TV licensing strikes again!

moonrakerz

marleyboy wrote: »

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).

Apologise for missing the above post when it was posted.

I am not I my high horse - I am confident that I am right.

Could I suggest you read the post below yours, which actually quotes "The Law" - this is what is on the the TVLA web site in simpler English - which I am afraid you do do seem to be capable of understanding !

marleyboy

moonrakerz wrote: »

this is what is on the the TVLA web site in simpler English - which I am afraid you do do seem to be capable of understanding !

Thank you for noticing my capability in checking the TVLA website, however, as portions of its website's Terms & Conditions can at least in its text format, appear questionable, or possibly can have two alternative outcomes, as with any company policy, if one questions the T&C involved, it seems reasonable for any sane person, to ask somebody from the company, as appose to asking "something" that is merely written. Which I fear is something YOU have difficulty understanding, or that you are simply "incapable" of doing.

mr_mallon

Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but...

We had a visit from a TVL agent and subsequently complained about the method of the visit.

Their letter is shown, below. Particularly interesting is the paragraph I have outlined in red.
.

The agent who visited stated that a license was needed for the equipment, regardless of its use. I told him he was wrong, as has been confirmed above.

Hope that helps!

mr mallon

changkra

How interesting that yo can have a TV on the property and not need a license unless it is actually used. I f you do write back make sure to put in that their staff and agents in particular need re training.

moonrakerz

It has always been the case that you don't need a licence for a TV that you might own unless you actually use it.

The TVLA have always played with the wording of the Law to make people think you need a licence to OWN a TV - this is not so !

Even the letter mr mallon has shown on his post is just a tiny bit ambiguous in it's wording - "a TV licence is required to use or install" - just to try and confuse the issue ?

PS: glad you called him an "agent" !

maninthestreet

So what does it mean to 'possess' Tv receiving equipment at a specific address, but for it not to be 'installed'? If it's plugged into a power supply, and has an aerial plugged in that presumably counts as 'installed', but what happens if it's only plugged into a power suppy, but has no aerial plugged in, or vice versa?

mr_mallon

moonrakerz wrote: »

Even the letter mr mallon has shown on his post is just a tiny bit ambiguous in it's wording - "a TV licence is required to use or install" - just to try and confuse the issue ?

That wording is taken directly from the Communications Act 2003.

The first sentence in the hilighted paragraph states that a license is only required to use or install a television to receive broadcast programming.

Whilst still not 100%, it is a huge step forward from my previous dealings with them.

If no aerial is plugged in, you don't need a licence (although technically, I think that if you have an aerial plugged in but don't use it to watch broadcast TV, you don't need a license. However, I would always recommend aerials are disconnected from the telly before the license is cancelled).

mr mallon

moonrakerz

Communications Act 2003

"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."

I get your point mr mallon, but the actual wording (above) is strange.

In plain English, you do not need a TV licence unless you are actually watching live TV broadcasts. (or recording it)

The quote above firstly says: "installed or used" then it says "installation and use", which actually contradicts the first bit of the statement !
The TVLA, in their letter to you, have paraphrased part of the actual wording in the Act, and not used the complete statement I quote above. As I originally said was this done just to cast a slight doubt in the reader's mind ?

Well done on the letter, have you framed it ? I would !

vikingaero

mr mellon,

Send them another letter saying that you consider the issue of whether you have a licence to be closed (although you still want to complain) and that you will invoice them £25 per letter, payable within 28 days, if they send you any further mailings.

mr_mallon

I see what you're saying but I read that part of the act slightly differently.

I have re-jigged the wording, just to try and clarify how I read it.

"A television receiver must not be installed or used unless authorised by a license (which covers both the installation and use of the receiver)..."

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 haven't framed the picture... yet! I was really pleased with it, though.

No intention of plugging the aerial back in - therefore no intention of getting a license...

mr mallon