TV Licence article Discussion

George_Bray

Volcano wrote: »

That case was from the early 90s, now it's far more common to not need a TV licence given the other uses a TV can be used for

I agree and that's my thinking. The licensing web site even confirms you can use a TV for DVDs without needing a licence. But here's another case where they took a man to court despite him saying he never used it to receive or record live broadcasts:

http://www.pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c991094.php

So, then my thinking moves on to the view put forward here of not talking to any callers, and to refuse them entry - that way they have no evidence to distort or misrepresent. But there are other cases where they have actually obtained a search warrant and, even if you have nothing to hide, that would be bit stressful also, so I'm not sure what to do.

Further, if one of these licensing thugs barges his way in or refuses to leave, does his status change to one of 'intruder' similar to a burglar? Could you use reasonable physical force, like you can with a burglar? I fear the odds would be stacked against you in terms of an assault charge, even if he had over-stayed his welcome, purely because he'd be seen as a person on official business.

Volcano

I'm reading it that: he let them in, they claimed he could get a picture and needed a licence, he took THEM to court for aggravated trespass and commercial damages. They then brought a summons against him, but that THEY then suspended their case to wait for the results of HIM taking them to the european court. It's a lot of drama and I'm sure the sort of publicity that the self-styled "His Excellency Robert Hertner, Ambassador and Consul General for the Republic of Texas to Europe” doubtless enjoyed! Ultimately TVL did not go ahead with their court case against him........

The only cases I've ever read/heard about involving court summons are the vast majority who admit it on the doorstep or the very occasional incident where someone is deliberately breaking the law, tells the inspectors they're breaking the law and have a "so what yer gonna do about it?" attitude, which ends in a search warrant and police presence. I don't believe there's been one case of someone genuinely not requiring a licence but being prosecuted or searched anyway. TVL do not need to risk losing a tenuous case like that, when so many others just 'cough up' evidence on the doorstep when asked.

If you scroll down to the August 2009 section in red here: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Questions%20and%20answers.htm There's the interesting case of someone who has a television installed and connected to an external TV aerial, but as he has informed TVL that it's not his intention for it to be installed to watch live tv (even though it can) then he doesn't need a licence! You'll need to read the 3 letters to understand properly.

If they barge in or trespass, then it's even less likely that the evidence would be used in court as they have acted illegally to obtain it!

I would definitely use Moonraker's idea of removing implied access. Anyone from TVL then on your property is trespassing before they've even reached your door, which is surely even more reason not to open the door to such individuals?

moonrakerz

George_Bray wrote: »

Is it worth the risk?

George there is NO risk - TVL survive on frightening people !

You can have 20 TV aerials and 100 TVs - if you don't watch or record live TV you don't need a licence - the LAW is very simple.

George_Bray

moonrakerz wrote: »

George there is NO risk - TVL survive on frightening people ! You can have 20 TV aerials and 100 TVs - if you don't watch or record live TV you don't need a licence - the LAW is very simple.

You may be right. I'm not saying you're wrong but I still need to build up a bit more confidence before I take, what I see as a bit of a risk, given the behaviour of TVL.

There are scans on the web of letters from TVL where they appear to agree that a TV can be installed and that's OK as long as you are not actually watching or recording live TV. This may be their recent interpretation given other rules, regulation and cases. BUT a magistrates court is not a Crown Court where detailed argument on fine points may take place over days or weeks. I expect the magistrates just get a list of alleged offenders and you get 30 seconds to put your case. If I said there's a website with scans of responses from TVL which led me to believe it was OK, the magistrates might simply say the Act is as clear as crystal and you can't believe everything you read on the Internet. My defence might be dismissed in another 15 seconds and I risk being found 'guilty. That's my concern.

moonrakerz

Just one final thing :



This is off the TVL website - from the "horse's mouth".

It is quite clear that in these circumstances you do not need a licence - BUT....

TVL in it's normal underhand, deliberately confusing manner even tries to make this simple statement unclear.

"You can tell us...."

You DO NOT have to tell this bunch of **** anything !

"One of our Enforcement Officers may visit you to confirm......"

What bare faced cheek !! They are saying in effect:

"You tell us something that we have no legal right to demand - if you do tell us, we won't believe you anyway and we will send an "Enforcement Officer" to check up on you" !!!!!

Note the upper case letters in "Enforcement Officers" - designed to intimidate. These people have the same legal standing as your paper boy ie: absolutely zero. They are employees of a company called Capita and are actually paid commission for every licence dodger they catch, hence the methods they use.
Apart from which, IF one of these characters turns up and someone actually does let him into their house are they really likely to have live Eastenders showing when they usher him into the lounge ?
Even if they don't, just HOW is he going to confirm that you do not need a licence ? If you are not watching or recording live TV when he visits you are NOT breaking the Law - how does he prove that you might have been acting illegally yesterday or might be tomorrow ?

The sheer arrogance of these people is beyond belief - I bet Gordon Brown doesn't get this from DVLA because he doesn't have a driving licence.

Fire_Fox

I cancelled my TV license in writing, applied for (and received) a refund for unused quarters, and have since written removing the implied right of entry. I stated that this was on the grounds that they had telephoned me three times AND written to me three times in less than a month despite the fact I'd done everything 'by the book'. I have had a letter of apology in return - it remains to see whether an enforcement officer will come calling.

Tripledrop

I called TVL today, and informed them that we use BTVision to watch ondemand content only and was told that we wouldn't need a licence for that (as I already knew).

The lady advised that we'd get a letter confirming this, and an officer would visit.

I don't want my wife or family hassled by anyone, even if they just won't let them in, so is it best to write a letter removing their implied right of access straight away?

We've only had 1 letter so far, but only been at this address 6 weeks.

George_Bray

Tripledrop wrote: »

I called TVL today, and informed them that we use BTVision to watch ondemand content only and was told that we wouldn't need a licence for that (as I already knew). The lady advised that we'd get a letter confirming this, and an officer would visit.

I'm in a similar position and was told much the same. On the one hand I think it's best to allow the 'officer' in since I have nothing to hide. Telling him to get lost at the time of that first visit, or writing in with a legal phrase to restrict access might mark me down as a trouble-maker. On the other hand, can just one 'officer' decide you're breaking the rules and could that lead to court (even if you're not really breaking any rules)? Or would it need at least two of them to gather evidence? Should I use a video camera as my 'witness'? TVL distort so many things, it scares me to think that a rogue 'officer', or just an average 'officer', could write down whatever he wanted.

Volcano

Tripledrop wrote: »

The lady advised that we'd get a letter confirming this, and an officer would visit.

I don't want my wife or family hassled by anyone, even if they just won't let them in, so is it best to write a letter removing their implied right of access straight away?

It's really no guarantee that they won't turn up anyway, but removing implied right of access ensures that if they do knock on your door, then you have a stronger case for taking them to court for trespass (and from going by the reports of others, there is actually less chance they'll turn up too).

They have no 'right' to check if you're telling the truth and no right of entry to do that checking.

I think it's disgusting that in instances such as yours where you clearly do not need a TV licence, you have to live in fear of your family opening the door to these aggressive thugs who are paid commission to lie their way into people's homes, even where there is not the slightest indication that you may be breaking the law.

Volcano

George: It's really down to your personal choice. If you don't let them in, then there's no chance of them making a 'mistake'. To get a police warrant for entry, they'd have to be 110% sure you're breaking the law, the adverse publicity would be too much for a business that relies on people's ignorance of the law for them to get it wrong: "See that guy in the paper? Apparently he didn't need a tv licence even though he had a telly!" would be enough for another huge swathe of people to wake up and realise they don't need a licence.

As the video I linked to shows, a video camera is certainly a good weapon that encourages these idiots to leave you alone.