TV Licence article Discussion

cw18

Yet they're quite happy for me to not dispute the purchase of a TV, declare I don't use it to watch live TV, and accept my declaration that I don't need a licence. As I previously mentioned they've been notified of not one but three TV purchases since I cancelled my licence, and I've had no problem at all declaring I have no need for a licence nor any demands that I pay for one.

sniggings

iancarbarns wrote: »

Martin, I am ashamed of you for item 6! The law is quite clear that you DO need a licence if you install or intend to install a TV, even if you never watch it, or never watch live TV.

The Communications Act 2003 Section 363 states:
363 - Licence required for use of TV receiver

(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.
(3)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.

wrong, for proof go on their own site and it clearly says ONLY if watching live TV.

There is even an option on there to inform them you only use your TV for catchup TV.

peter_fenwick

The trick words you quoted are INSTALLED and USED.
they use these words to fool you
When they say INSTALLED, they actually mean INSTALLED TO RECEIVE LIVE BROADCASTING.
When they say USED they actually mean USED WITH LIVE BROADCASTING.
So if you cant receive LIVE BROADCASTING, then you dont need a licence do you.

Cornucopia

Since TVL themselves say:

You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast.

You could excuse anyone for repeating that simple statement. The full detail is slightly more complex than that, and the issue is that the Courts will accept evidence other than a photo of the accused in front of Eastenders playing on Freeview/Cable/Satellite.

So... installation as evidence of evasion - yes, installation in isolation - no.

peter_fenwick wrote: »

The trick words you quoted are INSTALLED and USED.

The other trick words are "TV Receiver". This doesn't mean TV Set - it has a defined meaning elsewhere in the legislation. And it means... a device for receiving TV broadcasts. If the TV is detuned and has no aerial it is not a TV Receiver.

twobins

Its clear that in the light of this glaring loophole, the law will need to be changed so that everyone who has a television capable of receiving a live broadcast, has to pay a licence fee. Either that or scrap it. Personally I think the licence fee is good value. Unfortunately the Tories have it in for the BBC so I wouldn't hold my breath on a change of the law. People in the UK seem to want everything for free or at knock down prices. Maybe if we paid a little more tax we would have a better NHS and education system. Some things ARE worth paying for.

thelawnet

ChrisRhysWilliams wrote: »

I strongly object to this site promoting this method of avoiding the TV licence - it may be legal but it is not acceptable and not what I'd expect from a site that has had my respect up until this point. It is comparable to giving people advise on tax avoidance - if we all did it, there'd be no Government income to pay NHS, etc and in this case there'd be no BBC.

It does give advice on tax avoidance, given that you just signed up you obviously don't know too much about how this site works.

Tax avoidance: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/reclaim/uniform-tax-rebate

Tax avoidance: http://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/forumdisplay.php?f=22

Tax avoidance: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/savings/ISA-guide-savings-without-tax

At less than 50p per day the BBC is incredible value despite the Tories restrictions on increases in the licence fee in recent years. Come on Martin Lewis, have some moral fibre!

Moral fibre to tell people to pay for things they aren't required to pay for and/or don't even use?

Pull the other one.

You might just as well tell people that The Guardian is a fantastic newspaper and great value please go out and buy a copy otherwise it will close down.

thelawnet

twobins wrote: »

Its clear that in the light of this glaring loophole, the law will need to be changed so that everyone who has a television capable of receiving a live broadcast, has to pay a licence fee. Either that or scrap it. Personally I think the licence fee is good value. Unfortunately the Tories have it in for the BBC so I wouldn't hold my breath on a change of the law. People in the UK seem to want everything for free or at knock down prices. Maybe if we paid a little more tax we would have a better NHS and education system. Some things ARE worth paying for.

The government spends 40% of every penny we earn.

I think that's quite enough, personally.

jc808

lol at all the people who have signed up just to defend TVL

[Deleted User]

iancarbarns wrote: »

(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.

Pity you didn't read on.

368 Meanings of “television receiver” and “use”

(3) References in this Part to using a television receiver are references to using it for receiving television programmes.

supergabs

My husband and I live with his Mum, who is 84 years old. We have always assumed we don't need a TV license due to her age but as we share ownership of the house with her are we liable?