TV licensing strikes again!

marleyboy

moonrakerz wrote: »

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

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 !

Likewise! Just because and I will repeat YOU ARE WRONG!, theres no need to get off your high horse about it, as I said I rang them, I personally think your taking too much on a web page, As in any business or company, if one has a query about its ethics, they merely ask someone from the aforementioned company, I would suggest you at least get advice from the company, before you bleat your infactual facts!

As I didnt know whether or not you was right, I CHECKED. I certainly wasnt just going to take your word for it. I wouldnt expect anyone to take my word for it, but to double check (and not via some dodgy webpage).

Fruitcake

Whether or not you need a TV licence is determined by UK Law.
The Law concerning TV licence requirements is the Communications Act 2003This is an Act of Parliament, passed by the elected Government, the House of Lords, and ratified by HM the Queen. To qoute a line from one of my favourite films, an Act of Parliament "is beyond contestation."
It cannot be amended or altered without another Act of Parliament.

The following is an extract from the above mentioned Communications Act 2003.

PART 4
LICENSING OF TV RECEPTION
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 under this Part.


368 Meanings of "television receiver" and "use"

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


Note the wording in Section 363 paragraph (1), "installation and use."
Not "installation or use," it says "installation AND use." In other words the Law says you only need a licence if it is installed AND you use it. If it is installed but you don't use it, you don't need a licence. If it isn't installed, you don't need a licence.

Also note the wording in Section 368 paragraph (3), "using it for receiving television programmes." If you are not using it to receive television programmes you do not need a TV licence. If you are using it for anything else, as a pot stand, to play games, to play pre-recorded programmes, to listen to a radio broadcast, you do not need a licence.
If you are playing a pre-recorded programme that someone else has recorded at a different location, you do not need a licence. They do but you don't. This may or may not infringe copright or other laws as previously mentioned on this forum, but that is not the issue here.
This is the Law. If someone from TVLA, or the bloke down the pub, or anyone else tells you something different, they are wrong.


Fruitcake

You Only Listen To Me When I'm Wrong

Alfie_E

Fruitcake wrote: »

Whether or not you need a TV licence is determined by UK Law.

And, in the first instance, that means the decision made by a magistrates’ court. See TV Licensing abandons case against unlicensed TV owner. Someone with less focus and ability (and without the money to pay a solicitor) is likely to come of worse than that.

moonrakerz

Fruitcake wrote: »

Whether or not you need a TV licence is determined by UK Law.
The Law concerning TV licence requirements is the Communications Act 2003This is an Act of Parliament, passed by the elected Government, the House of Lords, and ratified by HM the Queen. To qoute a line from one of my favourite films, an Act of Parliament "is beyond contestation."
It cannot be amended or altered without another Act of Parliament.

The following is an extract from the above mentioned Communications Act 2003.

PART 4
LICENSING OF TV RECEPTION
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 under this Part.


368 Meanings of "television receiver" and "use"

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


Note the wording in Section 363 paragraph (1), "installation and use."
Not "installation or use," it says "installation AND use." In other words the Law says you only need a licence if it is installed AND you use it. If it is installed but you don't use it, you don't need a licence. If it isn't installed, you don't need a licence.

Also note the wording in Section 368 paragraph (3), "using it for receiving television programmes." If you are not using it to receive television programmes you do not need a TV licence. If you are using it for anything else, as a pot stand, to play games, to play pre-recorded programmes, to listen to a radio broadcast, you do not need a licence.
If you are playing a pre-recorded programme that someone else has recorded at a different location, you do not need a licence. They do but you don't. This may or may not infringe copright or other laws as previously mentioned on this forum, but that is not the issue here.
This is the Law. If someone from TVLA, or the bloke down the pub, or anyone else tells you something different, they are wrong.


Fruitcake

You Only Listen To Me When I'm Wrong

Good post.

This is just what it says on the TVLA website, though not in quite such "legalese"; it is quite clear, I am amazed that so many people do not seem capable of understanding it !

Errata

And how does anyone prove they are not and have never used the telly ?

Count_Dante

Errata wrote: »

And how does anyone prove they are not and have never used the telly ?

As far as the courts are concerned, the prosecution must prove that you did use the telly without legal right.

moonrakerz

Count_Dante wrote: »

As far as the courts are concerned, the prosecution must prove that you did use the telly without legal right.

Totally correct, but the TVLA seem to think that it is actually the other way round !

marty1888

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Some of you may remember my post about my broken TV. However, that did not protect me from these vampires. Anyway, I would welcome comments on this letter, and advice on the best place to send it.

Dear Sir/Madam,

DISPUTED RECORD OF INTERVIEW

Your ref: xxxx

I am concerned about certain irregularities in an interview conducted earlier this evening, and would like to place on the record that statements recorded on the “Record of Interview” are inaccurate and are hereby retracted.

As regards the process, your officer failed to caution my wife (indeed, the space on the form marked ‘time of caution’ has been left blank); failed to explain the significance of the interview record; gave the impression that her signature was a formality and made her sign the form in dim light, so that she had no opportunity to read the interview notes and correct any errors. Since she is not a native speaker of English and had only a very vague idea of what was involved, this conduct by your officer is unfortunate as well as extremely unprofessional.

As regards the content, your “record of interview” fails to record that the TV set seen by your officer does not work, although that was made very clear to him. Your officer did not test the TV, but the form records a list of channels that were “admitted”. My wife is adamant that she made no such admission. My son was in the room and apparently listed the channels that he likes watching at the home of a friend. My wife was asked when she last watched TV, and clearly explained that she had visited a friend to watch Chinese television by satellite there “two weeks ago”. The statement on the form that our TV was last used for watching TV programmes here “two weeks ago” is pure fabrication, since it has not worked since January.

Your form records correctly that power to the TV was still plugged in. I have not disconnected the power supply, nor moved the TV set, since it stopped working, because I am commencing legal proceedings against the company that supplied it: it is relatively new and I could reasonably expect it to last for longer than its present life. Until this is resolved I do not want to change anything since they might claim that being moved, unplugged, or whatever had damaged it, and use this to deny responsibility for repairs. Furthermore, we do subscribe to Virgin Cable, as noted correctly, but this is currently used only to receive radio broadcasts and in fact is connected directly to my audio hi-fi system. Your form also states that the aerial was plugged in to the TV: this is incorrect, and casts further doubt on the reliability of the “record of interview”. Even when the TV did work, it was connected to a set-top box and has never been connected to an aerial.

In sum, I deny categorically that any offence was committed since the TV seen by your officer does not currently work. I am very concerned that your officer recorded statements that had not been made, partly relying on misinterpreting the words of a child, and then tricked my wife into signing the form without giving her the opportunity to read it, nor to have it read to her. Although I have now purchased a TV license, this should not be taken as an admission that a license is currently required at this address.

In sum, I would like you to conduct a full investigation of my concerns and address the staff training issues that are very clearly raised by this discreditable episode.

Yours faithfully,

no offence mate, but you sound like you are trying to wangle your way out of a hefty fine.

When did you actually last have a valid TV license?
Why would anyone subscibe to Virgin for radio broadcasts???? Surely a DAB Digital radio would be a lot cheaper!
I think in this case you should just accept you were caught and move on.
A direct Debit for a TV license costs about £12 a month and is hardly going to break the bank. Plus you have the luxury of telling them where to go the next time they visit!

The_Cell

trisontana wrote: »

Not "good for them". They are breaking the law. Why should the rest of us who pay our TV licence subsidise those who don't? I am afraid that we cannot be selective in what laws we want to obey and those we want to ignore.

I only came across this 'thread' after doing a search for TV licenses. But I'd like to know something else about this TV tax.
Apart from the fact of the license costs, use of equipment etc. etc. what about, for instance, where a VAST amount of houses in London and other major cities have 5, 6 or more (10 in my house) working people living in one room each? All separate from the other! It seems that this means that we should ALL pay £135.50 (who watches black and white tv nowadays??)! So that's £1,355 just for OUR house! Ok, so one person registers. Great! But they move and takes the license with them. Back to square one! Wouldn't it be better if the house owner (I'm sure the name would be on a database some where) has to pay? Then they would pay one amount of £135.50, the house would be covered and the owner can 'pass on'/'incorporate' that in to the rent.
I think not! Let's see! £1,355 for one house or £135.50? No contest, me thinks!
Regards,
The Cell

The_Cell

Typical!
I also meant to say that they would then have a name to prosecute. Who (if not all of us) would they prosecute for the ONE license needed?
The Cell