the fact the Beeb boast about how they broadcast in the USA, yet we are paying for it! They make revenue out of this, we still pay.
That is unfair and for that reason I hope Voyager does fight and wins!