Do lodgers need a TV license? confusing phrasing

pieroabcd

Hi,
yesterday a friend of mine told me that she needs a TV license for the newly bought TV for her bedroom. Knowing that she's a lodger I thought that she doesn't need one because the owners are already paying for it.
She showed me that the phrasing on various web sites that she visited is confusing.

The MSE web site reads 

If you're a lodger and/or have a relationship with the homeowner (such as a family member, partner, nanny, au pair, housekeeper), you'll be covered by their licence, provided you live in the same building and don't have your own cooking or washing facilities.

while the official tvlicensing web site reads

If you’re a lodger and have a relationship with the homeowner who has a valid licence – for example, a family member, common law partner, a nanny, au pair or housekeeper - you don't need a TV Licence.
You’re covered by the homeowner’s TV Licence if they have one, but only if you live in the same building. If you live in self-contained accommodation, such as a separate flat or annex, you need your own separate licence.

She's the typical lodger: she has exclusive use of her bedroom and bathroom, but she shares the kitchen, lounge, landing and garden with the owners. They all live in the main building. She's not in a relationship with any of them.

Now, that and/or specification in MSE makes me believe that she's covered, but the TVlicensing reads If you’re a lodger and have a relationship with the homeowner who has a valid licence - seems to imply that she's not covered by the existing license. On the other hand the second sentence in the same site seems to imply that she's covered.

For me it's all very confusing. For my friend's case the two sentences in TVlicensing seem to punch with each other, unless it has to be interpreted that she's covered for watching TV in the communal rooms but she needs a license for the TV in her bedroom?

Does anyone have experience with cases like this?

tightauldgit

If the address has a license and there's no separate listing (like a 20 and 20a or something) then I doubt anyone is going to ask any questions in any case, but I'm fairly confident that lodgers don't need a separate TV license

TBagpuss

It is confusing,  https://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2013/01/23/tv-licence-issues-for-tenants-and-lodgers/ seems to suggest that a lodger who is not related to their landlord or employed by them is supposed to have their own, IF they are watching in their own room. 

pieroabcd

TBagpuss said:

It is confusing,  https://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2013/01/23/tv-licence-issues-for-tenants-and-lodgers/ seems to suggest that a lodger who is not related to their landlord or employed by them is supposed to have their own, IF they are watching in their own room. 

my view too.
I wonder if people that write the official reference pages actually read them.
Does it take so much?

stuhse

Tell her to Hoover a room or two  once a week  then she is a housekeeper. 😉 or the TV belongs to the house owner.

tightauldgit

TBagpuss said:

It is confusing,  https://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2013/01/23/tv-licence-issues-for-tenants-and-lodgers/ seems to suggest that a lodger who is not related to their landlord or employed by them is supposed to have their own, IF they are watching in their own room. 

They kind of ruined that analysis by suggesting you don't need a license to watch iPlayer at the end.

The reality of the situation for a lodger is that if the address has a TV license then nobody is going to check further so legal confusion aside there is no need for one.  

HillStreetBlues

tightauldgit said:

TBagpuss said:

It is confusing,  https://www.landlordlawblog.co.uk/2013/01/23/tv-licence-issues-for-tenants-and-lodgers/ seems to suggest that a lodger who is not related to their landlord or employed by them is supposed to have their own, IF they are watching in their own room. 

They kind of ruined that analysis by suggesting you don't need a license to watch iPlayer at the end.

That's the trouble of posting a 10 year old link, some info is out of date.

tightauldgit said:

The reality of the situation for a lodger is that if the address has a TV license then nobody is going to check further so legal confusion aside there is no need for one.  

Agreed.
I think it's a bit far-fetched for  a license officer knocking on the door and saying " I know you have a license but need to check if you have lodger who isn't related to you living there and watching TV?"

Van_Girl

If she's a lodger, she technically does not have exclusive use of her bedroom or bathroom, as she's an excluded occupier. I get that no one else uses them, but they are still part of the home that belongs to the live in landlord and they retain the right to enter these spaces

So in my opinion, it's part of the family home and is covered by their TV licence

pieroabcd

HillStreetBlues said:

tightauldgit said:

The reality of the situation for a lodger is that if the address has a TV license then nobody is going to check further so legal confusion aside there is no need for one.  

Agreed.
I think it's a bit far-fetched for  a license officer knocking on the door and saying " I know you have a license but need to check if you have lodger who isn't related to you living there and watching TV?"

definitely true.

pieroabcd

Van_Girl said:

If she's a lodger, she technically does not have exclusive use of her bedroom or bathroom, as she's an excluded occupier. I get that no one else uses them, but they are still part of the home that belongs to the live in landlord and they retain the right to enter these spaces

So in my opinion, it's part of the family home and is covered by their TV licence

That's definitely an interesting point.

sillyvixen

Does she have a lock on her door, if so I believe she needs a licence, if not she is covered in the same way as any family member having a TV in their bedroom assuming the household holds a TV licence.