We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide
TV in an office
Comments
-
It has nothing to do whether the sound is on or off or whether subtitles are shown. It is the ability to receive TV broadcasts that causes the licence liability, so a TV licence would be required to prevent the firm being held in default - PRS is a separate issue. That said, I'm unaware of any firm appearing in court on using a TV without a licence - Crapita usually pursue single mothers instead.
As to PRS, there have been prosecutions where a Reception TV playing music is enough to make the owner liable to the PRS, so being mute would prevent this.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 353.8K Banking & Borrowing
- 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 455.2K Spending & Discounts
- 246.9K Work, Benefits & Business
- 603.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 178.2K Life & Family
- 260.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards