TV Licence article Discussion

nick_pike

shaun_from_Africa wrote: »

I couldn't add links when I posted the info above so will do so now.
It is the Communications act 2003 that states when a licence is required: Note: LINK given.

The main statement in the act seems to be
"(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."

Yet, Martin's article states,

"If you have a TV, but don't watch it, you don't need a licence

Many wrongly believe you need to be covered by a TV licence if you have the ability to watch 'live TV', even if you don't watch it. You only need a licence if you actually watch 'live TV' or use BBC iPlayer.

So, if you've got an aerial on your roof/satellite dish/TV with built-in Freeview etc, but you don't actually watch 'live TV', you don't need a licence."

So the Act covers installation, yet Martin's article states only if you watch it. I have seen many times on the internet material that claims watching is the only and main criteria.

If a visit is backed by a warrant, the warrant states that the Capita guy can 'test' the equipment. I presume this entitles the guy to see if a picture is obtainable. However, if only watching is the criteria, is a 'test' immaterial? Is it a case of walking into the room, seeing the TV is off or watching DVD's, for example, and then leaving because a live signal is not being watched?

pianist52_2

If it's true that even having a TV set, whilst not watching, was unlawful without a licence before the recent change, then that has no bearing on iPlayer. Having iPlayer capability without a licence cannot be unlawful, since what is on the page may be read and the radio pages may be listened to.

Cornucopia

cw18 wrote: »

Question being pondered on another forum I'm a member of.....

Prior to the latest change a lady purchased a box set on iPlayer, so she can watch a show that's no longer available on catch-up - meaning she's already paid £17 to be able to watch it. Does she now also have to have a licence to watch it as she can only access it via iPlayer?

Probably. It's a question best asked of TV Licensing, I think.

Cornucopia

nick_pike wrote: »

The main statement in the act seems to be
"(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."

Yet, Martin's article states,

"If you have a TV, but don't watch it, you don't need a licence

There's no contradiction. The issue is that the term "television receiver" in the legislation does not mean "television (set)". It is a specific term that means any device used to receive TV broadcasts. So the opening clause of the Act therefore means it is an offence to install or use a device that is installed or used to receive TV broadcasts.

Although I've been critical of the MSE articles, the headline facts within them are broadly correct.

If a visit is backed by a warrant, the warrant states that the Capita guy can 'test' the equipment. I presume this entitles the guy to see if a [TV] picture is obtainable. However, if only watching is the criteria, is a 'test' immaterial?

Firstly, TVL warrants number only around 100 for the entire country each year, so they are, statistically at least, an inconsequential element in the TVL arsenal.

As you say, the TVL operative is there to search for, and then test and examine AV equipment on the premises. And the key thing (legally) that he is doing is determining whether any TV or anything else is actually a TV Receiver. He can then put the accusation to the occupier that it is being used for reception.

Installation does creep back into the proceedings, because the Courts will hear evidence that equipment is installed for the purpose of reception, and that this is evidence of use.

Even TVL describe the offence in this way:

You need to be covered by a TV Licence to
- watch or record live TV programmes on any channel (including BBC)
- download or watch any BBC programmes on iPlayer – live, catch up or on demand.

Cornucopia

pianist52 wrote: »

If it's true that even having a TV set, whilst not watching, was unlawful without a licence before the recent change...

It's not true.

... then that has no bearing on iPlayer. Having iPlayer capability without a licence cannot be unlawful, since what is on the page may be read and the radio pages may be listened to.

Yes. And also, virutally any Computer, Tablet or Smart Phone has "iPlayer capability", but they only require a TV Licence if they are used to receive TV broadcasts including iPlayer streaming and downloading(*).

(*) That is that a Licence is required to physically download the content. Once is has been downloaded, a Licence is not required to watch it. IMHO.

MatthewGaskin

A further complication they've not mentioned - if a mobile phone or tablet needs a licence when it's plugged in, what about if it's charging wirelessly? ;-)

JimmyTheWig

nick_pike wrote: »

If a visit is backed by a warrant, the warrant states that the Capita guy can 'test' the equipment. I presume this entitles the guy to see if a picture is obtainable. However, if only watching is the criteria, is a 'test' immaterial? Is it a case of walking into the room, seeing the TV is off or watching DVD's, for example, and then leaving because a live signal is not being watched?

A picture being obtainable is evidence that live TV is watched at that address.
It obviously doesn't prove it beyond possible doubt, but if you've got a TV that you just use with a DVD player, for example, why would you plug the aerial into it?

[Deleted User]

nick_pike wrote: »

I presume this entitles the guy to see if a picture is obtainable.

No, it entitles him to see if a live picture is being received.

He's not entitled to see if he can tune in the set, to obtain a live picture.

If the set isn't tuned in, then it's not "installed".

If he tunes it in, then he has broken the law, not you.

nick_pike

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

A picture being obtainable is evidence that live TV is watched at that address.
It obviously doesn't prove it beyond possible doubt, but if you've got a TV that you just use with a DVD player, for example, why would you plug the aerial into it?

To listen to digital radio on the TV, for which a license is not required.

Cornucopia

nick_pike wrote: »

To listen to digital radio on the TV, for which a license is not required.

I asked BBC/TVL to tell me the basis on which they would check such usage of a TV and they refused.

Therefore, I always recommend finding another way to listen to the radio.