Criminal Record for TV License

Cornucopia

If the hearing was relatively recently, your friend should consider appealing. Many solicitors offer a free half-hour consultation and if your friend is on benefits, she should qualify for legal aid.

cracklepop

gb12345 wrote: »

It is not the fact that she doesn't need a license which will be seen as dishonest. It is the fact that she has been found guilty of not having one, which could suggest to a future employer that she has dishonestly avoided paying for one.

Yes, fair point.

spacey2012

They dont need any evidence, just her signature on the "form" she signed with the "TV inspector"
They get your name from you and you are in trouble.
They get your Signature and you are Guilty.

keyser666

lucy03 wrote: »

I'd personally suggest that your friend does two things.

Firstly, make a formal complaint using the link below and progress the complaint down the line if necessary.

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/making-a-complaint-AB7/

I'd also suggest they contact their MP. Sometimes just a letter from an MP can go quite a long way towards the matter being reviewed.

Both may fail, but neither option will cost anything, other than a stamp, and it might get the matter resolved.

I would leave that on the back burner if they are still in the appeal timeline and do it after but yes great point

Cornucopia

spacey2012 wrote: »

They dont need any evidence, just her signature on the "form" she signed with the "TV inspector"
They get your name from you and you are in trouble.
They get your Signature and you are Guilty.

In practice, kind of.

In law, absolutely not.

spacey2012

Cornucopia wrote: »

In practice, kind of.

In law, absolutely not.

Magistrates try the case, law is not the overriding factor.

Cornucopia

spacey2012 wrote: »

Magistrates try the case, law is not the overriding factor.

Magistrates determine questions of fact, the Clerk determines questions of law.

Either way, the signature on a TVL 178 (Record of Interview) is not, and cannot be a "pact with the devil". Especially if some form of deceit has been used to obtain it.

spacey2012

I suggest you go have a sit in on sheep dip day at the Mags court.
Your eyes would be opened, most plead guilty after been threatened with jail by TVL Solicitor in the lobby and accepting the easy payment option in return.
Those that argue are show the signature, is this yours.
yes, case over.
Go have a sit in, they can get through 70+ in 4 hours.

cockaleekee

spacey2012 wrote: »

I suggest you go have a sit in on sheep dip day at the Mags court.
Your eyes would be opened, most plead guilty after been threatened with jail by TVL Solicitor in the lobby and accepting the easy payment option in return.
Those that argue are show the signature, is this yours.
yes, case over.
Go have a sit in, they can get through 70+ in 4 hours.

I suggest you have no idea what you are talking about.

Cornucopia

spacey2012 wrote: »

I suggest you go have a sit in on sheep dip day at the Mags court.

I already have.

Your eyes would be opened, most plead guilty after been threatened with jail by TVL Solicitor in the lobby and accepting the easy payment option in return.

There is no jail for LF evasion. That is nonsense.

Those that argue are show the signature, is this yours.
yes, case over.
Go have a sit in, they can get through 70+ in 4 hours.

The reason being that only a tiny number of defendants turn up. (In my session 6 out of 80-something in two and half hours).

Those that do not, are found guilty in their absence. The evidence is not challenged, because they did not challenge it.

I have yet to sit in on a second hearing session (where the not guilty pleas are considered). But when I did sit in, there were a number of cases that were withdrawn or held over to check that payments were being made. And that is the truth of this - it is about making people pay their LF, not stringing them out to dry.