tv licence, have i been conned?

cazzabella83

Evening ladies & gents,
A few months ago i opted out of tv licensing as i never watched live tv, only catch up via my Wii and laptop. Yesterday an enforcement officer came round, i didn't let him in but when he asked if i had a freeview box i told him it was built in to the tv but not plugged into an aerial, only used for dvds/games/iplayer and netflix via the Wii, he informed me that because i had the MEANS to watch live tv, that i needed a license. I conceded i must have gotten it wrong, he read me out a caution statement and set me up a payment plan at my request.
I cannot find anything anywhere that says what he said was right. Even on Martins own section about it he says

"just because you have the ability to watch "live TV" doesn't necessarily mean you need a license. You'll only need a license if you actually watch "live TV". So, if you've got an aerial on your roof/satellite dish/TV with built-in Freeview etc, but you don't actually watch "live TV", you don't need a license."


....and now i feel like i've been conned and strongarmed by someone feeding me false information. Do i have cause to call licencing tomorrow and complain? every single thing i've read so far about it leads be to believe i was right the first time!
Thank you

Kurtis_Blue

cazzabella83 wrote: »

Evening ladies & gents,
A few months ago i opted out of tv licensing as i never watched live tv, only catch up via my Wii and laptop. Yesterday an enforcement officer came round, i didn't let him in but when he asked if i had a freeview box i told him it was built in to the tv but not plugged into an aerial, only used for dvds/games/iplayer and netflix via the Wii, he informed me that because i had the MEANS to watch live tv, that i needed a license. I conceded i must have gotten it wrong, he read me out a caution statement and set me up a payment plan at my request.
I cannot find anything anywhere that says what he said was right. Even on Martins own section about it he says

"just because you have the ability to watch "live TV" doesn't necessarily mean you need a license. You'll only need a license if you actually watch "live TV". So, if you've got an aerial on your roof/satellite dish/TV with built-in Freeview etc, but you don't actually watch "live TV", you don't need a license."


....and now i feel like i've been conned and strongarmed by someone feeding me false information. Do i have cause to call licencing tomorrow and complain? every single thing i've read so far about it leads be to believe i was right the first time!
Thank you

No of course you do not need a licence, as long as the Iplayer is not used for Live TV.
You should not have entered discussions regarding it and gave no payment and banking details to strangers that turn up at your door

But here we are.

Phone tomorrow, complain and cancel.

How was the payment set up Direct Debit? if so phone bank now if still open and cancel it.

corbyboy

Yep, agreed. You have been tricked. These guys work on commission. Their job is to befuddle and confuse you so that they get paid.

cazzabella83

Kurtis_Blue wrote: »

How was the payment set up Direct Debit? if so phone bank now if still open and cancel it.

not a direct debit no, i wouldn't have given him my details even if that had been the only option, i asked for a payment card to be sent.

I admit i feel incredibly stupid for not just closing the door on him

Kurtis_Blue

cazzabella83 wrote: »

not a direct debit no, i wouldn't have given him my details even if that had been the only option, i asked for a payment card to be sent.

I admit i feel incredibly stupid for not just closing the door on him

Cool then don't pay, its not needed, best be getting some legal advice re: what ever you signed, as you may also be about toreceive a summons.
Act now.

Cornucopia

I would hold off not paying until you have spoken to TVL. Regrettable though it may be, you may find that they have no plan to prosecute because you bought a licence. (They don't prosecute around half the people they could do). Get any agreement in writing from them.

After 6 months, you are outside the window for possible prosecution and can cancel without issue.

cazzabella83

surprise surprise, the line for complaints department has been busy for the past hour!
Also when they put me through to the card payments department....they had no record of me! so who on earth was the officer on the phone to at the time supposedly setting up a payment plan and getting a card sent out to me!
I was riled before but now i'm fuming!:mad:

Cornucopia

It has to be said that TVL often combine arrogance and incompetence in equal measure.

It's nothing personal.

Heinz

The form you signed is likely to be the problem. It has been known, later, for the rest of the form to be found to be a (completely bogus) record of an interviewee's admissions - and that to be submitted as a basis for prosecution.

Buzby

Courts have found that having the equipment to view is enough. The judge then decides on the balance of probabilities whether the protestations of innocence are to be believed.

It is no different from carrying a crowbar and the police charging you with 'going equipped' you will have difficulty maintaining innocence. It does not have yo be witnessed by an inspector. Neither is an 'untuned' TV or receiver a vald defence either.

It places the risk of conviction with the defendant.

Cornucopia

Yes & no.

Almost everyone now has the means to watch live TV: through computers and smart phones - so clearly something is happening to prevent those people who *only* have those devices from being prosecuted if they don't use them for that purpose.

Equally, I have an un-tuned TV and no Licence, and I have never even seen a TVL person, still less been threatened with prosecution, except in their generic "Hollow-grams".

TVL say this: "You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast". Whilst that's not a definitive statement of the Law, I would expect them to abide by it in their prosecution policy. To do otherwise would be completely unfair, and open to legal challenge.

Buzby wrote: »

Courts have found that having the equipment to view is enough. The judge then decides on the balance of probabilities whether the protestations of innocence are to be believed.

Most TVL cases are based on confession evidence. Most defendants do not attend court, and the validity of the evidence is never questioned. The Magistrates are not "judges", and in the main, they are not exercising any judgement in TVL cases outside the setting of fines.

It is no different from carrying a crowbar and the police charging you with 'going equipped' you will have difficulty maintaining innocence. It does not have yo be witnessed by an inspector.

No. In many cases, TVL doesn't even know (beyond the verbal confirmation of the occupier) that a TV even exists at the property. The presumption is of guilt, and some people fall for it.

Neither is an 'untuned' TV or receiver a vald defence either.

Yes it is.

It places the risk of conviction with the defendant.

The "Rudd" principle means that if you have installed equipment, then a valid explanation can be provided, and the Court will rule that it does not require a licence.

TVL are not helping citizens, here, either. I asked what they would allow in terms of a TV or Freeview box being used for radio reception and they would not tell me. How is that fair?

@Buzby: can we not have your usual diatribe of pro-TVL misinformation. It's tedious, and as you know I have infinite patience in terms of correcting the half-truths and baseless speculation.