TV licence people wanting to open a 'full investigation'.

Cornucopia

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

...I'm saying it could be done.

Would they be using hoverboots for looking in on upstairs flats?

poppasmurf_bewdley

Cornucopia wrote: »

Would they be using hoverboots for looking in on upstairs flats?

No, drones!

Marktheshark

Who would the summons ?
The "occupier"

brewerdave

poppasmurf_bewdley wrote: »

No, drones!

......................:rotfl:Very Big Brother !!

enfield_freddy

Marktheshark wrote: »

Who would the summons ?
The "occupier"

an interesting question , in a house with mum and dad and 3 grown up kids

kaya

I'm not one for paying the stealth tax but a friend came home one day to discover the TV people had gone to court and got a warrant to enter his home, attended with the police and gained access while he wasn't in despite him writing to them to say he didn't have a TV (which he didn't). They don't have automatic rights of entry but can obtain a warrant if the can convince a bewigged old fool they think a crime is being committed

Marktheshark

kaya wrote: »

I'm not one for paying the stealth tax but a friend came home one day to discover the TV people had gone to court and got a warrant to enter his home, attended with the police and gained access while he wasn't in despite him writing to them to say he didn't have a TV (which he didn't). They don't have automatic rights of entry but can obtain a warrant if the can convince a bewigged old fool they think a crime is being committed

The offence is "watching" or receiving live TV.
Now unless the occupier is daft enough to stand and watch them turn the TV on and try and get a signal and then watch this signal in presence of the professional witnesses, they would not be able to prove who watched it.

Stand outside whilst they search if they want to poke around, wait outside until they have finished.

Cornucopia

kaya wrote: »

...gained access while he wasn't in...

This is against BBC policy.

There's not much point in them doing this, if you think about it, because they still won't have a name to put on the summons.

Marktheshark wrote: »

Stand outside whilst they search if they want to poke around, wait outside until they have finished.

Or film them searching, testing and examining.

Or get your witness to do so whilst you stand outside. That's probably the best option overall.

Marktheshark

Cornucopia wrote: »

This is against BBC policy.

Obviously, they need the householder to stand and watch the TV with the witnesses whilst they turn it on.
Most would not have the sense to leave the house if they turn up with a warrant.

What good would going in to an empty house do them, a house can not watch TV, its not a human.

the_opposite

To the OP: please don't worry about these letters. You really can safely ignore them, even though they are rather disgusting in that they assume you are guilty.

I've been licence free for over 7 years now out of principal and I refuse to waste my time and effort telling them I don't need one. If they want to assume I'm a criminal and waste money on spamming me with junk mail, then that's their problem.

I receive one of their threatening letters every month. They are quite useful to help light a fire in my woodburner..

Their 'inspectors' are nothing more than salesmen. They get commission for each licence they sell on the doorstep. It's best not to speak to them, just shut the door should you inadvertently answer if one appears at your home.

I did speak to one on one occaision who lied to me (I wish I had recorded the conversation). I also told him to tell Capita to stop sending me their monthly junk mail but I still get their letters to this day.

As others have pointed out, they only get convictions based on either what they claim you tell them at your doorstep i.e self incrimination, or by what they claim they have observed. So the simple solution is don't talk to them and don't let them into your property. Don't worry about the mythical 'detector vans' either - there are only a handful in existence and even if they do contain some kind of secret technology to detect TV watching (as they claim), they have never been used as part of evidence to secure a conviction. Supposing this secret technology does exist, if it was used in court the detection methodology would have to be revealed, so it would never be used.

It's also worth noting that anyone who has a TV licence can legally watch live TV anywhere on a mobile (battery powered) device. To quote from the official TV Licence website "...your home TV Licence will usually cover you to use these [mobile devices] to watch live TV away from home".

Therefore I think it's safe to assume you can watch live TV on a mobile device in your unlicenced home as long as somebody who holds a licence is present.