TV Licensing Warning

Mixman

I recently found out that someone I know who never watches TV was paying for her TV license. I know from my own experience that she did not need it.


She does have a TV which is used as a second computer monitor and doesn't even have terrestrial TV reception.


It took me a few weeks of telling her how I cancelled mine (when an inspector had visited, saw that I could only use my TV for gaming and on-demand TV via my consoles and notified TV Licensing on my behalf that I do not need a license) and showed her the website that says what usage requires one.


She relented and we phoned them together, with me speaking first so I could tell the person on the phone exactly what use she has of her TV. I was surprised when the man on the other end of the call quite abruptly stopped me when I said "I have only ever known her to even watch just 1 thing on BBC iPlayer" and almost sarcastically tell me that iPlayer requires a TV License.


I know this to not be true if you are watching on-demand, and I am sure that they've been given enough training to know this. I can understand wanting to try and retain their license-payers, but I wonder how many worriers or elderly people have been lied to in the cancellation process and have ended up keeping it when they did not need it.




If you're not watching live TV and you're not recording it - Double check the "Check if you need one" page on their site.
...Then go ahead and cancel it. And don't let them strong-arm you in to keeping it when you don't need it!

System

But iplayer can require a TV licence. Iplayer carries both live and on-demand. Technically if you are watching a live broadcast through iplayer then a licence is needed

tvlb1

!!!!!! wrote: »

But iplayer can require a TV licence. Iplayer carries both live and on-demand. Technically if you are watching a live broadcast through iplayer then a licence is needed

That is true, but just because iPlayer has the capability to show "live" TV programmes, does not actually mean the person requires a TV licence.

The law is quite clear that a TV licence is only required for those properties where equipment is installed or used for the purposes of receiving TV programmes. Mere ownership of any sort of equipment does not require a TV licence. It is the act of receiving TV programmes that is licensable.

Mixman

Yeah that is correct. It's the on demand part that is important in this case. You can watch any recorded program that you want on iPlayer without a license. Same with 4oD etc. It's the live broadcasting that you can't watch (or record yourself) without a license, whether it be satellite, terrestrial or online.


The important thing here though is that I told the person that I was speaking to exactly what program had been watched. He was under no misunderstanding, but still insisted that "iPlayer" requires a license - as a whole.




This post isn't so much a topic about getting people out of paying their license. Its because I was a bit concerned about the information given to me by them.

Mixman

Cross-posted there, tvlb1

ste_wilko

I would have hung up, and called back. Someone else would have been able to help. A lot of call centre agents don't sing from the same hym sheet a lot of the time and just make stuff up as they go along

Cornucopia

Also be aware that you are not under any obligation to-

- Inform them that you don't need a licence (*)

- Inform them why you don't need a licence

- Let them attend your premises to check whether you really do not need one.

(*) Though if you are on a payment scheme, this is probably the easiest way to cancel it.

CC-Warrior

tvlb1 wrote: »

That is true, but just because iPlayer has the capability to show "live" TV programmes, does not actually mean the person requires a TV licence.

The law is quite clear that a TV licence is only required for those properties where equipment is installed or used for the purposes of receiving TV programmes. Mere ownership of any sort of equipment does not require a TV licence. It is the act of receiving TV programmes that is licensable.

It doesn't matter if equipment is installed, after all, you can watch live TV on a mobile phone, it's only required if you actually watch or record live broadcasts.

tvlb1

CC-Warrior wrote: »

It doesn't matter if equipment is installed, after all, you can watch live TV on a mobile phone, it's only required if you actually watch or record live broadcasts.

Afraid not. People often omit the "install" part of the legislation for simplicity sake, but the fact is that if equipment is plugged in and "ready to go" (e.g. installed) so to speak, then that too is an offence. The mobile phone example you give is not ideal, because a mobile phone is not classed as a TV receiver in law unless actually used for that purpose.

Section 366 (1) of the Communications Act 2003, states: "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."

Section 366 (2) goes onto say: "A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence."

Sadly as a noob I can't link directly to the legislation, but it's easy enough to find.

By way of an example: If someone without a valid TV licence is daft enough to allow TV Licensing to inspect their equipment and they turn it on and programmes show, then the equipment was obviously installed and an offence was committed.

Cornucopia

That doesn't seem like an unreasonable reading of the legislation, but it doesn't explain why TVL make statements like this on their website...

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.

You need to be covered by a licence if you watch TV online at the same time as it's being broadcast on conventional TV in the UK or the Channel Islands.

I think it would be grossly irresponsible of them to say these things if there was the possibility of prosecution merely for having equipment installed. It would be very simple for them to add: ", or install a device to do so." They could then explain what "install" actually means in practice.

Whilst TVL have a certain knack with misinformation, I can't see an up-side for them in misleading the public to think that a licence is not required in circumstances when it is.

System

tvlb1 wrote: »

Afraid not. People often omit the "install" part of the legislation for simplicity sake, but the fact is that if equipment is plugged in and "ready to go" (e.g. installed) so to speak, then that too is an offence. The mobile phone example you give is not ideal, because a mobile phone is not classed as a TV receiver in law unless actually used for that purpose.

Section 366 (1) of the Communications Act 2003, states: "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."

Section 366 (2) goes onto say: "A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence."

Sadly as a noob I can't link directly to the legislation, but it's easy enough to find.

By way of an example: If someone without a valid TV licence is daft enough to allow TV Licensing to inspect their equipment and they turn it on and programmes show, then the equipment was obviously installed and an offence was committed.

You miss para 7 of section 364

(7)A direction by the Secretary of State under this section may be given either generally in relation to all TV licences (or all TV licences of a particular description) or in relation to a particular licence.

And that is the cruncher. It can be interpreted that the rules provided on the TVL site for use by the consumer are the directions from the Secretary of State and therefore modify the conditions of the Act