TV License

[Guest andthereitgoes]

I have read quite a lot on the internet about what constitutes to me requiring a TV license, but it is really vague and not clear.

 

I have recently (2 months ago) moved to a new accommodation (rented). As soon as I moved in; within 15 days I started receiving letters from TVLA about the license fee. The letters are not addressed to me but to "The Present Occupier". I have received 3 so far and I have ignored them till now.

 

I have a telly, but no aerial connection. I sometimes use it to play XBOX. Neither do I subscribe to any service nor do I plan to. I am planning to get rid of the telly as it is taking up space. Although, there is a black cable coming through a hole in the wall and there are 2 separate points where the telly could be connected. I don't know what is that black cable for or whether these telly points work or not. I have a computer and I have an internet connection. I do not watch live broadcasts on iPlayer or any other such online service.

 

Questions:

1. Do I need a license?

2. What should I do about the letters? Should I keep ignoring them ( read it on the internet )

3. How to prove to TVLA that I am NOT watching live broadcast on my computer?

4. I don't want to be part of the TVLA cycle of letters and checks. What should I do?

 

I have always received excellent and useful advice from this forum. Thank you for your help.

[Kraken1]

1. Do I need a license?

 

no.

 

2. What should I do about the letters? Should I keep ignoring them ( read it on the internet )

 

Personally, I'd write telling them. If they visit I'd let them in to see that there is no tv.

 

3. How to prove to TVLA that I am NOT watching live broadcast on my computer?

 

No idea. I don't think you can prove a negative.

 

4. I don't want to be part of the TVLA cycle of letters and checks. What should I do?

 

No idea. Not sure ignoring a few letters is very onerous myself.

[Dragons Dennis]

1. Do I need a license?

YES. Because you have a television (whether you plug an aeriel in or not is irrelevant)

2. What should I do about the letters? Should I keep ignoring them ( read it on the internet )

Apply for a licence

3. How to prove to TVLA that I am NOT watching live broadcast on my computer?

You cannot

4. I don't want to be part of the TVLA cycle of letters and checks. What should I do?

Buy a licence or pay the £1000 fine.

[TheSecondStep]

1. Do I need a license?

YES. Because you have a television (whether you plug an aeriel in or not is irrelevant)

2. What should I do about the letters? Should I keep ignoring them ( read it on the internet )

Apply for a licence

3. How to prove to TVLA that I am NOT watching live broadcast on my computer?

You cannot

4. I don't want to be part of the TVLA cycle of letters and checks. What should I do?

Buy a licence or pay the £1000 fine.

 

Your so far off the facts I had to sign up and say so.

OP it would have taken you less than 5 mins to Google the question, basically you cant watch or record live TV broadcasts on PC or TV etc.

The answer to the rest of your questions are here as well.

 

Cant post links so Google "tv licence and using tv for video only" and its the first thing that comes up.

[Dragons Dennis]

Aha. You fell into my trap. excellent. I am actually on the recruitment team for the forum and we needed a few more members.

 

excellent.

[buzby]

As has been stated so many times, it is the CAPBILITY of the TV that creates the risk for the non-broadcast viewer. Lack of an aerial is of no consequence, as is a copy of the Radio Times. If you do not have the means (a TV with a tuner, or set top box) then there is no risk as you habr no valid equipment 'installed'.

[Dragons Dennis]

I completely agree. But if you DO have a TV with a built in tuner, which most will have unless it has been physically removed, then you have that capability (aeriel or not).

[buzby]

The original advice (under the Wireless Telegraphy Acts, rather than the Communications Act) was for the equipment to be professionally disabled, in that a service technician would provide a letter stating that the receiver had been rendered inoperative - and this meant there was no risk to the non-viewer, not from pursuit (of course) but from prosecution.

 

It is only very recently where TPTB state you must not watch broadcasts 'as live', conveniently forgetting that the offence is the 'installation' of receiving equipment, NOT the viewing of programming, so I rmeain confused as to why greater issue over this misdirection has not been made.

 

That said, the number of actual prosecutions in court appears to be at an all-time low under Crapita's administration than under the Post Office, and as they do not disclose figures as this may compromise their collection processes, I'd expect this to be correct (otherwise, they'd be boasting about it).

[Kraken1]

as they say: http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/ I think you'd be ok.

[buzby]

Actuall, no - you wouldn't. What or how they interpret the rules is irrelevant. The ONLY defining rule is that within the Communications Act 2000, nowhere else. Would YOU trust them? I certainly wouldn't.

 

If it came to court, the judge would rule based on the Act as stated, not TVLROs leaflet or website.

[Kraken1]

Not to be picky, but I think you mean the communications act '03. I think you also meant to cite the 2004 regs as well, especially the bits of these that say you need a licence "where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service." I've cut out alot of the statute speak that circles this point though, but in the end, after the various definitions etc, that is the end result.

 

If you want to hit google you want s368 of the act and section 9 of the regs for the detail. they aren't very easy to navigate, though.

 

So, yeah, I'd trust the tv licence folk on this. they seem to have it right.

[caledfwlch]

My current TV which is only for DVD watching atm, will easily pass muster, as its an ex hotel set, and cannot be tuned to tv channels through the aerial. Of course, a freeview box could be attached via scart, but I would imagine that applies to tv's made incapable of being tuned anyway. Anybody naughty who did have a freeview box attached to such a tv would have to keep the box hidden obviously.

 

I have just moved into a new flat which is reasonably bailiff, debt collector, cold caller and tv licence man proof - 3 floors up, with a secured main door into the building, and on every floor, the wings that contain the flats are hidden behind further doors secured with a passcode Mr pain in the bottom would have to be able to fly, or have a ladder and tresspass on several properties to come knocking on the windows of any flat on my floor!

 

I actually look forward to seeing if debt collectors/bailiffs come calling for residents - I can well imagine them tailgating someone to get into the communal halls, or bluffing their way in with someone coming in/out but will be flummuxed by not actually getting anywhere near the flats themselves

 

But, I suspect someone could in theory make a bit of business amongst people wanting a TV just for DVD's/games consoles if they wholesaled and shifted ex hotel sets. Only bad point is they are obviously CRT.

[buzby]

As you rightly say, your TV isn't capable of receiving broadcast signals, so would provide a rock-solid defence against guilt by association, unless of course they spotted a Freeeview Box connected to the SCART, in which case it would be treated as an unlicenced installation. VHF TVs were popular in hotels as it usually stopped tem from being nicked!

 

However, I would warn against the imagined 'protection' common entrance doors and lobby access systems. I do recall one 'team' being clever enough to arrange with the concierge/janitor access to the flats 'of interest', and bearing in minf their usual officious manner, it would be easy to see how access to these 'common' areas would not unreasonably be refused. They blitzed a student flat complex and bagged quite a number one weekend! Whether this resolted in successful prosecutions, I've no idea - but it's never a good idea to think you've got invincibility on your side!

[caledfwlch]

As you rightly say, your TV isn't capable of receiving broadcast signals, so would provide a rock-solid defence against guilt by association, unless of course they spotted a Freeeview Box connected to the SCART, in which case it would be treated as an unlicenced installation. VHF TVs were popular in hotels as it usually stopped tem from being nicked!

 

However, I would warn against the imagined 'protection' common entrance doors and lobby access systems. I do recall one 'team' being clever enough to arrange with the concierge/janitor access to the flats 'of interest', and bearing in minf their usual officious manner, it would be easy to see how access to these 'common' areas would not unreasonably be refused. They blitzed a student flat complex and bagged quite a number one weekend! Whether this resolted in successful prosecutions, I've no idea - but it's never a good idea to think you've got invincibility on your side!

 

Were the students daft enough to admit to watching TV, or to let them in? idiots.

 

There is no concierge or caretaker here, and given that there are some very dodgy characters still living here, anyone ever leaving their door unlocked would be extremely foolish. And given said dodgy characters I won't answer a direct knock on my door, though there is a peep hole, but anyone I want to see will phone or ring the flat intercom and be told to bugger off if unwanted .

 

Fort Knox it isn't, but it is certainly impossible for anyone to gain entry to my flat, not too mention there are 2 locks, and the latch can be "fixed" wouldnt work from the other side, also a big thing was made, by the housing association, that they do not have a copy of the keys, and thus, losing yours will prove expensive as in locksmiths, so no caretakers to be bribed Not to mention the CCTV in all communal halls that will catch unauthorised, ie non residents using the doors with somehow gained codes.

 

These days given how little is on tv, one may as well just buy a decent monitor and iplayer everything offair.

[mtaj65]

hi just came on this site to tell people that i had a tv licence which i used to pay all off. Then came the recession and I had to cut back like everyone else. I asked TV licensing can i pay my license in monthly instalments not by direct debit but by your cash payment plan. basically a card like a credit card which is registered to your address and you can pay off a set amount of money every month. I took this option. Where the first month i would pay something like £24 which would cover me for 2 months the 2nd month another 24 so I would be covered for 4 months until 6 months later I have paid off the whole years license. Sorted bobs not my uncle. Then I thought they will send me license request next year but lo and behold tv licensing send me a letter 6 months in advance and ask me to start paying for next years license SIX months in advance. Now under normal circumstances (no recession) i probably wouldn't have given it a second thought but these are tough times everyone is watching there pennies let alone their pounds.

So I harassed TV licensing and said to them that gas electricity & water do not ask for payment six months in advance so why should I pay you. TAKE ME TO COURT. I knew the courts will have throwed it back in their face as no organisation does this. I have succesfully kept my tv license payment card and pay the way I want to pay not letting them dictate how they want payment. i.e. one month pay for two 2nd pay upto 4 and so on until the 6th month I have paid for the whole years license which is the payment I heve adhered to and so should tv licensing rather than ask everyone payment 6 months in advance and make you feel like a criminal.

 

I strongly urge everyone out there to do exactly the same as what I have done and stop this daylight robbery. 30 million households businesses pay for their tv licenses. someone some where is making some serious money by taking money so much in advance. You can only win by giving this organisation a piece of there own medicine.

[Guest jsa12]

this outfit when using cash easy entry always demands first licence payment in six months,then another demand for weekly/fortnightly payments for the next license which is then spread over twelve months'.

 

they do not behave like anyone else for the simple reason they are a law unto themselves,rather uniquely they make the law up as they go along intimidating people with threats'/lies'/ and other devious tactics and have been known to assault/pervert the course of justice in some cases ie forging signatures on self incrimination forms' also to trap the unwary into self incrimination under the guise of "enforcement officer".

 

i have stopped paying these bandit's and are now into my third year of not paying.

 

** Mod edit, links removed **

[Dragons Dennis]

A TV licence is payable in advance, just like a tax disc. You can opt for direct debit in which case you do not pay the entire year in advance immediately. There is no law unto themselves at all.

[Kraken1]

I think that a lot of posters who relish in not paying for a licence are quite lucky that the Beeb seem to be a bit thick. If I were working in tv enforcement I'd trawl forums looking for these folk, get their IP add (via a court order if needed) and then do them. I bet it would be cheaper than trying to visit folk and would keep the enforcement bods in work for a bit. They could get the 'detector' vans licensed as taxis or something too.

 

I'd suggest that discretion and a bit of paranoia is the order of the day, just in case.

[andydd]

I think that a lot of posters who relish in not paying for a licence are quite lucky that the Beeb seem to be a bit thick. If I were working in tv enforcement I'd trawl forums looking for these folk, get their IP add (via a court order if needed) and then do them. I bet it would be cheaper than trying to visit folk and would keep the enforcement bods in work for a bit. They could get the 'detector' vans licensed as taxis or something too.

 

I'd suggest that discretion and a bit of paranoia is the order of the day, just in case.

 

Given the mess that companies like ACS Law got themselves in via tracking IP's, I very much doubt that the BBC would ever go down that route, plus of course, an IP address is no proof of the actual person, it may be a large family, a student house with shared connection, a hotel, someone using your WiFi, a spoofed IP, a quick visit to many of the ACS Law threads will show you what a minefield the area of tracking IP's is, not to mention, it is rather pricey. Not to mention that it is still very uncertain whther IP address evidence would actually stand up in court, the reluctance of companies like ACS to pursue it would suggest NO !

 

Andy

[sequenci]

Given the mess that companies like ACS Law got themselves in via tracking IP's, I very much doubt that the BBC would ever go down that route, plus of course, an IP address is no proof of the actual person, it may be a large family, a student house with shared connection, a hotel, someone using your WiFi, a spoofed IP, a quick visit to many of the ACS Law threads will show you what a minefield the area of tracking IP's is, not to mention, it is rather pricey. Not to mention that it is still very uncertain whther IP address evidence would actually stand up in court, the reluctance of companies like ACS to pursue it would suggest NO !

 

Andy

 

Just remember that there is a big difference from a legal standpoint between not having a TV license and file sharing. I'm not for a minute going to say that the BBC would consider taking this approach. I must say that the license is only £12 a month, I feel sorry for anyone who cannot stretch to it, it must be a very harsh life they live.

[caledfwlch]

I think that a lot of posters who relish in not paying for a licence are quite lucky that the Beeb seem to be a bit thick. If I were working in tv enforcement I'd trawl forums looking for these folk, get their IP add (via a court order if needed) and then do them. I bet it would be cheaper than trying to visit folk and would keep the enforcement bods in work for a bit. They could get the 'detector' vans licensed as taxis or something too.

 

I'd suggest that discretion and a bit of paranoia is the order of the day, just in case.

 

there is nobody here actualy claiming to not be paying is there?

 

But, I really don't see courts issuing forced entry warrants based on a printout of an anonymous name on an internet board. An IP Address is not proof of the bill payer being that anonymous person.

[sequenci]

there is nobody here actualy claiming to not be paying is there?

 

Yeah, there are a fair few as it goes. It's their choice of course.

 

But, I really don't see courts issuing forced entry warrants based on a printout of an anonymous name on an internet board. An IP Address is not proof of the bill payer being that anonymous person.

 

I can't see it either.

[Kraken1]

Bit of a moot point, but with file sharing you have no idea who might have been doing it, the guilty party might be anyone on the home. With the tv licence I think it is the home owner. I think it is a lot more certain for a tv licence than it is for p2p stuff.

 

But, I really don't see courts issuing forced entry warrants based on a printout of an anonymous name on an internet board. An IP Address is not proof of the bill payer being that anonymous person.

 

Didn't say anything about forced entry. If it were me, and I don't work for the beeb before the naysayers start, i'd just get the address from the ip address, and isps give these out regularly, based on anonymous data, which is kinda the point. Then I'd just issue, or whatever it is they do. I bet it would be cheaper than the current system.

 

Folk are getting done more and more often for stuff they say online that they think is anonymous, losing jobs, sued, allsorts. I think that over on the debt boards people are being tracked by debt collectors. With bigger cases the opposition look here. I just don't think people think through their posts - they rise up and declare that something won't happen when I think that sometimes they should think about what might or could happen as a result of their post.

[mtaj65]

A TV licence is payable in advance, just like a tax disc. You can opt for direct debit in which case you do not pay the entire year in advance immediately. There is no law unto themselves at all.

 

Thank you for your replies. Much appreciated firstly I would like to point out I am still legally licensed to receive television broadcasts. No enforcement officer has or ever will turn up at my home because they have no need to as my license is up to date. The way I want it to be.

I paid my tv license for 2009 as follows October 2009 £20.40. November 2009 £20.35. December 2009 £20.35. January 2010 £20.35. February 2010 £20.35. March 2010 £20.35 and finally April 2010 £20.35. Totalling (142.50) This final payment covered me til October 2010. However like everyone else they sent me a schedule to pay in the following way 6 months in advance.

May 2010 £12.18. June 2010 £12.12. July 2010 £12.12. August 2010 £12.12. September £12.12. October 2010 £12.12. November £12.12. December £12.12. January £12.12. February £12.12. March £12.12. April £12.12.

Everyone else pays this off when they get a letter from tv licensing which isn't threatening in any way or form, but when I realised that I had still six months left on my license I simply refused to pay and can also succesfully tell you that I have received a new schedule to pay my TV license in the following way.

 

License for 2010/2011 payments are as follows. 28 November £24.25. 28 December £24.25. 28 January £24.25. 28 February £24.25. 28 March £24.25. 28 April £24.25. Totalling £145.50. I have written proof of this. If there was anyway I could put this on I would show it but unfortunately cannot.

 

I would also like to point out My license expired in October 2010. I started making my first payment on 28 November 2010 so technically was unlicensed but since tv licensing asked for their first payment on November 28. I paid them on November 28th.

Any more questions? I am more than happy to oblige. Thanks.

[mtaj65]

this outfit when using cash easy entry always demands first licence payment in six months,then another demand for weekly/fortnightly payments for the next license which is then spread over twelve months'.

 

Thank you for your replies. Much appreciated firstly I would like to point out I am still legally licensed to receive television broadcasts. No enforcement officer has or ever will turn up at my home because they have no need to as my license is up to date. The way I want it to be.

I paid my tv license for 2009 as follows October 2009 £20.40. November 2009 £20.35. December 2009 £20.35. January 2010 £20.35. February 2010 £20.35. March 2010 £20.35 and finally April 2010 £20.35. Totalling (142.50) This final payment covered me til October 2010. However like everyone else they sent me a schedule to pay in the following way 6 months in advance.

May 2010 £12.18. June 2010 £12.12. July 2010 £12.12. August 2010 £12.12. September £12.12. October 2010 £12.12. November £12.12. December £12.12. January £12.12. February £12.12. March £12.12. April £12.12.

Everyone else pays this off when they get a letter from tv licensing which isn't threatening in any way or form, but when I realised that I had still six months left on my license I simply refused to pay and can also succesfully tell you that I have received a new schedule to pay my TV license in the following way.

 

License for 2010/2011 payments are as follows. 28 November £24.25. 28 December £24.25. 28 January £24.25. 28 February £24.25. 28 March £24.25. 28 April £24.25. Totalling £145.50. I have written proof of this. If there was anyway I could put this on I would show it but unfortunately cannot.

 

I would also like to point out My license expired in October 2010. I started making my first payment on 28 November 2010 so technically was unlicensed but since tv licensing asked for their first payment on November 28. I paid them on November 28th.

Any more questions? I am more than happy to oblige. Thanks.