Tv License question....just curious

[barracad]

Really? So how do you post about what's happening on the X Factor as it's happening?

 

I think there are few of us who like paying the licence, but if you watch live TV broadcasts then I'm afraid you have to pay it.

[The GodMother]

X factor was repeated on the ITV website. http://www.itv.com/CatchUp/Programmes/default.html?ViewType=1&Filter=1983

 

Also when i watch Cyril on tv i was actually at a my FILs house so he paid the licence not me and he is wireless so we can be using one of his laptops whilest doing other things.

 

oh i was also having a MSN and telephone convo at the same timeas posting and watching cyril on Xfactor.

[robin9342]

I think there are few of us who like paying the licence, but if you watch live TV broadcasts then I'm afraid you have to pay it.

 

Apparently, there is a growing group of people refusing to pay their TV Tax (aka licence), including celebrities and it appears that TVL (aka BBC) seems unwilling to do anything about it.

BBC shies from fight with licence rebels - Times Online

[a_bx]

maybe next time I pay mine, i will send them a photocopy of the cheque i sent them last year.

 

Given the number of repeats on the BBC, this would offer them 'another chance to see' my money!

[The GodMother]

LOL thats a good idea.

[MARTIN3030]

maybe next time I pay mine, i will send them a photocopy of the cheque i sent them last year.

 

Given the number of repeats on the BBC, this would offer them 'another chance to see' my money!

 

 

 

Yep its true.

 

Anyone with Virgin media will also know that theres even dedicated channels there showing loads of BBC oldies.

[spurious]

Hi everyone. I do not have a TV, and am getting sick of the implication that I am breaking the law. So, I wrote to the TVLA and withdrew the implied right of access under common law. I wrote it as 'The Legal Occupier' and received the following response from them:

 

 

Are they right in their claim that they don't have to abide by my notification of withdrawl of implied right of access until I have provided a name and a signature? I'd like to challenge them on this but want to be sure of the facts before I do.

 

If anyone can help, that would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks!

[buzby]

Since they have NO 'right' of access (implied or otherwise) they would need a warrant of entry, from a Court or JP. But they note this anyway. Their ability to stop you being harassed on the doorstep will only be limited to 12 or 24 months as they invariably check back to see if the resident has moved on.

Edited March 12, 2009 by buzby

[Conniff]

Hi everyone. I do not have a TV, and am getting sick of the implication that I am breaking the law. So, I wrote to the TVLA and withdrew the implied right of access under common law. I wrote it as 'The Legal Occupier' and received the following response from them:

 

 

Are they right in their claim that they don't have to abide by my notification of withdrawl of implied right of access until I have provided a name and a signature? I'd like to challenge them on this but want to be sure of the facts before I do.

 

If anyone can help, that would be greatly appreciated.

 

Thanks!

 

Definately not a signature, but how can they act or abide by anything if they don't know who you are.

I would say that without an address, you are requesting withdrawl nationally.

 

It's just as buzby says anyway, they have less rights that the paperboy without a warrant from the courts.

[skonk]

I just hope one day, with everything going digital, you will have the option of choosing if you want BBC services or not. I'd gladly let Virgin take all my BBC channels off me, as they're all a waste of space. I hardly watch any tv, and when I do, it's shows from the USA, not endless, pathetic attempts at sitcoms, with the same, worn out jokes.

 

Also, some people may think that having a tv is a luxury, well, in my opinion, in this day and age, it isn't. I'd say it's more part of the furniture in the vast majority of households in the uk.

 

Funnily enough, the TVL arranged to take a quarterly amount out my bank by DD, which was fine, then I happened to check my online banking and saw that it was due to go out 14 days before the date they said, or two days afetr I just checked, so I cancelled instantly. Phoned them up and explained they had set it up wrong, and if I hadn't cancelled it, I would've been charged for no money in the account, and they were really nasty, saying I could face prison! I just laughed and told them I can pay £5:50 a week, via their card scheme, as I'm on benefits. She said no, so I said ok then, I hope this call is recorded as I have offered you a payment and explained my circumstances, and you have refused. Phone went dead for 30 seconds, then she returned and said a card will be in the post tomorrow, Good day!

[bazak1]

Direct debit, per month = £11.91.

I've been paying like this for years, with no probs...

[DonDino2]

Hello to everyone,

 

I would just like to have things clarified, as there seems to be an endless argument in this thread regarding the need for a TV license whether a person views TV broadcasts or not.

 

The TV Licensing website states that:

 

You must be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV.

 

This, in my understanding, does not cover all possibilities, for example it doesn't imply that you really do NOT need a license if you are only using an installed TV set for other purposes (like videogames, dvds, etc).

 

Then there is the actual wording of the Communications Act 2003, that states:

 

(1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

(2) A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

 

In my understanding, this means that any TV set that is installed and used has to be licensed, regardless of whether it's receiving live broadcast or showing static.

 

It would seem that the actual wording of the law states a TV license is required if you have a TV set plugged in the mains.

 

However some posters have scanned and/or quoted letters from the TVL and/or the BBC that have stated that a license is required only in case the TV set is receiving live broadcast programming.

 

How is it that the TVL and BBC themselves interpret the wording of the law in such restrictive terms, when they could very easily say that a license is required for any TV that is functional, regardless what it is being used for?

[Conniff]

The word to take note of here is 'receiver'. It is not the owning of a tv that requires a licence, it is the reception of 'live' broadcasts that the licence covers.

 

If you are using it to watch DVDs or Videos, which includes past recordings of television programmes, then a licence is not required.

[Folkiedave]

Since they have NO 'right' of access (implied or otherwise) they would need a warrant of entry, from a Court or JP. But they note this anyway. Their ability to stop you being harassed on the doorstep will only be limited to 12 or 24 months as they invariably check back to see if the resident has moved on.

There is an implied right of access to your front door. Otherwise you would have to make separate agreements with those who come to it - the obvious one being the Post Office.

 

What you are stopping is not entry but (in my case) allowing them up the short drive to the front door.

 

And since I did this in (I think) around 2003 - I have never had a single letter.

[DonDino2]

Thanks Conniff.

 

A little more investigation turned up the definition of a television receiver as a device that is installed for the purpose of receiving live broadcasts, so you and everyone who says no license is required for TVs used only for videogames, DVDs, etc (including the TVL website) are correct, and Buzby seems to be wrong.

 

However, assuming things reach the point of no return where a TVL person has come in the house, how can you be sure to prove the TV is not used to watch broadcasts? It obviously is not going to be connected to an aerial, but surely an aerial socket will be present somewhere nearby or perhaps further away. Does non-connection suffice or will the TVL insist on plugging in a cable and testing it?

 

I will email the BBC under FOI about this but I also want to know what you guys think about this.

 

Also, the Communications Act 2003 states that an agent authorised by the BBC bearing a warrant can enter a property at any time alone (no need for police presence).

 

Now, one of the conditions that enable a magistrate to issue such a warrant is

 

that there is no person entitled to grant entry to the premises or vehicle with whom it is practicable to communicate;

 

Can this be taken to mean that if the occupant does not reply to the TVL's letters or answer the door when a TVL man visits, then the condition above is automatically satisfied (i.e. there is no one with whom they can practicably communicate) and a warrant able to be issued easily?

 

Finally, I've found this leaflet issued by the Home Office.

 

On page 4 it strongly suggests that if a caller comes unannounced and the house occupant has ANY doubts about their identity, they should ask the caller to either come back later or to arrange an appointment by letter.

Surely this applies to TVL visits too, and if this is the case, can something be done to escalate this observation (i.e. that TVL is going against Home Office recommendations by saying they can visit any time they wish).

As far as I've seen there is nothing mentioned about checking or 'enforcement' visits in the Communications Act.

[Conniff]

TVL is the collection compay the BBC uses and just like debt collectors, they use devious methods of entrapment.

 

If you have no licence and one knocks on your door and you insist that you do not have a telly or watch live broadcasts, they will usually say "Ok, can you just sign here to say I have called", that signature is on the bottom of an admission statement and then they get a warrant of entry or you get a court summons.

 

They seem to assume that everyone watches tv and those that don't are liars, and that an address without a licence is cheating the system.

 

They can visit an address without a licence but 'must' then get proof that a television showing live broadcasts is in use. The favourite way to do this is to look through the window, but electronic means are also accepted by courts.

 

The courts are not that easy to convince that a warrant of entry should be issued. They need to be shown real tangible proof.

 

So to sum up, if you are ever visited by TVL, don't allow them entry into your home and do 'NOT' sign anything.

[DonDino2]

In case of a claim of using a TV set only for watching DVDs or taped programs, looking through the window is rather useless, or even dangerous to the occupant, as the TVL man will see a TV picture that he has no way of knowing whether it's live or not (unless he has a portable TV on him and zaps through all available channels to try and match the one that's showing on the occupant's TV!).

 

Would such a 'proof' be accepted by a judge for the issue of a warrant of entry?

 

Also, electronic means seem to be having tough times nowadays... With a DVD playing, the TV's own local oscillator wouldn't be doing anything as the TV is stuck in AV input - but the CRT is working and an image is being shown. Supposedly an electronic detector would show zero in this case? Even in the case of a license dodger with a freeview box, the TV would still be in AV input mode and so produce no tell tale signature (in my understanding).

[Conniff]

They carry portable hand detectors now and the LO is what they tune into and knowing what is on tv at that moment, and they do, gives them reason to knock on the door.

 

They would / could only apply for a warrant of entry if you denied them entry and they had enough evidence to ask for one.

 

In the latter case, the box would have an Lo.

 

A tv card in a pc has an LO that emits a strong signal.

[Conniff]

 

Yep its true.

 

Anyone with Virgin media will also know that theres even dedicated channels there showing loads of BBC oldies.

 

You mean like BBC1 and BBC2

[kiptower]

actually the aerial output is still running, even if you are using scart,

 

and the law regarding installation if the device has a tuner fitted then it can tune to live broadcasts as per the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 ( as amended )

[The GodMother]

Can a TVL rep SWEAR at a 5 year old child?

 

I say no and have complained with witness but the TVL rep is saying it was may 5 year old that swore at him. This was after i asked him to remove himself from my property or i will have him done for trespassing.

 

His exact words were "uve been in that ****ing website get outta my ****in way kid."

[DonDino2]

That's why TVL visits should always be filmed - such actions by TVL employees filmed and given as evidence will surely render any claims by them as invalid or inadmissible.

[patdavies]

actually the aerial output is still running, even if you are using scart,

 

and the law regarding installation if the device has a tuner fitted then it can tune to live broadcasts as per the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 ( as amended )

 

The WTA 1949 is superceded by the Communications Act 2003. S.368 of that Act

368 Meanings of “television receiver” and “use”

 

(1) In this Part “television receiver” means any apparatus of a description specified in regulations made by the Secretary of State setting out the descriptions of apparatus that are to be television receivers for the purposes of this Part.

(2) Regulations under this section defining a television receiver may provide for references to such a receiver to include references to software used in association with apparatus.

(3) References in this Part to using a television receiver are references to using it for receiving television programmes

 

IOW, it is for the SoS to define by regulation. This is done by statutory instrument (SI 2004/692)

 

The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 r.9

 

Meaning of "television receiver"

9. - (1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), "television receiver" means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

 

(2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, 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

[davey77]

Don't know if this has been posted before as i have only read the last page on this thread but this makes for interesting reading:

 

Letters from BBC Television Licensing/intro

[masmit]

in reply to this subject,

could we not remove all ariels from our property,

then use sky for our broadcasts, to which we are paying for,

then saying to the tvl collect your payment of sky or tell them to block the bbc channels.

surely this would stop the bbc forcing payment on people.

then making it pay per view, or top up tv on freeview?