TV Licence article Discussion

Cornucopia

Parking enforcement has some very specific case law now established.

Whether it's extendible to other areas, I don't know.

Given that there are c.200,000 TVL prosecutions per year, it would be amusing (but surprising) if they were fundamentally flawed in this way.

AFAIK, the TVL court presenters are Capita employees.

Paul_Varjak

Cornucopia wrote: »

Parking enforcement has some very specific case law now established.

The decision of the judge to strike out the case was based on who the two parties to the contract were; nothing to do with parking enforcement per se.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Whether it's extendible to other areas, I don't know.

The Law of Contract does not apply to TV licenses of course but in our adversarial system there are still two parties and questions can still arise as to the validity of either party in the action.

Cornucopia wrote: »

Given that there are c.200,000 TVL prosecutions per year, it would be amusing (but surprising) if they were fundamentally flawed in this way.

I seem to recall that a fundamental mistake had been made in minor traffic prosecutions for many years - that of duplicity. A pretty basic mistake that someone should have spotted earlier but did not probably because of the summary nature of those prosecutions.

The summary nature of TV licence prosecution seems to have become a fine art with Capita's own computers telling the Magistrate's Courts computers to produce a summonses on stationery pre-printed with the Clerk to the Justices own signature. That could hardly be described as 'laying of information' before the Court and may make 200,000 summonses each year, totally illegal!

Cornucopia wrote: »

AFAIK, the TVL court presenters are Capita employees.

Maybe you are correct, I thought they were the TV licence Inspectors themselves.

Cornucopia

Paul_Varjak wrote: »

The decision of the judge to strike out the case was based on who the two parties to the contract were; nothing to do with parking enforcement per se.

Indeed, but there was a principle involved in terms of only the landowner being capable of proposing a contract to the motorist, and only the landowner being capable of suffering a loss if the contract was breached.

The Law of Contract does not apply to TV licenses of course but in our adversarial system there are still two parties and questions can still arise as to the validity of either party in the action.

I seem to recall that a fundamental mistake had been made in minor traffic prosecutions for many years - that of duplicity. A pretty basic mistake that someone should have spotted earlier but did not probably because of the summary nature of those prosecutions.

True. There have been several instances of this sort of thing.

The summary nature of TV licence prosecution seems to have become a fine art with Capita's own computers telling the Magistrate's Courts computers to produce a summonses on stationery pre-printed with the Clerk to the Justices own signature. That could hardly be described as 'laying of information' before the Court and may make 200,000 summonses each year, totally illegal!

It's a very similar process, though, to the speed camera offences, and they have been very soundly scrutinised...

Maybe you are correct, I thought they were the TV licence Inspectors themselves.

I've sat in on a TVL session in court - for anyone interested in the topic or in justice, it's a fascinating way to spend an hour or two. The overwhelming impression is of a conveyor belt approach. Typically, 80-120 cases are scheduled per 2 hour session, so very little time is spent per case. Defendants mostly (90%) do not turn up and are therefore found guilty virtually automatically. In some cases, TVL does withdraw, if a payment record is found to be complete over a reasonable period of time. Letters of mitigation are also read and considered.

All of that takes place with just the Magistrate, the Clerk, and the TVL presenter. TVL field staff are not present. If someone pleads not guilty, the case is deferred to a later date, and TVL get to prepare a full case, including an appearance by Field Staff.

mymedi

Cornucopia wrote: »

It's a very similar process, though, to the speed camera offences, and they have been very soundly scrutinised...

Except that in the speeding case there is a device that actually produces valid and reproducible data which proves that a voilation took place, whereas in the TVL case there is only the *speculation* that a violation *might* be taking place...

Cornucopia

mymedi wrote: »

Except that in the speeding case there is a device that actually produces valid and reproducible data which proves that a voilation took place, whereas in the TVL case there is only the *speculation* that a violation *might* be taking place...

I was referring specifically to the court process.

As we know, the vast majority of TVL defendants have simply confessed to the offence (willingly/knowingly or otherwise).

mymedi

I thought you referred to the way the summons is issued - electronically without a person involved. It makes sense in the speeding cameras case because of the objectivity of data, and doesn't make any sense in the TVL case since there is no data, just the suspition... ;-)

Cornucopia

It's not really just suspicion - not in the plain English sense of the word.

As far as Capita are concerned, someone has admitted to the offence. Legally, that's a more substantial case than with a speed camera, since the camera offence can have issues of technical reliabiliy, identity of the driver, etc.

[Deleted User]

Cornucopia wrote: »

Parking enforcement has some very specific case law now established.

Whether it's extendible to other areas, I don't know.

I don't think they are comparable.

For a start, Private Parking is a Civil matter, so no punishment can be imposed.

The most that be asked for is damages/compensation and, since no loss has been incurred (let alone 80+ quids with), no such damages/compensation can be awarded.

Also, in order to claim damages/compensation, it is necessary to have a financial interest in the object/place for which damages/compensation is being claimed.

For a PPC to sue you, for parking on their client's land, is akin to me suing you, for crashing into my neighbour's car.

Grody12

I live in council accommodation and there is no signal to receive TV channels so I have always paid for Sky just to watch TV. Is there any comeback re the TV licence because I have also paid that for over 13 years.

Cornucopia

Grody12 wrote: »

I live in council accommodation and there is no signal to receive TV channels so I have always paid for Sky just to watch TV. Is there any comeback re the TV licence because I have also paid that for over 13 years.

In short: no. If you receive/watch/record TV broadcasts, then you need a licence.

To watch "TV" without a licence, you need to be viewing only catch-up and video-on-demand content, like the non-live parts of iPlayer.