Really Worried - The TV Licence - Unnecessary Trial

Cornucopia

Cross posts with the above...

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

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.

They can be subpoenaed to provide this information (or more general info about a subscription being in place). But it is not something they routinely do.

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.

You could have gone ahead with this, IF you had recorded the call yourself. You would have needed the person at TVL to provide you with their name, though.

The issue is that this is seriously bad form on the part of TVL, and would potentially have had a bearing on your case and would make a good formal complaint to the Courts.

I won't comment any further on the current licence issue. I've told you everything I know about that, and you'll have to draw your own conclusions.

wiogs

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

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.

No they can't tell what channels you have been watching. No need for such paranoia.

Marktheshark

Cornucopia wrote: »

Generally speaking we use the word Troll to refer to people who post

We ? Is that why your style of writing is identical to the OP's in "emphasis" bracketed words and short sentences.
:rotfl:
Well done you fooled me for a while, ill put you, sorry "we" down as the propaganda arm from actives resistance.

Nice try.

Cornucopia

No...... It's not that. I have been posting about TVL for a long while. This site has an excellent search facility if you wish to peruse.

Here's an idea. Why not try to prove me wrong with proper references, rather than just making things up.

We - people on the interweb.

prowla

Cornucopia wrote: »

Not entirely.

How so - the OP says that they believe they have watched "live" TV whilst they didn't have a licence.

Cornucopia wrote: »

No, it isn't.

Ah yes; from http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.

They further clarify it at http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology--devices-and-online-top8

Do I need a TV Licence to record a programme and watch it later?

Yes you do. If you record live TV, you need a TV Licence. It doesn’t matter when you actually watch the programme or how you record it, whether it's using a VHS/DVD/Blu-ray recorder, a digital box (PVR) like Sky+ or TiVo, or a hard disc drive or USB stick. If you record live TV, you need a licence.

Cornucopia wrote: »

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

Also from the above link:

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.

They also clarify that:

Do I need a TV Licence if I watch a programme on a delay?

Yes you do. If the programme is being shown on live TV, you need a TV Licence to watch or record it. If the device or technology you’re using to watch the programme causes a delay between when the programme was shown and when you watch it, you’re still receiving live TV.

Well, that and the other notes on the above links clarify it for me.

Cornucopia

Neither of your links seem to work.

gjchester

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

I would imagine the courts can easily obtain those facts from our TV/internet provider these days.

Sorry but why would they do this?
How you watch TV is not relevant, you appear to have had a few days when you had no licence (old one expired and not got a new one) and were watching TV. That's all that's relevant here.

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.

I don't follow this. You can't plead guilty without it going to court. If you do TVL win the case and so there's no case to drop?

Not_Another_Username wrote: »

Again I denied that I needed to do this as I already have a licence, which I would show in court.


...

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.

There is a danger that as you are trying to read between the lines then you are reading too much into things, all the case is about is on that day when TVL visited you did you have a valid licence for the time . Not now, not before, the specific date you were visited?

If the answer is not yes then you were watching TV without a valid licence and the case is valid. What you do now, with regards to On Demand is not relevant, simply that point in time.

Good Luck, however I fear you are over complicating the matter, its only about that point in time that you were visited.

prowla

Cornucopia wrote: »

Neither of your links seem to work.

Should be fixed - it took the ":" as part of the URL...

Cornucopia

prowla wrote: »

Should be fixed - it took the ":" as part of the URL...

No - still not working for me.

Also, I think that the text " as it's being broadcast on conventional TV in the UK or the Channel Islands." is from a previous version of their site.

I think that text is a better reflection of the Law, but they've simplified it to all live TV from anywhere in the World. No particular legal justification for that, AFAICS, but then this is what they do.

Cornucopia

prowla wrote: »

How so - the OP says that they believe they have watched "live" TV whilst they didn't have a licence.

Because in a fair legal process, they would have to prove that. Not badger or deceive a defendant into making a confession without informed consent.