TV License Officer Visit & Subsequent Court Summons

[crush.uk81]

Hi all,

 

On 25th May 2012, I received a visit from a TV License Officer. He proceeded to ask me questions about my TV Usage and set me up with a new TV License paying by regular installments. I signed the necessary forms, he handed over my new TV License card and left. I never got a copy of the form I signed and I never received anything after that from TV License other than my new TV License document, which I still have.

 

I have now received a summons and the offense has been written as:

 

On 23/05/2012 used a COLOUR television receiver without a license at the above address. Contrary to section 363(2) and (4) of the Communications Act 2003.

 

Note, the date of the offense is recorded as 2 days prior to the visit. However, no proof was obtained on this date that I was watching a live broadcast of any kind.

 

I have read through the form, which I signed on the day of the visit and have noted the following:

 

Can I come in and inspect the set: NO

Programmes Seen/Heard: NONE

Channels Tested: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 + Cable

When did you last use the set for watching TV Programmes here? 2 days ago.

 

 

So the reason I have highlighted the above particular questions is because:

 

1) He did not come in and inspect the set

2) He did not hear or see any channels being watched, the TV was OFF when he visited.

3) How could he test the said channels if he did not come in to inspect

4) I did not admit to watching Live TV Programmes 2 days prior. He asked when I last USED the TV which was 2 days prior.

 

The form also states that I have a Cable Box with a basic Cable TV Package. This is true because I was subscribed to Virgin Media at the time. It was cheaper to purchase a bundle with them and get TV, Phone and Internet all rolled into one than it would have been to get Phone & Internet from a different provider. I opted for the basic TV package because I did not need a TV Package at all but it was a cheaper option than getting the two services I did need (Phone & Internet) outside of a bundle.

 

This is the honest truth - I do NOT watch Live TV Broadcasts. My TV is used ONLY as an output monitor for my Laptop (which has a broken screen that I cannot afford to replace). I watch DVD's and use the computer via the TV Screen.

 

Yes, I have a TV Set and Receiver Equipment that is CAPABLE of picking up TV Programs so I realized on the day of the visit that I do need a license and that is why I purchased one there and then with the man at the door.

 

So my question is this - Taking the above into account, is it really possible for TV Licensing to prosecute me for watching TV 2 days prior to the officer's visit when:

 

a) They were not present and have no evidence other than a signed statement.

b) The signed statement they have produced is questionable based on the fact they say they tested the channels available to me when they admitted to not being allowed to enter the property to do so.

 

Furthermore, since the property is now licensed and has been since the day of the visit. Is it really beneficial to them to prosecute for 1 instance of TV Usage? They aren't claiming a period of watching TV without a license, literally just 1 instance of using it on 23/05/2012. How much am I likely to be fined if the courts agree with them for this infringement?

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Looks like you confessed to using the tv 2 days prior to the visit, ''when did you last use the tv here''? ''TWO DAYS AGO''

Probaly £50-£100 as you bought a licence, and admitted use 2 days before>

[crush.uk81]

Yes, I confessed to using the TV - for watching DVD's and using my Laptop - I did NOT confess to watching BBC or any other Live TV Broadcast, which is what the license covers. However, because the form states "For TV" which I did not realize at the time - I guess they could say I did confess to that... but my question is - the form also states channels tested were 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & Cable but clearly states before that he was not granted access to inspect the set so would I be able to have the whole form struck off the evidence list based on the fact it is unclear and invalid.

[tvlicensingblog]

Don't be too despondent.

 

You made a big mistake by answering the door and talking to TV Licensing, as no-one is legally obliged to do that.

 

TV Licensing employees are on commission for every licence they sell, which sometimes skews their interpretation of the truth. The contradictions on the Record of Interview form demonstrate that clearly. It was not possible for him to inspect the set if you didn't allow him access to your property, so he has shot himself in the foot by saying as much.

 

It may be tempting just to accept defeat and pay the fee, but the fact of the matter is that if you don't watch live TV programmes, as you say you don't, then you do not need a TV licence. You should not have be brow-beaten into buying one just for an easy life.

 

In these circumstances, if I was in your position, I would make it quite clear to Crapita that I was going to attend court and plead not guilty in person. I would also make it quite clear that the evidence collected by the visiting officer is seriously flawed, as it is riddled with impossible contradictions.

 

If you're assertive with them the chances are they'll take a second look and drop the case if there's the slightest possibility they'll be embarrassed in court.

 

It's a fact that less than half of their cases make it through the court system. Most of them are binned well before that.

 

I would very much like to write about your case on my blog. If you're agreeable, I'd be grateful if you'd scan a copy of the contradictory document and PM me a copy of it.

[BRIGADIER2JCS]

Surely one must have a licence if you have equipment installed in working order that is capeable of receiveing TV broadcasts.

The original poster has admitted that the TV was use when unlicenced.

 

It is also quite clear that he also intends to use the TV in the future.

[tvlicensingblog]

Surely one must have a licence if you have equipment installed in working order that is capeable of receiveing TV broadcasts.

The original poster has admitted that the TV was use when unlicenced.

 

It is also quite clear that he also intends to use the TV in the future.

 

"Capable of receiving TV broadcasts" does not equate to "I am watching/receiving TV broadcasts" in the same way that "my car has a top speed of 150 mph" does not equate to "I was speeding".

 

The onus is entirely on TV Licensing to prove that equipment was being used to watch/record live broadcast TV programmes without a TV licence. Having the capability alone is not sufficient evidence, in theory, although in practice some Magistrates are unsure of the law. If the OP has given a full account TV Licensing can prove diddly squat in this case.