TV licensing threats

Kayak10

Kayak10 wrote: »

Ok and thanks for that It was probably her objecting as her email inbox was probably on meltdown :rotfl: The funny way I got it The reply via my MP was sent to him and copied to Pipa so I picked her email up from there Just shows how simple some folk are lol

Cornucopia wrote: »

They don't have a right of entry. They have the capability to ask a Magistrate for a Search Warrant.


The law *has* changed. The offence is now using a TV for broadcast reception.

If you want to get into the detail, you'll need to refer to the Communications Act 2003, section 363 onwards, and The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004. The working definition of a TV receiver is in the latter.

Ok thanks again
It still doesn't detract from my original point the aggressive nature of the letters this is what I'm trying to get changed

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

I believe if you look into it The device can pinpoint where the tv signal is being used Prob via triangulated satellites It's got a pretty chunky aerial on it

How does a device that sits in your hand triangulate anything?

The issue for detection is that emitted RF from a TV is now very much less than it used to be, and at the same time, there are many more RF-sending devices in the average home than there used to be.

Is it still technically possible in lab conditions? Maybe.

Is it in routine use? No.

Has detection evidence EVER been produced in Court? No.

It's a shame they don't use detection, because then they could leave legally licence free people like me in peace. But they don't. I wonder why?

In my case I wasn't " asked " I was told it was an offence not to sign it

They are sometimes economical with the truth.

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

Ok thanks again
It still doesn't detract from my original point the aggressive nature of the letters this is what I'm trying to get changed

I have no issue with that. Good luck, and let us know what happens.

Where there is factually incorrect information I will still endeavour to correct it though, for the benefit of casual readers.

Cornucopia

adindas wrote: »

I am not aware about that. Could someone or you provide a link a about that ?

Do you mean they have the right even they do not have any initial evidence ?

It's not true. There is no blanket Right of Entry.

They have the option to apply for a Search Warrant if there is reasonable suspicion, and if the residents are refusing to communicate with them. Only a very small number of SWs are issued each year. It is also BBC policy not to use force.

Kayak10

adindas wrote: »

I am referring to TVL staff



I am not aware about that. Could someone or you provide a link a about that ?

Do you mean they have the right even they do not have any initial evidence ?

Just been doing a bit of digging and found the following Not sure if it's been superseded ?

There's a lengthy discussion on this elsewhere. The Broadcasting Act 2009 states:

"146 (3) An officer of an issuing agent may enter at any reasonable time any premises or specified place for the purposes of ascertaining whether there is a television set there and a television licence is for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place authorising the keeping of a television set at the premises or specified place."

So they can without a warrant.

Cornucopia

Kayak10 wrote: »

The Broadcasting Act 2009...

... is from Ireland.

I've already given you the relevant UK legislation. The Search Warrant stuff is S.366 of the Communications Act 2003.

Kayak10

Cornucopia wrote: »

How does a device that sits in your hand triangulate anything?

The issue for detection is that emitted RF from a TV is now very much less than it used to be, and at the same time, there are many more RF-sending devices in the average home than there used to be.

Is it still technically possible in lab conditions? Maybe.

Is it in routine use? No.

Has detection evidence EVER been produced in Court? No.

It's a shame they don't use detection, because then they could leave legally licence free people like me in peace. But they don't. I wonder why?


They are sometimes economical with the truth.

This is on the TVL web site
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/cs/search.app?q=Do%20officers%20have%20hand%20held%20equipment

Enforcement officers may use a hand-held detection device to measure both the direction and the strength of a TV signal. This makes it easy for us to locate TV receiving equipment in even the hardest-to-reach places.

So please check for yourself :-)

adindas

Kayak10 wrote: »

Just been doing a bit of digging and found the following Not sure if it's been superseded ?

There's a lengthy discussion on this elsewhere. The Broadcasting Act 2009 states:

"146 (3) An officer of an issuing agent may enter at any reasonable time any premises or specified place for the purposes of ascertaining whether there is a television set there and a television licence is for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place authorising the keeping of a television set at the premises or specified place."

So they can without a warrant.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/366

366Powers to enforce TV licensing

(1)If a justice of the peace, a sheriff in Scotland or a lay magistrate in Northern Ireland is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing—

(a)that an offence under section 363 has been or is being committed,

(b)that evidence of the commission of the offence is likely to be on premises specified in the information, or in a vehicle so specified, and

(c)that one or more of the conditions set out in subsection (3) is satisfied,

he may grant a warrant under this section.

(2)A warrant under this section is a warrant authorising any one or more persons authorised for the purpose by the BBC or by OFCOM—

(a)to enter the premises or vehicle at any time (either alone or in the company of one or more constables); and

(b)to search the premises or vehicle and examine and test any television receiver found there.

(3)Those conditions are—

(a)that there is no person entitled to grant entry to the premises or vehicle with whom it is practicable to communicate;

(b)that there is no person entitled to grant access to the evidence with whom it is practicable to communicate;

(c)that entry to the premises or vehicle will not be granted unless a warrant is produced;

(d)that the purpose of the search may be frustrated or seriously prejudiced unless the search is carried out by a person who secures entry immediately upon arriving at the premises or vehicle.

(4)A person is not to enter premises or a vehicle in pursuance of a warrant under this section at any time more than one month after the day on which the warrant was granted.

(5)The powers conferred by a warrant under this section on a person authorised by OFCOM are exercisable in relation only to a contravention or suspected contravention of a condition of a TV licence relating to interference with wireless telegraphy.

(6)A person authorised by the BBC, or by OFCOM, to exercise a power conferred by a warrant under this section may (if necessary) use such force as may be reasonable in the exercise of that power.

(7)Where a person has the power by virtue of a warrant under this section to examine or test any television receiver found on any premises, or in any vehicle, it shall be the duty—

(a)of a person who is on the premises or in the vehicle, and

(b)in the case of a vehicle, of a person who has charge of it or is present when it is searched,

to give the person carrying out the examination or test all such assistance as that person may reasonably require for carrying it out.

(8)A person is guilty of an offence if he—

(a)intentionally obstructs a person in the exercise of any power conferred on that person by virtue of a warrant under this section; or

(b)without reasonable excuse, fails to give any assistance that he is under a duty to give by virtue of subsection (7).

(9)A person guilty of an offence under subsection (8) shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.

(10)In this section—

“interference”, in relation to wireless telegraphy, has the same meaning as in the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 (c. 54); and

“vehicle” includes vessel, aircraft or hovercraft.

(11)In the application of this section to Scotland, the reference in subsection (1) to information on oath shall have effect as a reference to evidence on oath.

(12)In the application of this section to Northern Ireland, the reference in subsection (1) to a lay magistrate shall have effect, in relation to times before the coming into force of sections 9 and 10 of the Justice (Northern Ireland) Act 2002 (c. 26), as a reference to a justice of the peace.

Also interesting to read testimony of people here
http://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-22440,00.html

Kayak10

This is from wikapidia if your interested it's a long read :-)

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom

Kayak10

Yet again this forum is getting out of hand

Please reply if you have something constructive regarding my original post
The aggressive way TVL chase potential residents that DONT have a licence OR pay by instalments
Sorry for the rant But why do some folk have to make a simple post very complex in my view