Being taken to court for not having a TV Licence.....the importance of responding to the Summons and Means Enquiry.

[mikeymack2002]

I didn't want to bring up the said notice but, you did oh well never mind. But it does work in this instance... BTW I WAS not confused on this issue. Some FMOTL things work then. At least that has been clarified too. Thx for that...

 

 

My point exactly is here >> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2587588/7-000-homes-block-visits-TV-licence-enforcers-Growing-numbers-taking-advantage-legal-loophole-means-threaten-sue-collectors-tresspass.html

Edited December 19, 2015 by mikeymack2002
Added some info

[mikeymack2002]

For clarity on their rights please read this >>What law authorises enquiry officers to request access to my home? Can I refuse to let them in? From here >> http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/foi-administering-the-licence-fee-AB20 You cannot get any clearer than from the horses mouth can you?

 

 

A partial quote from the above link

 

 

'You have no obligation to grant entry to an enquiry officer if you don’t wish to do so. If refused entry by the occupier, the enquiry officer will leave the property. If enquiry officers are refused access, then TV Licensing reserve the right to use other methods of detection.'

[Bailiff Advice]

Can the extent of this implied right be clarified please? I mean, the postman has implied right to come to my front door but that doesn't mean he's entitled to enter my house against my wishes.

 

Correct, the TV Licence Enquiry Agent has a common law implied right of access to your doorway. That does not mean that he can simply walk into the property through an unlocked door.

 

If anyone is unhappy at the prospect of such a visit, they can write to TV Licensing 'withdrawing the implied right of access TO the property'. If they wished, they could also put a simple note on the front gate (not of course on the door given that by this stage, the TV Licence Enquiry Agent has already walked up the pathway).

 

Easier still, tell the person that you do not want to talk to them.

[Peterbard]

Correct, the TV Licence Enquiry Agent has a common law implied right of access to your doorway. That does not mean that he can simply walk into the property through an unlocked door.

 

No of course not , the purpose of the visit would be to make inquires of the person(knock on the door), not to enter the home.

[Peterbard]

I didn't want to bring up the said notice but, you did oh well never mind. But it does work in this instance... BTW I WAS not confused on this issue. Some FMOTL things work then. At least that has been clarified too. Thx for that...

 

 

Sorry missed this. No mark. No need to resort to FMoTL shenanigans, just a simple note telling them not to call will suffice.

FMoTl use these to prevent Bailiffs calling, so no they do not work in that sense.

I thought there may be some confusion.

[brassnecked]

You tell them to go away, do not be drawn into conversation, if asked your name say nothing, or maybe T.H.E Occupier, they have an implied right to come and knock on your door, but you can remove that right, they have NO Automatic right of access to your home, so follow the mantra "Say Nowt and Keep Them Out"

 

For a good explanation of the rules, and highlights of Crapita Goon shenanigans see here:

 

http://tv-licensing.blogspot.co.uk/

 

Latest TVL shenanigans, harassing the bereaved:

 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/bbc-slammed-hounding-relatives-free-7026426

[Bailiff Advice]

Don't forget BA that the CAUTION is very important. I know you are not going to like this but some licence holders MUST have an appropriate Adult present when questioned.

 

Finally when they start to look through windows and are caught they can face the wrath of the Police too.

 

To secure a conviction, Capita would be required to submit a signed Prosecution Statement to the court. Unless the debtor has signed this, a summons should be rejected.

[Bazooka Boo]

To secure a conviction, Capita would be required to submit a signed Prosecution Statement to the court. Unless the debtor has signed this, a summons should be rejected.

 

Should be, but the goons at crapita aren't taken on because of their 'honest' nature!

[brassnecked]

Should be, but the goons at crapita aren't taken on because of their 'honest' nature!

Several have been done for fraud as in falsifying the statement, amongst other things.

[Peterbard]

Should be, but the goons at crapita aren't taken on because of their 'honest' nature!

 

Probably because it is a criminal interview and would have to be done under caution(PACE). The debtor would have to confirm that he received the caution otherwise the statement would not be admissible.

 

I would have thought that a successful prosecution could be made on other evidence though, even without this statement. results of a search under warrant for instance.

[mikeymack2002]

It would also be inadmissible if the correct criteria is not followed.

 

 

Also the application of a search warrant is done as a last resort. Then, only IF they are considered scrupulously before being applied for. Then there has to be reasonable grounds in the first place.

[Peterbard]

Regarding search and forced entry procedure, any data available would help( as long as it is on topic). I have seen a number of FOIs asking about the usage of this power, I have not seen any replies, only that the matter is immune from disclosure legislation.

 

Seems like the appropriate legislation is here:

 

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/366

 

366Powers to enforce TV licensing

 

(1)If a justice of the peace, a sheriff in Scotland or a lay magistrate in Northern Ireland is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing—

 

(a)that an offence under section 363 has been or is being committed,

 

(b)that evidence of the commission of the offence is likely to be on premises specified in the information, or in a vehicle so specified, and

 

©that one or more of the conditions set out in subsection (3) is satisfied,

 

he may grant a warrant under this section.

(2)A warrant under this section is a warrant authorising any one or more persons authorised for the purpose by the BBC or by OFCOM—

 

(a)to enter the premises or vehicle at any time (either alone or in the company of one or more constables); and

 

(b)to search the premises or vehicle and examine and test any television receiver found there.

 

One of the reports I have read states that the officer must present two separate forms of evidence that a TV is being operated, such as sight of a aerial lead or TV guide, before the court will consider. There may be more SI which supplement this section, I am still in the process of researching this.

 

The power to search premises in these circumstances originates from the existing powers of the police and officers of the court operating under a warrant to search premises where they suspect criminal activity is in progress.

[Bailiff Advice]

Ten percent of all court fines relate to using a TV without a valid licence. It is a sad fact that the vast majority of people who receive a visit from a TV Licence Enquiry Agent ignore the summons and the accompanying Means Form. A large percentage of people subject to these fines rely upon state benefits.

 

In almost all cases, the person receiving the summons should respond to plead guilty. In doing so, 'credit' will be credit (which will be a reduction in the standard fine).

 

Secondly....it is vitally important to complete the Means Enquiry Form (as outlined below). The following is a copy of an excellent post by a Magistrate that featured on a 'blog' today:

"Went in to Court today to fill a gap in the rota. I found myself in a non-CPS court dealing with TV licensing offences, and local authority Council Tax cases arising from non-payment of the tax.

 

http://magistratesblog.blogspot.co.uk/2015/12/this-isnt-what-i-signed-up-for-three.html

 

Coming back to the subject of the thread, (about the importance of responding to the summons) it is important to read the full contents of the about link (we are only allowed to provide a short extract on the forum). I should firstly add that the Magistrate writing the post has made an error about the amount of the fine (£440) and how the amount was to be calculated. Explanation below:

 

The vast majority of individuals subject to TV Licence fines are in receipt of benefits and a huge percentage of these people fail to respond to the summons or complete the attached Means Enquiry Form. Accordingly, due to their failure to address the correspondence, the court fine will be set at a much higher level than it should have been.

 

Firstly, by completing the summons and pleading guilty, the defendant will be given a reduction in the level of fine for 'early mitigation'.

 

Secondly, in the absence of a completed Means Enquiry Form, the magistrates must proceed to set the level of fine and 'assume' that the defendant has a 'Relevant Weekly Income' (RWI) of £440. In error, the Magistrate wrongly thought that the figure of £440 was 'Residual Weekly Income'. However, if the defendant is in receipt of benefits, the 'Relevant Weekly Income' is 'deemed' by the court to be just £120 and the fine will be set at a much lower rate.

[mikeymack2002]

Completing the MC100 is always recommended as is attending the hearing. Why because if every defendant attended this would very much slow up this rubber stamping sort of case.

 

Most people when interviewed will be told that YOU MAY face a hearing. Then if the details are input in to a system incorrectly then the summons and everything that follows goes to the wrong address...

 

Their system is not fool proof at the best of times. These people tried this with me nearly 3 years ago I attended the hearing and produced a defence bundle. The Prosecution read it and then offered no evidence.

 

This was after the goon had a signed statement. So my advice defend all and attend. Anyway this topic has previously been covered too..

[Bailiff Advice]

Completing the MC100 is always recommended as is attending the hearing. Why because if every defendant attended this would very much slow up this rubber stamping sort of case.

 

Most people when interviewed will be told that YOU MAY face a hearing. Then if the details are input in to a system incorrectly then the summons and everything that follows goes to the wrong address...

 

Their system is not fool proof at the best of times. These people tried this with me nearly 3 years ago I attended the hearing and produced a defence bundle. The Prosecution read it and then offered no evidence.

 

This was after the goon had a signed statement. So my advice defend all and attend. Anyway this topic has previously been covered too..

 

The problem with most people (and without knowing more about your own case I don't know whether the same applies to you) is that when signing the TVL 178 Record of Interview Form the occupier is in danger of confirming that they had been watching TV without a licence and they also state how long it has been since the licence expired. Given that this document (TVL 178) will be produced in evidence, it is that much more difficult to reply to the Summons to plead Not Guilty.

 

If as you suggest, the person should defend the proceedings (I assume by this you mean that they should plead Not Guilty) then the case will naturally be listed for trial.

[mikeymack2002]

It could be my case was unique, but I have already hinted at the reason why. I am a stickler for points of law that are not followed correctly. This is the way to beat the system if you look for the reasons behind the case and find the reason they attended or the like.

 

 

The rules were changed regarding Internet enabled devices (IED's) If you use this system to watch TV then you will find that watching this service by an internet provider the hole is that this is not a live broadcast. This is in as much as it is then provided by a 3rd party. So therefor NOT a live broadcast.... Using the word of the law a live show is one that has no time delay, if the show has a time delay then it is NOT live.

 

 

To give you an example take big brother 'live' there is a time delay to allow broadcasters to edit the scene before it is broadcast. There are very few actual fully live shows out there....

 

 

As far as the PACE caution goes it is often quoted incorrectly. Then there could be other issues too. But each case is based on its own merits....

[Peterbard]

TV broadcasts are edited before they are broadcast surely ?

[mikeymack2002]

No mate some live shows are edited as they happen.

[Peterbard]

No mate some live shows are edited as they happen.

 

But surely if it is broadcast after it is edited then it is a live transmission ?

[mikeymack2002]

No, live means no delay. for a better understanding see here >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_delay

[Peterbard]

No, live means no delay. for a better understanding see here >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_delay

 

Oh I see so presumably stuff that was recorded(ie not transmitted live ) is free from incurring the duty. Good news for me, i watch Dave almost exclusively some has a time delay of 40 years before transmission.

[JoeyJoeC]

But surely if it is broadcast after it is edited then it is a live transmission ?

 

You make a point there, doesn't matter when it was filmed, a repeat of eastenders on a Sunday is still a 'live' broadcast. Not sure the point he was trying to make with Big Brother

 

By that logic, anything on the +1 channels is except from the TV License fee

[mikeymack2002]

Anyway back on topic.

[Peterbard]

Anyway back on topic.

 

Yes i think you had probably better.

[Peterbard]

You make a point there, doesn't matter when it was filmed, a repeat of eastenders on a Sunday is still a 'live' broadcast. Not sure the point he was trying to make with Big Brother

 

By that logic, anything on the +1 channels is except from the TV License fee

 

No of course the requirement refers to anything that is transmitted and viewed directly form the BBC or live network.

There is a point though, in that if a signal from the BBC etc. is received and then re broadcast via a third party equipment

 

Not sure how that would pan out.