Really Worried - The TV Licence - Unnecessary Trial

Cornucopia

Marktheshark wrote: »

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.

In practice, it would depend on the reasons for non-payment and the demeanour of the defendant. Many, many Licence evasion defendants do not pay their fines on time, but only the most serious defaulters are sent to prison. (IIRC, the typical sentence is 14 days).

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.

Nonsense. The most significant factor in setting the fine is income. On benefits/low paid: £35-100, average working income: £150-£300, higher incomes: £350-500. All plus costs & victims surcharge. People on low incomes are regularly given £5-£10 per fortnight payment schemes.

I've just told you that only 2 people out of over 150,000 received the £1000 fine in 2008/9.

Costs orders are generally made for the entire session of 80-100 cases. The going rate seems to be £120 at the moment.

I've actually been in Court and seen all this first hand.

Once the TVL 178 has been signed, it is a damage limitation exercise from a money saving point of view.

Only because (we now know) the OP's OH is (probably) guilty. Otherwise the signed form is arguable in Court, as per PACE S.76.

Anyone reading, never speak with TV licence sales reps or sign any paperwork, ask them to leave the property and shut the door.

Indeed.

Not_Another_Username

Is there an emoticon for "head spinning" ? Maybe this will will do .... :rotfl:

Mark. I am sorry but I couldn't take you seriously after reading your profile. By all means do bully the trolls, but in view of your recent posts, perhaps I could suggest you consider employment with TVL. I think you would suit that job perfectly. Your scaremongering (almost) worked a treat on me.

Now then being sensible. I will digest all previous posts again later today (when my head has stopped spinning) and consider the best course of action. I can see there is a lot of very good advice above and this needs taking into account and balancing. I can't say I know exactly what to advise my wife at this moment, but the picture is clearer (must be digital!) and I feel more confident about the situation.

At the end of the proverbial day, the best policy is honesty. I think my wife needs to 'act daft' to a degree and accept she has made a mistake, especially if they know she has been watching live TV. I would imagine the courts can easily obtain those facts from our TV/internet provider these days. I believe data protection plays some part in this but I'm sure the courts can obtain any necessary permission to apply for this information.

"Guilty" seems to be the logical plea, but I am still not sure if my wife will choose that. She is strong-willed and a fighter, but I know she is worried deep down.

bazzyb

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.

That is EXACTLY the issue. At the time you were visited, you did not have a licence, and you (or your wife) were watching live TV, even if it was only 10% of what you were watching, you were still watching it. You needed a licence at this point in time and did not have one - that is what you are being taken to court for, what don't you understand? The fact that you had a licence previously, and you've taken out a new licence since is irrelevant.

Not_Another_Username

Oooh, another good telling off. Thank you for that.

But the TVL are happy for us to pay for a new licence from NOW, which will cover us, and they will drop the whole case - IF we plead guilty.

Actually, this got me thinking.

Have I got this wrong? If we plead guilty now (and we do have a TV licence now), TVL licence should drop this. OK, they said we must pay in full before the court date. Fact - we have a licence. Surely that means we are covered, irrespective of whether we pay in full or monthly, as we have done.

By pleading guilty, we are doing so to the courts aren't we? Not to TVL?

Surely the case will then be dropped, as TVL stated on the phone??

If this is the case I am hoping that we might just be able to wrap this one up now.

Marktheshark

I gave you the best Advice possible, cut your losses.
This makes me a TVL troll ?
Well, take the other road, let other people fight their personal battles via your wife and see where you end up as opposed to getting away under £200.
Dismissing the importance of the Signed TVL 178 will be the first, last and deciding mistake.
Also a very expensive one, so start saving, you only have 21 days to pay the fine and court costs.

Will they drop the case ?
Nope in my opinion.

The purpose of this forum is to save money and that is the basis I comment on.

bazzyb

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

Oooh, another good telling off. Thank you for that.

I'm assuming that is aimed at me, if so I have no idea why you think that was a telling off? I was merely clarifying things for you as you don't seem to be aware of why you are being taken to court and stayed that the fact that you were watching live TV without a licence "is not the issue".

I don't see any reason why they would drop the case so not sure why they would say that, however if they are saying that is correct I would ask them to put that in writing.

wiogs

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

Is there an emoticon for "head spinning" ? Maybe this will will do .... :rotfl:

Mark. I am sorry but I couldn't take you seriously after reading your profile. By all means do bully the trolls, but in view of your recent posts, perhaps I could suggest you consider employment with TVL. I think you would suit that job perfectly. Your scaremongering (almost) worked a treat on me.

Now then being sensible. I will digest all previous posts again later today (when my head has stopped spinning) and consider the best course of action. I can see there is a lot of very good advice above and this needs taking into account and balancing. I can't say I know exactly what to advise my wife at this moment, but the picture is clearer (must be digital!) and I feel more confident about the situation.

At the end of the proverbial day, the best policy is honesty. I think my wife needs to 'act daft' to a degree and accept she has made a mistake, especially if they know she has been watching live TV. I would imagine the courts can easily obtain those facts from our TV/internet provider these days. I believe data protection plays some part in this but I'm sure the courts can obtain any necessary permission to apply for this information.


"Guilty" seems to be the logical plea, but I am still not sure if my wife will choose that. She is strong-willed and a fighter, but I know she is worried deep down.

I doubt that very much. No way your TV provider could tell.

Cornucopia

Marktheshark wrote: »

I gave you the best Advice possible, cut your losses.
This makes me a TVL troll ?

This is all very well, IF your advice were accurate, but it isn't. I've no idea where you're getting this stuff from, or if you're simply making it up, but it's not remotely helpful to confuse matters in this way.

Generally speaking we use the word Troll to refer to people who post irrelevant nonsense either for self-aggrandisement or to belittle others. I'm not sure which it is, here, but I would have thought it was one or the other.

Well, take the other road, let other people fight their personal battles via your wife and see where you end up as opposed to getting away under £200.

You've been given a breakdown of fines vs. incomes, that is the main consideration for the Magistrates. This notion you seem to have that the Courts will punish people for their sheer audacity in wanting to test the evidence in Court is nonsense. The maximum discount for an early guilty plea is 30%, as I said.

Also a very expensive one, so start saving, you only have 21 days to pay the fine and court costs.

This is harassing language - you need to stop it now.

It's not even true. The Courts readily provide payment terms to those on low incomes.

Not_Another_Username

I think they can. They know what TV channels you have been watching when you phone to complain about loss of service. Everything appears to be logged.

I telephoned TVL and informed them we now have a TV licence, even though we have only paid for the first month at this point. I also said we are happy to ttelephone the courts to plead guilty in order for you to drop the case, PROVIDING you can put everything in writing first.

The operator seemed quite clued up and promptly replied that they didn't send out such letters and that the telephone call was recorded and therefore provided adequate proof. I replied to the contrary, stating that no letter would mean we would see them in court and, since we now have a TV licence, it would probably get thrown out of court (trying to sound like I know what I am talking about all the time) and that TVL would end up with the court costs. The operator went off the line to check with some supposedly court official or other, spent about ten minutes doing so, returned to say that they required the payment in full. Again I denied that I needed to do this as I already have a licence, which I would show in court. His response was interesting, in that he stated the reason they required the payment in full was because it shows that we mean to pay the full amount!!

I don't think I gleaned enough useful information to be certain, but my guess is they really do NOT need the full licence payment at all for this case. It's just their way of ensuring they get the money.

I doubt we will hear anything further, but I almost expect that a TVL official will contact us in the next few days and advise that the case has been dropped.

Trying to read between the lines was not easy, but I did get the feeling that their case was shaking a little.

All TVL want us to do now is to buy a licence for the present. NOT for last year - for which we still have a letter saying that we did not need a licence for On Demand TV. Yes, I know about the 178 forum, etc., but that does not seem to be the case in point.

Cornucopia

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

But the TVL are happy for us to pay for a new licence from NOW, which will cover us, and they will drop the whole case - IF we plead guilty.

Actually, this got me thinking.

Have I got this wrong? If we plead guilty now (and we do have a TV licence now), TVL licence should drop this. OK, they said we must pay in full before the court date. Fact - we have a licence. Surely that means we are covered, irrespective of whether we pay in full or monthly, as we have done.

By pleading guilty, we are doing so to the courts aren't we? Not to TVL?

Surely the case will then be dropped, as TVL stated on the phone??

If this is the case I am hoping that we might just be able to wrap this one up now.

This is messy. I don't know whether they are trying to deceive you or whether you've misunderstood what they said.

They ONLY have the authority to withdraw the case entirely. They have done this with other people who have bought licences. In fact they only ever prosecute around half the people they "catch", and a significant factor in that is the purchase of a licence.

I have also been in Court and witnessed TVL and the Magistrate agreeing to adjourn cases pending a review of DD/Weekly Cash payments.

However, once a Guilty plea is entered, TVL play no further part AFAIK. I believe that at that stage, the Magistrate sets the fine. I've never heard of TVL entering mitigation on behalf of a defendant that they are up to date with their licence. Although, this could be a new thing.

I would be very careful. Plead guilty if you wish, but do not expect them to give you a £0 fine, if that's what they mean by "dropped".

I will be delighted to be proved wrong.