Oops. TV licence saw ITV on the telly.

PPCDefeater

jbrassy said:

PPCDefeater said:

jbrassy said:

Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 says the following:

(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

The law has nothing to do with 'watching'. It's is about whether someone installs and used a TV receiver which the OP has admitted to doing. The OP broke the law.

Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363

And the rest mate 😆

The term "television receiver" is further defined in the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 as:

"Any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving... any television programme service." 

LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

Sorry, but your logic is flawed and this "law" is outdated.

It was written when TVs, aerials, and set-top boxes were the only way to receive broadcast, back in 2003. Smartphones, tablets, and streaming didn’t exist then. If simply owning a device that can receive a broadcast required a licence, which includes youtube being pre-installed on practically everything, every phone owner in the UK would need one, which isn’t how it works.

The focus IS ON usage and intent, not capability. Forget how the TV came on—it was an accident, it doesn’t matter. There was no intention to watch, so no, I did not break the law. I don’t watch live TV, record, or use iPlayer. The TV came on once—am I supposed to pay £28 a month for that? Of course not. At most, I’d pay for a single month, declare I don’t need it, and move on.

Also, if you actually read the full thread, you’d see I’ve tried to pay three times already. Am I really going to call them to cancel the payment or just wait to see if it bounces back? The aerial will stay disconnected. If I ever want to watch a single football match, then the option is there, without having to faff around with cables, I’d pay for that month and cancel. If it’s not being used, a licence isn’t required. 

I think your argument is flawed, this passage:
"Any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving... any television programme service."

The term "apparatus" has not been narrowly defined to mean only televisions. It could mean a tablet or laptop. The law is not outdated. 

In terms of what you should do, there are two options:
1 - pay for a TV licence and watch TV and BBC IPlayer 
2 - don't buy a TV licence, and unplug the aerial from your TV and don't watch BBC iPlayer.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any legal qualifications? Or are you a keyboard lawyer?

No I'm not a keyboard lawyer or a rocket scientist. Neither is needed to read and understand plain English. I have a GCSE C grade in English which is all that's required here, not a law degree. You're the one who dished out laws without even reading them properly.

The law says "installed or used for the purpose of receiving," but I didn’t install it to watch live TV—just in case I might use it later. The law requires a licence to watch live TV, record, or use BBC iPlayer. If I’m not doing any of these, I don’t need a licence. Just because a device can receive a broadcast doesn’t mean I’m breaking the law. Watching requires active engagement—if I’m not watching, I’m not breaking the law. If they want to be strict on laws and fines, I’ll be strict on the wording because interpretation is based on the exact language used, and that’s how law works.

So instead of being dismissive and throwing personal jabs out there let's stick to the law shall we.

Cornucopia

PPCDefeater said:

jbrassy said:

PPCDefeater said:

jbrassy said:

Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 says the following:

(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

The law has nothing to do with 'watching'. It's is about whether someone installs and used a TV receiver which the OP has admitted to doing. The OP broke the law.

Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363

And the rest mate 😆

The term "television receiver" is further defined in the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 as:

"Any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving... any television programme service." 

LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

Sorry, but your logic is flawed and this "law" is outdated.

It was written when TVs, aerials, and set-top boxes were the only way to receive broadcast, back in 2003. Smartphones, tablets, and streaming didn’t exist then. If simply owning a device that can receive a broadcast required a licence, which includes youtube being pre-installed on practically everything, every phone owner in the UK would need one, which isn’t how it works.

The focus IS ON usage and intent, not capability. Forget how the TV came on—it was an accident, it doesn’t matter. There was no intention to watch, so no, I did not break the law. I don’t watch live TV, record, or use iPlayer. The TV came on once—am I supposed to pay £28 a month for that? Of course not. At most, I’d pay for a single month, declare I don’t need it, and move on.

Also, if you actually read the full thread, you’d see I’ve tried to pay three times already. Am I really going to call them to cancel the payment or just wait to see if it bounces back? The aerial will stay disconnected. If I ever want to watch a single football match, then the option is there, without having to faff around with cables, I’d pay for that month and cancel. If it’s not being used, a licence isn’t required. 

I think your argument is flawed, this passage:
"Any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving... any television programme service."

The term "apparatus" has not been narrowly defined to mean only televisions. It could mean a tablet or laptop. The law is not outdated. 

In terms of what you should do, there are two options:
1 - pay for a TV licence and watch TV and BBC IPlayer 
2 - don't buy a TV licence, and unplug the aerial from your TV and don't watch BBC iPlayer.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any legal qualifications? Or are you a keyboard lawyer?

No I'm not a keyboard lawyer or a rocket scientist. Neither is needed to read and understand plain English. I have a GCSE C grade in English which is all that's required here, not a law degree. You're the one who dished out laws without even reading them properly.

The law says "installed or used for the purpose of receiving," but I didn’t install it to watch live TV—just in case I might use it later. The law requires a licence to watch live TV, record, or use BBC iPlayer. If I’m not doing any of these, I don’t need a licence. Just because a device can receive a broadcast doesn’t mean I’m breaking the law. Watching requires active engagement—if I’m not watching, I’m not breaking the law. If they want to be strict on laws and fines, I’ll be strict on the wording because interpretation is based on the exact language used, and that’s how law works.

So instead of being dismissive and throwing personal jabs out there let's stick to the law shall we.

It's not really about reading skills, but about applying some common sense.   Why would the powers that be create a loophole whereby a Licence was not required for the vanishingly rare situation where a TV receiver was accidentally switched on and happened to be pre-configured for receiving and displaying TV.  

And then consider that "pre-configured" sounds a lot like "installed for the purpose".  

The other interesting thing is how the internet seems to provoke this sensation of discovery - having found or conceived of something that no one has thought of before.   I'm sure it does happen from time to time, but it's much rarer than the sensation of it happening.

PPCDefeater

Cornucopia said:

PPCDefeater said:

jbrassy said:

PPCDefeater said:

jbrassy said:

Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 says the following:

(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

The law has nothing to do with 'watching'. It's is about whether someone installs and used a TV receiver which the OP has admitted to doing. The OP broke the law.

Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363

And the rest mate 😆

The term "television receiver" is further defined in the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 as:

"Any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving... any television programme service." 

LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

Sorry, but your logic is flawed and this "law" is outdated.

It was written when TVs, aerials, and set-top boxes were the only way to receive broadcast, back in 2003. Smartphones, tablets, and streaming didn’t exist then. If simply owning a device that can receive a broadcast required a licence, which includes youtube being pre-installed on practically everything, every phone owner in the UK would need one, which isn’t how it works.

The focus IS ON usage and intent, not capability. Forget how the TV came on—it was an accident, it doesn’t matter. There was no intention to watch, so no, I did not break the law. I don’t watch live TV, record, or use iPlayer. The TV came on once—am I supposed to pay £28 a month for that? Of course not. At most, I’d pay for a single month, declare I don’t need it, and move on.

Also, if you actually read the full thread, you’d see I’ve tried to pay three times already. Am I really going to call them to cancel the payment or just wait to see if it bounces back? The aerial will stay disconnected. If I ever want to watch a single football match, then the option is there, without having to faff around with cables, I’d pay for that month and cancel. If it’s not being used, a licence isn’t required. 

I think your argument is flawed, this passage:
"Any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving... any television programme service."

The term "apparatus" has not been narrowly defined to mean only televisions. It could mean a tablet or laptop. The law is not outdated. 

In terms of what you should do, there are two options:
1 - pay for a TV licence and watch TV and BBC IPlayer 
2 - don't buy a TV licence, and unplug the aerial from your TV and don't watch BBC iPlayer.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any legal qualifications? Or are you a keyboard lawyer?

No I'm not a keyboard lawyer or a rocket scientist. Neither is needed to read and understand plain English. I have a GCSE C grade in English which is all that's required here, not a law degree. You're the one who dished out laws without even reading them properly.

The law says "installed or used for the purpose of receiving," but I didn’t install it to watch live TV—just in case I might use it later. The law requires a licence to watch live TV, record, or use BBC iPlayer. If I’m not doing any of these, I don’t need a licence. Just because a device can receive a broadcast doesn’t mean I’m breaking the law. Watching requires active engagement—if I’m not watching, I’m not breaking the law. If they want to be strict on laws and fines, I’ll be strict on the wording because interpretation is based on the exact language used, and that’s how law works.

So instead of being dismissive and throwing personal jabs out there let's stick to the law shall we.

It's not really about reading skills, but about applying some common sense.   Why would the powers that be create a loophole whereby a Licence was not required for the vanishingly rare situation where a TV receiver was accidentally switched on and happened to be pre-configured for receiving and displaying TV.  

And then consider that "pre-configured" sounds a lot like "installed for the purpose".  

The other interesting thing is how the internet seems to provoke this sensation of discovery - having found or conceived of something that no one has thought of before.   I'm sure it does happen from time to time, but it's much rarer than the sensation of it happening.

If common sense could override written terms, then written terms wouldn’t be needed. The law is about how a device is used, not how it’s set up. My TV was being used for a YouTube music channel, not for watching live TV or BBC iPlayer. Focusing on rare scenarios like an accidental switch-on misses the point. The main thing is that I’m not using my device to watch live TV, so a TV licence isn’t required. It’s really that simple—the purpose of the device is what matters.

And of course it's pre-configured. It's a smart TV. It's as pre-configured as any device is with a YouTube app pre-installed. It isn't that rare of a scenario either. I'm not saying I opened the window and the wind blew the aerial out of its box and somehow miraculously ended up connected to the TV. It was just connected incase I wanted to watch Telly in the future.

 What's more rare is the fact that people even watch traditional TV nowadays, as most people use their TVs for other purposes.

Cornucopia

PPCDefeater said:

Cornucopia said:

PPCDefeater said:

jbrassy said:

PPCDefeater said:

jbrassy said:

Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 says the following:

(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

The law has nothing to do with 'watching'. It's is about whether someone installs and used a TV receiver which the OP has admitted to doing. The OP broke the law.

Source: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363

And the rest mate 😆

The term "television receiver" is further defined in the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 as:

"Any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving... any television programme service." 

LEGISLATION.GOV.UK

Sorry, but your logic is flawed and this "law" is outdated.

It was written when TVs, aerials, and set-top boxes were the only way to receive broadcast, back in 2003. Smartphones, tablets, and streaming didn’t exist then. If simply owning a device that can receive a broadcast required a licence, which includes youtube being pre-installed on practically everything, every phone owner in the UK would need one, which isn’t how it works.

The focus IS ON usage and intent, not capability. Forget how the TV came on—it was an accident, it doesn’t matter. There was no intention to watch, so no, I did not break the law. I don’t watch live TV, record, or use iPlayer. The TV came on once—am I supposed to pay £28 a month for that? Of course not. At most, I’d pay for a single month, declare I don’t need it, and move on.

Also, if you actually read the full thread, you’d see I’ve tried to pay three times already. Am I really going to call them to cancel the payment or just wait to see if it bounces back? The aerial will stay disconnected. If I ever want to watch a single football match, then the option is there, without having to faff around with cables, I’d pay for that month and cancel. If it’s not being used, a licence isn’t required. 

I think your argument is flawed, this passage:
"Any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving... any television programme service."

The term "apparatus" has not been narrowly defined to mean only televisions. It could mean a tablet or laptop. The law is not outdated. 

In terms of what you should do, there are two options:
1 - pay for a TV licence and watch TV and BBC IPlayer 
2 - don't buy a TV licence, and unplug the aerial from your TV and don't watch BBC iPlayer.

Just out of curiosity, do you have any legal qualifications? Or are you a keyboard lawyer?

No I'm not a keyboard lawyer or a rocket scientist. Neither is needed to read and understand plain English. I have a GCSE C grade in English which is all that's required here, not a law degree. You're the one who dished out laws without even reading them properly.

The law says "installed or used for the purpose of receiving," but I didn’t install it to watch live TV—just in case I might use it later. The law requires a licence to watch live TV, record, or use BBC iPlayer. If I’m not doing any of these, I don’t need a licence. Just because a device can receive a broadcast doesn’t mean I’m breaking the law. Watching requires active engagement—if I’m not watching, I’m not breaking the law. If they want to be strict on laws and fines, I’ll be strict on the wording because interpretation is based on the exact language used, and that’s how law works.

So instead of being dismissive and throwing personal jabs out there let's stick to the law shall we.

It's not really about reading skills, but about applying some common sense.   Why would the powers that be create a loophole whereby a Licence was not required for the vanishingly rare situation where a TV receiver was accidentally switched on and happened to be pre-configured for receiving and displaying TV.  

And then consider that "pre-configured" sounds a lot like "installed for the purpose".  

The other interesting thing is how the internet seems to provoke this sensation of discovery - having found or conceived of something that no one has thought of before.   I'm sure it does happen from time to time, but it's much rarer than the sensation of it happening.

If common sense could override written terms, then written terms wouldn’t be needed. The law is about how a device is used, not how it’s set up. 

Well, there are 3 relevant offences in the legislation -  

- "A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part" & "A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence". 

-  "A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—

(a) intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or

- (b) knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,

is guilty of an offence".

So, there's plenty there to cover all eventualities, I think.   "Television Receiver" is a defined term in the legislation and it means equipment configured and used to receive TV broadcasts and/or iPlayer.   

It's a somewhat academic discussion because you've had your encounter with TV Licensing and nothing happened.   If the encounter involved possibly seeing use of a TV Receiver through a window, then that wouldn't count as they wouldn't be able to present this as evidence.   What they want is a confession supported by a signature.  

TV Licence lore is complicated enough without "tangents", and the biggest offender on that is TV Licensing (the BBC) itself.

Grumpy_chap

PPCDefeater said:

But like iv previously stated we've sometimes just put something on for some background noise whilst tyding not actually watching it. Why does it matter if you have an ariel plugged in or not doesn't it matter wether you actually watch it or not? 

If you don't have an aerial plugged in, then you won't be able to sensibly put the TV on for come background noise as the picture will be poor / absent and the noise will be crackles and hiss rather than anything you could deem as background noise.

I think, from the perspective of a TV licence, having live stream on only for background noise but not watching it would not really stand up.

If you only want background noise, why not buy a radio?

PPCDefeater

Grumpy_chap said:

PPCDefeater said:

But like iv previously stated we've sometimes just put something on for some background noise whilst tyding not actually watching it. Why does it matter if you have an ariel plugged in or not doesn't it matter wether you actually watch it or not? 

If you don't have an aerial plugged in, then you won't be able to sensibly put the TV on for come background noise as the picture will be poor / absent and the noise will be crackles and hiss rather than anything you could deem as background noise.

I think, from the perspective of a TV licence, having live stream on only for background noise but not watching it would not really stand up.

If you only want background noise, why not buy a radio?

Because I have limited control over the radio.
I do however have full control over youtube. It runs on my laptop that I use to run games on, which is connected to the TV.

The bit you said, using it to listen to rather than watching may not stand up in court, you’re right because you'd actively be receiving and the using the service. But I'm not, lol.

 

Grumpy_chap

PPCDefeater said:

Grumpy_chap said:

PPCDefeater said:

But like iv previously stated we've sometimes just put something on for some background noise whilst tyding not actually watching it. Why does it matter if you have an ariel plugged in or not doesn't it matter wether you actually watch it or not? 

If you don't have an aerial plugged in, then you won't be able to sensibly put the TV on for come background noise as the picture will be poor / absent and the noise will be crackles and hiss rather than anything you could deem as background noise.

I think, from the perspective of a TV licence, having live stream on only for background noise but not watching it would not really stand up.

If you only want background noise, why not buy a radio?

Because I have no control over the radio.
I do however have control over youtube. It runs on my laptop that I use to run games on, which is connected to the TV.

The bit you said, using it to listen to rather than watching may not stand up in court, you’re right because you'd actively be receiving and the using the service. But I'm not, lol.

 

AIUI, you do not need an aerial connected to view Youtube.

You seem contradictory when you said upthread you had the TV on in the background for background noise and that was a live TV steam, but then you say you are not actively receiving and using the service.

PPCDefeater

Grumpy_chap said:

PPCDefeater said:

Grumpy_chap said:

PPCDefeater said:

But like iv previously stated we've sometimes just put something on for some background noise whilst tyding not actually watching it. Why does it matter if you have an ariel plugged in or not doesn't it matter wether you actually watch it or not? 

If you don't have an aerial plugged in, then you won't be able to sensibly put the TV on for come background noise as the picture will be poor / absent and the noise will be crackles and hiss rather than anything you could deem as background noise.

I think, from the perspective of a TV licence, having live stream on only for background noise but not watching it would not really stand up.

If you only want background noise, why not buy a radio?

Because I have no control over the radio.
I do however have control over youtube. It runs on my laptop that I use to run games on, which is connected to the TV.

The bit you said, using it to listen to rather than watching may not stand up in court, you’re right because you'd actively be receiving and the using the service. But I'm not, lol.

 

AIUI, you do not need an aerial connected to view Youtube.

You seem contradictory when you said upthread you had the TV on in the background for background noise and that was a live TV steam, but then you say you are not actively receiving and using the service.

No i never. I said I used my telly for background noise. Which was connected to an external source. I e, youtube.  Live television was not mentioned. 

You're right. I don't need an aerial to view youtube, I wasnt using it to view youtube at the time, infact, it wasn't being used at all. Until the laptop was knocked. Disrupting the connection between the telly and the laptop. 

Grumpy_chap

PPCDefeater said:

 Live television was not mentioned. 

Except it would seem as though it was:

PPCDefeater said:

I used the telly for some background noise whilst I was tidying up. My HDMI cable is usually connected to something and my source output channel switches to something working when the signal was lost.

I didn't even realise but the chase was on lmao. I must have knocked my laptop and the HDMI so the telly came in instead 
 

PPCDefeater said:

But like iv previously stated we've sometimes just put something on for some background noise whilst tyding not actually watching it. Why does it matter if you have an ariel plugged in or not doesn't it matter wether you actually watch it or not? 

PPCDefeater said:

it was showing live TV at the time

Whether a one-off or a regular event, at that time you were receiving and gaining benefit (background noise even if not watching) from live TV stream.
That seems to be the fact, it is irrelevant whether the event was an accident because the HDMI became disconnected.
The way to prevent a recurrence would be to disconnect the aerial as then, if the HDMI gets disconnected, the TV will not give an output and, in the absence of background noise, you will be prompted to re-connect the HDMI.

OR are you really trying to draw some distinction between watching TV and having the TV on for background noise?

PPCDefeater

Grumpy_chap said:

PPCDefeater said:

 Live television was not mentioned. 

Except it would seem as though it was:

PPCDefeater said:

I used the telly for some background noise whilst I was tidying up. My HDMI cable is usually connected to something and my source output channel switches to something working when the signal was lost.

I didn't even realise but the chase was on lmao. I must have knocked my laptop and the HDMI so the telly came in instead 
 

PPCDefeater said:

But like iv previously stated we've sometimes just put something on for some background noise whilst tyding not actually watching it. Why does it matter if you have an ariel plugged in or not doesn't it matter wether you actually watch it or not? 

PPCDefeater said:

it was showing live TV at the time

Whether a one-off or a regular event, at that time you were receiving and gaining benefit (background noise even if not watching) from live TV stream.
That seems to be the fact, it is irrelevant whether the event was an accident because the HDMI became disconnected.
The way to prevent a recurrence would be to disconnect the aerial as then, if the HDMI gets disconnected, the TV will not give an output and, in the absence of background noise, you will be prompted to re-connect the HDMI.

OR are you really trying to draw some distinction between watching TV and having the TV on for background noise?

Not quite.

I’m trying to distinguish between unintentionally receiving live TV and intentionally using it. I had YouTube playing music, not live TV. Live TV only came on because my HDMI got disconnected by accident.

If I have to pay for a licence because of a brief, accidental instance, then so be it—but haven't we established enough that the law is clearly on intent ? Besides, I’ve tried paying three times, and it didn’t go through. At this stage, would you go through the hassle of calling them to declare you don’t need one, or just disconnect the aerial and move on?

Some people have cables chased into walls, and have their telly mounted the wall which can be awkward for connecting cables, so just because it was plugged in means nothing. As long as I only pay if I actually intend to use live TV, that should that should be enough.

And yeah I've said iv "put something on" - I was referring to youtube. Wasn't live tv, recorded programmes or iplayer though.