Really Worried - The TV Licence - Unnecessary Trial

Cornucopia

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

There must be so much of these lies and nonsense being bandied around by TVL that surely the courts couldn't possibly take them seriously.

The picture in the Courts is somewhat sad. The vast majority of TVL defendants do not turn up to Court, and are found guilty in their absence. This is automatic, and the evidence is not scrutinised. The conviction rate is something like 99%. Many fines also go unpaid.

This is the only offence in which women defendants outnumber men. The ratio has now increased to 75% women.

Another thing I meant to comment on was the signature of the officer who visited - a simple squiggle! He wrote his name in capitals next to it but I would still argue that it wasn't a signature.

I doubt whether this would have any bearing on the case.

Not_Another_Username

I don't quite understand what you are getting at, Bazzy and Boo, but there may well have been a few days when my wife was watching live TV, or at least recording it. Our minds were on other things and I don't watch much TV myself anyway. Nor do I constantly monitor the viewing habits of my wife. I did not state anything you are suggesting. The fact I stated was that at least 90% of the TV viewing was of On Demand services. That's a rough estimate and of course it leaves a remainder of 10%, so view that however you will.

Either way, I vividly remember telephoning TV licencing to tell them that we were only ever watching On Demand lately and therefore we were not interested in continuing with the licence. I was immediately transferred to their cancellations department. No questions were asked.

So, we have a small number of days when we might, and maybe even probably, were receiving live television pictures. OK. That required a licence. I am happy with that. But this is not the issue.

We WILL be attending the court hearing. My wife is in a wheelchair and so I hope I will be able to assist her and even stay with her in the court room. I have no idea if that will be allowed.

Cornucopia

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

Either way, I vividly remember telephoning TV licencing to tell them that we were only ever watching On Demand lately and therefore we were not interested in continuing with the licence. I was immediately transferred to their cancellations department. No questions were asked.

If someone is adamant that they don't need a licence, there's not really that much they can say at that stage.

So, we have a small number of days when we might, and maybe even probably, were receiving live television pictures. OK. That required a licence. I am happy with that. But this is not the issue.

I suggest you have a read, here: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/a_to_c/confession_and_breaches_of_police_and_criminal_evidence_act/

In the UK (unlike the US), unfairly obtained evidence is not automatically excluded. The test is whether the evidence affects a just outcome. If you admit you were evading the licence fee, albeit marginally, then the evidence does not need to be excluded to achieve a just outcome. ie. you were guilty, and even if TVL used foul means to prove it, you were still guilty.

Maybe check to see if your home insurance includes a legal expenses provision (many of them do, these days)?

Maybe have a think about the difference between pleading Not Guilty and pleading Guilty with mitigation?

BTW, pleading Not Guilty with these offences means two hearings. Not sure if I mentioned that before. You don't have to attend the first one, the NG plea can be entered by post.

We WILL be attending the court hearing. My wife is in a wheelchair and so I hope I will be able to assist her and even stay with her in the court room. I have no idea if that will be allowed.

Yes, you will be allowed to assist her. Have a look for info about being a McKenzie Friend.

prowla

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

I don't quite understand what you are getting at, Bazzy and Boo, but there may well have been a few days when my wife was watching live TV, or at least recording it. Our minds were on other things and I don't watch much TV myself anyway. Nor do I constantly monitor the viewing habits of my wife. I did not state anything you are suggesting. The fact I stated was that at least 90% of the TV viewing was of On Demand services. That's a rough estimate and of course it leaves a remainder of 10%, so view that however you will.

Either way, I vividly remember telephoning TV licencing to tell them that we were only ever watching On Demand lately and therefore we were not interested in continuing with the licence. I was immediately transferred to their cancellations department. No questions were asked.

So, we have a small number of days when we might, and maybe even probably, were receiving live television pictures. OK. That required a licence. I am happy with that. But this is not the issue.

We WILL be attending the court hearing. My wife is in a wheelchair and so I hope I will be able to assist her and even stay with her in the court room. I have no idea if that will be allowed.

Hmm, you are saying that you have been watching live TV; therefore you need the licence, and therefore they've got you bang to rights...

I think that recording live TV is OK, but it you go to court and say you think you've been watching it live then you will lose right there and then.

Interestingly on the iPlayer angle, I think there may be a delay between the live broadcast and its streaming over the Internet, but I'm not sure if it is long enough to stop it being considered to be live.

Cornucopia

prowla wrote: »

Hmm, you are saying that you have been watching live TV; therefore you need the licence, and therefore they've got you bang to rights...

Not entirely.

I think that recording live TV is OK

No, it isn't.

Interestingly on the iPlayer angle, I think there may be a delay between the live broadcast and its streaming over the Internet, but I'm not sure if it is long enough to stop it being considered to be live.

No, it isn't. Live viewing on iPlayer requires a licence.

Not_Another_Username

Again, thanks for your help on this.

It seems crazy having to plead guilty again. I don't think she will want to do this but I have explained the details to her.

I don't like the sound of "Guilty with mitigating circumstances" as it's still "Guilty" to me. Does the court see that differently? It's all getting a bit messy if we throw that in.

We have a licence now and we still have the exemption letter for the period in question. At least this can stated, together with the discrepancies on the various TVL letters, just to show their details to be inaccurate. I will do some more research into the mitigating bit but I am guessing this should be the way to go as it puts TVL's facts into question.

The fact that we now have a licence will change things slightly and I believe may and even should (depending on the circumstances) even get the whole thing thrown out of court straight away - I cannot reveal my source on this but please remember it for future use. Trust me, it has come from a very reliable source. I hit lucky with this.

I have researched the TV licence conditions thoroughly and the recording of live TV does require a licence.

Any form of digitisation in broadcasting produces a small delay. It rarely amounts to more than a few seconds. Even DAB radio has a delay on it, but you are sometimes looking at milliseconds when they bring compensation into it. This has been tried in court and is not an excuse. It's still classed as live TV and requires a licence.

Amateur television also requires a licence if you are receiving it, but not if you transmit yourself. I won;t go into that but some aspects of the reception of television have changed over recent years. Just owning a television which receives live broadcasts would require a licence a few years ago, but not now, aerial or no aerial. These facts are stated on this site I believe, also on the TVL website if you can find them. They make them slightly difficult to find. IN any case, I already checked these with TVL, but beware as not all their operators seem to know the facts themselves. One even incorrectly stated that you needed a licence for watching On Demand by itself. Not true!

What a minefield!

Cornucopia

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

It seems crazy having to plead guilty again.

Again? Why is it crazy to plead guilty to something you admit you did?

I don't think she will want to do this but I have explained the details to her.

She can do whatever she wants. The Court will determine the outcome irrespective of her initial plea.

I don't like the sound of "Guilty with mitigating circumstances" as it's still "Guilty" to me. Does the court see that differently? It's all getting a bit messy if we throw that in.

It is just "Guilty".

There is always the potential for mitigation, but you can be prepared and have something already written up. This can attempt to show the accidental nature of your actions, your contrition, any medical or other difficulties you have encountered and your commitment to remain correctly licensed in the future.

FYI, there are four basic outcomes:-

Withdrawal - TVL no longer want to pursue it. TVL could be liable for your costs, if any.

Not Guilty - the Court has weighed the evidence and found no case to answer. TVL could be liable for your costs.

Conditional Discharge - Not Guilty, but with an order as to your future conduct. You may be liable for TVL costs.

Guilty - You will receive a fine (could be £0 in extreme circumstances). You will be liable for TVL costs. You can enter mitigation and must submit a means statement, which will assist the Court in setting a fair penalty.

We have a licence now and we still have the exemption letter for the period in question.

It's not an exemption letter.

At least this can stated, together with the discrepancies on the various TVL letters, just to show their details to be inaccurate. I will do some more research into the mitigating bit but I am guessing this should be the way to go as it puts TVL's facts into question.

If you are pleading Guilty, I would steer clear of questioning TVL's "facts" unless they are directly relevant to the mitigating circumstances. ie. incorrect info given by the call centre might be relevant, but the behaviour of the field staff person who interviewed your OH would not be.

(If you question the facts, the Magistrate will probably ask you if you want to change your plea, as that is the only way the Court can consider the issues).

If you want to go into a bit more detail about what happened, I can possibly make some more suggestions about how to handle it in Court.

The fact that we now have a licence will change things slightly

Under the circumstances, that's a positive.

... and I believe may and even should (depending on the circumstances) even get the whole thing thrown out of court straight away...

Unlikely IMHO, especially if you have already pleaded Guilty. But good luck with it, and bear in mind that the Court has a duty to help litigants-in-person.

... I cannot reveal my source on this but please remember it for future use. Trust me, it has come from a very reliable source. I hit lucky with this.

For such a relatively simple thing that affects every UK household, there are widespread misconceptions about the TV Licence. It's certainly worth suggesting that this was all a mistake which you rectified ASAP, but it's not an automatic "not guilty" verdict.

What a minefield!

It is, but there are some basic things that will help in the future (and may help others now).

Learn as much as you can cope with about the LF. Then do not have any contact with TV Licensing. They are a menace, and are best avoided.

If you do happen to get caught by them at the door, just say: "Not today thank you", and close it. Avoid giving or confirming your name and do not sign anything.

For most people, this is by far the most effective approach. Unfortunately, some people find it counter-intuitive and want to tell TVL their life stories and/or do what they are told. This is a bad idea.

Obviously this advice is for people who are legally licence free.

Marktheshark

My best advice is which I have no doubt you will take more offence at :
If that is her signature on the TVL 178 form, plead guilty by letter if this is an option.
Once you start the not guilty arguments in trial the punishment ratchets up very quickly indeed.
The maximum punishment is prison for arguing the fine and they can and do send people to jail.
107 last records year alone up from 73
It is expected to be over 150 next records that are issued in April.

Arguing not guilty when the TVL178 was signed and witnessed well I would keep off those crank sites and start looking at the best way to get the smallest fine possible and the risks of jail if it goes to a trial at Mags court, which are very high.
Your Mr's could end up in jail with the other people who followed the info on the crank sites.
TVL 178 signed, = guilty

The only thing up for change is the punishment handed out.

Cornucopia

I'm afraid that's complete nonsense.

There is no possibility of being imprisoned for Licence Fee evasion. Full stop.

The punishment does not "rachet up". Full stop.

There is no punishment for "arguing the fine", whatever that means, and it certainly isn't imprisonment.

What do you think the punishment should be for people who publish moralising misinformation on Internet forums? If avoiding "crank sites" is what leads to this kind of tosh, then bring on the crank sites. (Not that anyone on this thread has mentioned any other sites, cranky or otherwise).

The maximum discount for a Guilty plea 30 days or more before trial is 30%. That is the extent of it. The fine is otherwise determined mostly by means, length of alleged evasion, and repeat offences. There is Magistrate discretion around that, especially in view of persuasive mitigating factors.

Non-payment of the fine comes later, and is best avoided. The correct route is to Appeal (either the verdict or the penalty) within the appropriate time window (21 days, IIRC).

IIRC, in 2008/9, when the BBC Trust published detailed background info, only 2 defendants (out of >150,000) received the maximum fine of £1000, and the average fine was £135.

In an extreme situation, where Contempt of Court comes into play, then imprisonment is a remote possibility. However, I think even the most irate Magistrate would think carefully before locking up a defendant in a Wheelchair.

As long as people conduct themselves calmly in the Court, and do as instructed by the Usher and the Clerk, then there is little or no possibility of being sanctioned for misbehaviour.

Marktheshark

The risk of prison comes in to play if you can not pay the fine in the timescale they offer.
Then straight back the defendant goes on warrant and usually straight to jail.
They don't do excuses, you either pay up or you do not.

As for ratchet up.
Guilty by letter and expect £175 fine
Guilty by trial and £1000 + around £450 costs is possible with little options on payment made by the court.
Once the TVL 178 has been signed, it is a damage limitation exercise from a money saving point of view.
.Anyone reading, never speak with TV licence sales reps or sign any paperwork, ask them to leave the property and shut the door.