TV licensing threats

Montclairs

I was actually fined for 'having a tv'. I read that if I don't watch live tv I didn't need a licence. Apparently not true. Magistrates - well clerk of the court said -oh yes you do you only need to own a tv capable of receiving live tv. Ie there is an aerial on my roof. Not my choice as the housing association put it there and its not connected. So my protests went unheard and I was found guilty so beware - you may think you don't watch live tv - they may not care and fine you anyway. I hardly ever look at the tv at all so iplayer and 4od etc .plus netflix is more than enough. Its now costing me dearly.

Kurtis_Blue

Montclairs wrote: »

I was actually fined for 'having a tv'. I read that if I don't watch live tv I didn't need a licence. Apparently not true. Magistrates - well clerk of the court said -oh yes you do you only need to own a tv capable of receiving live tv. Ie there is an aerial on my roof. Not my choice as the housing association put it there and its not connected. So my protests went unheard and I was found guilty so beware - you may think you don't watch live tv - they may not care and fine you anyway. I hardly ever look at the tv at all so iplayer and 4od etc .plus netflix is more than enough. Its now costing me dearly.

Guessing then that you went through this process without any legal advice or representation, very poor decision.

It is an offence to have a TV installed capable of watching live TV, if your TV did not have an aerial connected how is that capable of watching live TV?

Cornucopia

It's simply (yet) another area in which BBC/TVL are mishandling things.

TVL say quite specifically that a licence is only required for using a TV receiver to watch or record TV broadcasts.

However, the law says something slightly more complicated than that, which is that it is an offence to use a TV OR to install for the purpose of using.

There is also case law known as Rudd, which gives the guidance that if there is doubt on whether the equipment is installed for the purpose of using it, the user's proposed alternative (non-licenceable) use should be examined.

Given all that, I can't imagine that TVL would bring cases for installation - that would be grossly unfair. I've certainly not heard of this. However, when pleading Not Guilty in Court, you would have to be careful in how you answered certain questions, as well as being able to cite Rudd, if necessary.