TV licence costs to rise from April - MSE News

Cornucopia

7161, and without being stereotypical, I could imagine that those people who are "holding out" might be quite difficult for TV Licensing to get hold of.

pphillips

mr_jrt wrote: »

Ownership of a TV does not mean you need a license as you may quite legally use it to play video games, watch non-iPlayer on-demand services (Netflix, Now TV, Prime Video, 4OD, ITV Player, etc), watch DVDs/Blurays, etc.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/telling-us-you-dont-need-a-tv-licence

It's worth mentioning that you can still get on demand services without buying smart tv, you just need to connect a suitable device to your tv via HDMI. I use Roku because I think it has the largest selection of apps but there are other ones available from amazon, google & now tv.

Cornucopia

mr_jrt wrote: »

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/telling-us-you-dont-need-a-tv-licence

Despite the wording there, there is no legal requirement for anyone to notify TV Licensing that they do not need a Licence.

TV Licensing ought (properly) to make the reasonable assumption that anyone without a Licence does not need one, unless and until they have reasonable suspicion to the contrary. That suspicion ought (properly) to be determined by TV Licensing without any form of personal enquiry at an address other than electronic surveillance(*) because they lack the legal authority (or at least it is extremely questionable).

(*) Which is not to say that electronic surveillance for TV reception is actually viable in the present maelstrom of electronic noise.

pphillips

Cornucopia wrote: »

Despite the wording there, there is no legal requirement for anyone to notify TV Licensing that they do not need a Licence.

TV Licensing ought (properly) to make the reasonable assumption that anyone without a Licence does not need one, unless and until they have reasonable suspicion to the contrary. That suspicion ought (properly) to be determined by TV Licensing without any form of personal enquiry at an address other than electronic surveillance(*) because they lack the legal authority (or at least it is extremely questionable).

(*) Which is not to say that electronic surveillance for TV reception is actually viable in the present maelstrom of electronic noise.

The relevant legislation is Communications Act 2003 and Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended) .Section 364(4) of the 2003 Act makes it clear that the BBC are responsible for cancelling ("revoking") tv licenses.

The BBC have a policy of only canceling a licence in the circumstances of Breach of licence terms, Error or fraud, Change of circumstances & Administrative.Unless the BBC's policy is unlawful, the courts will uphold it.

Consumer law and EU law have no bearing on TV licensing laws.

Cornucopia

pphillips wrote: »

The relevant legislation is Communications Act 2003 and Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 (as amended) .Section 364(4) of the 2003 Act makes it clear that the BBC are responsible for cancelling ("revoking") tv licenses.

The BBC have a policy of only canceling a licence in the circumstances of Breach of licence terms, Error or fraud, Change of circumstances & Administrative.Unless the BBC's policy is unlawful, the courts will uphold it.

Consumer law and EU law have no bearing on TV licensing laws.

The BBC's difficulties stem from the wording of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act (i.e. relevant EU-originated law that the BBC agrees that it is bound by).

It says "There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right [the right to privacy and respect for one's home] except such as is in accordance with the law...". Other official documentation and case law clarifies "in accordance with the law" as meaning actual legislation or similar regulations that are explicit (i.e. they openly state what is to be done, conferring both the powers of the authority, and the obligations of the public), specific (i.e. they state in detail in what way people's privacy is allowed to be breached), accessible (i.e. everyone who needs to know is able to find and understand them), and proof against arbitrariness (i.e. the rules have a sense of proper purpose and proportionality about them, and the people affected can clearly see how the options available to them may result in different kinds of response by the Agency that amount to a fair and responsible approach overall).

That's my reading of relevant law, but I am not a lawyer.

So... the upshot of all that, AFAICT, is that the BBC should state what it is doing, cite references from relevant legislation and be prepared to justify what it does in terms of the overall spirit of the HRA, and of the requirements to publicise its approach and act fairly.

Instead there is nothing. No detail, and no obvious relationship between its known enforcement policy and the law. What little it does lay claim to is vague and unauthoritative.

I've asked the BBC in various ways for an explanation, but none has been forthcoming. It probably needs the Daily Mail to get their teeth in to it. On the bright side, the BBC banned TV Licensing from contacting me (after I raised an objection under PACE), presumably for a reason(s) that they find compelling (since elsewhere they state a duty to enforce, again unsubstantiated).

For the benefit of balance, I completely accept that there could be an arcane or legally complex justification that is beyond my understanding. However, I also view the BBC's decision not to state that justification as being suspicious, and in the context of the already poor reputation of TV Licensing, unhelpful to all concerned.

pphillips

I absolutely agree that TV Licensing are bound by Article 8 ECHR which says:

1 .Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.

2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

It is a common misunderstanding that the ECHR originates from EU law.

The TV License officers walk onto property and knock on doors on the principal of implied consent. But if that consent is withdrawn by the landowner giving notice (verbally or in writing) then the officers will be acting unlawfully if they remain on the property without the permission of a court of law.

Cornucopia

pphillips wrote: »

I absolutely agree that TV Licensing are bound by Article 8 ECHR which says...

There's enough common sense, confirmation by the BBC and reference info to confirm that a door-to-door policing activity undertaken by a public authority in the UK is in scope of Article 8.

As I said, I am not a lawyer, merely someone who is capable of finding and reading the reference info, and of asking questions of the BBC. As a matter of principle, I don't think it is unreasonable for an affected citizen, such as myself, to ask a public authority relevant questions about its legal position especially if the authority's position appears to be secretive or obfuscated. In short, how can I be expected to obey the law if I cannot find out what the law is? (I am talking here about the extent to which I "have" to cooperate with the BBC's enforcement activities, rather than the requirements for a TV Licence, which are relatively clear).

... except such as is in accordance with the law and ...

That "and" is critical, and this is confirmed in various commentaries I have read. If the measure is not deemed "in accordance with the law", then the other clause after the "and" is moot.

It is a common misunderstanding that the ECHR originates from EU law.

The ECHR has a long and noble history - much of it prior to being adopted into UK law. I'm not really interested in the minutiae of its political origins or its "placement" in EU governance. Just as a matter of interest for other readers, though, its presence and importance in UK law will not be affected by Brexit, whatever the outcome.

The TV License officers walk onto property and knock on doors on the principal of implied consent. But if that consent is withdrawn by the landowner giving notice (verbally or in writing) then the officers will be acting unlawfully if they remain on the property without the permission of a court of law.

Indeed, but that provision to withdraw the implied right of access under Common Law is just the start of the legal complexity, and in itself raises various questions:-

- If it is my right to withdraw the implied right of access, then what does that mean to TV Licensing's alleged "duty to enforce"? Legislators generally try to avoid conflicting rights in law - that is part of their role.

- If it is a right under common law, then is it permissible for TV Licensing to state that exercising that right potentially fulfils one of the prerequisite conditions for obtaining a Search Warrant under S.366?

- In what form does this common law right interface with Article 8? If the BBC supposedly relies on this consent (or some other consent) to override Article 8 (as it has stated in the past), then surely fully informed consent is what is required, not implied or presumed consent?

- The BBC uses its vast resources to circulate a substantial amount of misinformation (or at the very least, weasel words) on this question. Surely this can't be right in the context of fundamental rights?

silverwhistle

Cornucopia wrote: »

Despite the wording there, there is no legal requirement for anyone to notify TV Licensing that they do not need a Licence.

I would have done but they wanted my name/phone number/email address so I just dispose of their junk mail to The Occupier like I do with the equally unwanted Dominos pizza or kebab shop leaflets.


I've yet to have a visit although many have been promised, but my standard response to door-to-door callers is "not interested, thank you", and I would hope that would suffice.


Many, many years ago I did have a visit and was asked by the caller whether he could come in and check my lounge. When I said no he asked why and I politely said I valued my privacy. These days there would probably be a longer discourse I could have on the matter, but the answer would probably be shorter..

PasturesNew

What is annoying is that it's £154 for a single person with one tiny telly .... and £154 next door for the family with 8 widescreen tellies.

How about people paying by the inch?

pphillips

Cornucopia wrote: »

- If it is my right to withdraw the implied right of access, then what does that mean to TV Licensing's alleged "duty to enforce"? Legislators generally try to avoid conflicting rights in law - that is part of their role.

It does not change the duty to enforce - TV Licensing are still able to enforce from a distance whether it be by covert surveillance, letters or court summons.

Cornucopia wrote: »

- If it is a right under common law, then is it permissible for TV Licensing to state that exercising that right potentially fulfils one of the prerequisite conditions for obtaining a Search Warrant under S.366?

Yes - this does fulfil one of the conditions but S366(1) is clear that there are three different conditions that must be satisfied before a search warrant can be issued by the magistrate.

Cornucopia wrote: »

- In what form does this common law right interface with Article 8? If the BBC supposedly relies on this consent (or some other consent) to override Article 8 (as it has stated in the past), then surely fully informed consent is what is required, not implied or presumed consent?

The common law right and Article 8 are consistent and work in conjunction with each other. Surely it would be unacceptable state interference if the law were to replace the presumption of consent (to receive letters, visitors etc) with a requirement of informed consent.

Cornucopia wrote: »

- The BBC uses its vast resources to circulate a substantial amount of misinformation (or at the very least, weasel words) on this question. Surely this can't be right in the context of fundamental rights?

It would probably be a breach of the BBC Charter & Agreement but I can't see how it could be a breach of the ECHR.