OT: "Do I need a TV licence"

Very well put sir!

Reply to
John Rumm
Loading thread data ...

Would that be so they can't 'prove' that you could have been watching broadcast stuff (even if you weren't and never have, ie 'assumed' guilty etc) Dave?

ie, Not having *any* drink then driving then they might not suspect you of *potentially* drink driving (if they can't smell any on you etc?).

All the best ..

T i m

p.s. If this has already been covered in 'legal', was there ever a definitive conclusion?

Reply to
T i m

Wrong. They DON'T need a police officer. The presence of a police officer is merely to "prevent a breach of the peace".

Reply to
Frank Erskine

Basically yes. It's simply to ensure the tv is not installed at the time they inspect it. What happened before or happens after is not provable.

Reply to
Dave Baker

If you are positive on this I'll defer to your knowledge but AFAIK the warrant is issued to a police officer to be accompanied by specified civilians, which is all tv licence inspectors are. I don't believe they have any right to effect forcible entry on their own as they aren't bailiffs or constables and if you just refused them entry I'm not sure what they could do about it. If they caused any damage and you didn't have a tv installed they'd be in deep shit.

In any case a warrant will only be issued on submission of 'proof' that a tv is or has been in use (detector van or visual sighting by an inspector) and after first being refused entry without a warrant. Basically if you get to the stage of them coming round and not letting them in you have plenty of time to disable any tv equipment before they can get a warrant so it's kind of academic.

-- Dave Baker - Puma Race Engines

formatting link

Reply to
Dave Baker

If your Tv is not permanently disabled from receiving broadcasts(incapable of receiving) - ie acting as a monitor only - then it is subject to licence requirement. Simply untuning a tele does not avoid licence. Its the word "(in)capable" that counts.

Pete

formatting link

Reply to
Peter Stockdale

If you had bothered to read what I said instead of trying to troll me (because you made an utter moron of yourself trying to troll me about unleaded petrol and an engines valve train) you would have realised that all you have done is repeat what I was saying !

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

....installed or used....

True.

Bad example, you have a car, if you keep it on the public road OR use it on the public road then you NEED to buy vehicle excise duty. If you don't then you are likely to be prosecuted.

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

No, you would have to prove that the set was incapable of receiving a broadcast signal.

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

Wrong, plain and simple.

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

If 'Laws' were written in plain English I suspect that many millions of lawyer hours would be expended, not to mention the hundreds of criminals would get off...

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

Which it will be if it has a tuner !

If it's installed as a space-heater, an abstract art

But is would if it still has a working tuner !

If it has a working tuner that it can (and probably will) be used to receive.

If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it will be a duck and will almost certainly wag it's body in a duck like manor.

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

I was not suggesting they should be written in plain English, what I was saying is that they current standard of primary legislation drafting is very poor. I expect this is by intent. Grey law allows for re-interpretation as required, and the re-interpretation is biased in favour of those with the deepest pockets (i.e. government funded by us). The every increasing use of primary "enabling" legislation and statutory instruments is a prime example.

Reply to
John Rumm

Have you been taking IMM pills?

The word from the TVLA is:-

formatting link
formatting link
folks, that is me done with the thread...

Reply to
John Rumm

So as long as you don't use or install yer car on the public highway (and/or they catch you doing so) you are ok ;-)

All the best ..

T i m

Reply to
T i m

P'raps if you'd read the other posts in the thread, including the quote from the moneygrubbing, rude, suspicious, letter-ignoring fools at Centrica-calling-themselves-the-TVLA which explicitly if grudgingly acknowledges that you don't need a licence if your TV uses are solely ones which don't involve receiving TV broadcasts, you'd avoid rushing in with a factually incorrect answer. Here's the entire question and answer from their FAQ (I can give a URL only for the top-level entry to that part of their site:

formatting link
)

What if I only use a TV to watch videos/DVDs/as a monitor for my games console? Do I still need a licence? --- You need to notify us in writing that this is the case and one our Enforcement Officers may need to visit you to confirm that you do not need a licence.

Please write to us including your name, address and the reason you believe that you don't need a licence at:

TV Licensing Bristol BS98 1TL

---

We've also been down into the wording of the relevant Act. The word 'incapable' does not occur in the relevant fragment, nor does 'capable', or any notion of mere possession. It's *use* or *installation* for the

*purpose* of receiving any television program service which requires a licence. Though they deliberately intimidate with the phrasing of their letters and publicity, it's down to them (and in the worst case, your local magistrate's court) to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that you have a violating installation or have been using it to receive TV.

(With the Communications Act 2003, they've added one more offence: possession WITH INTENT TO INSTALL OR USE to receive TV. As with many intent-based offences, it's a tougher hurdle for the prosecution to prove. If you've moved to a place without an aerial, and have contracted an aerial installer to come and fix one up, that'd be close enough to 'proof of intent beyond reasonable doubt' in my mind; contrariwise, buying a set and keeping it nicely wrapped up in its box for Aunty Min's

75th birthday in 6 weeks' time, where 4 family members have clubbed together for the dosh, would create megascads of exculpatory 'reasonable doubt', in my opinion.

And 'capable' (of receiving television programme services) *does* appear in the Statutory Instrument which supplements the Communications Act

2003 - the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004, but *not* in the definition of 'television apparatus', which is relevant in the sections defining wot we end-users need a licence for, but *instead* in modifying the definition of 'television set' in the 1967 Wireless Teleegraphy Act - which is the source of the duty for TV retailers to pass name-and-address details of customers for TV sets onto the TVLA. Which is reasonable, in narrow terms at least: it's not appropriate for retailers to try to apply a test of intended-use to their customers, only to deal in the fact of 'we supplied a TV set to M. Mouse, The Steamboat, Mississississipee' so that the TVLA can send one of their charmingly polite YOU WILL BE FINED 1000 QUID IF YOU DON'T HAVE A LICENCE letters (which inexplicably leaves the recipient less than fully informed on a casual reading about the exact circs under which they do, or don't, need a licence).)

If you *do* receive TV without paying the licence - I have no sympathy; it's the arrangement we're stuck with, and freeloading off the bulk of all the other households who do pay up isn't honourable or clever. But I don't half wish the TVLA crew would stop treating every property in the land as TV-receiving-until-'proven'-otherwise. This attitude of theirs is offensive, and is justified neither by principle nor by their own facts: in their fascinating recent document, 'About TV Licensing', at

formatting link
write on page 3, 'Unfortunately, our experience has shown that around 50% of people who claimed not to have a television were found to be using one'. A high enough proportion to give grounds for scepticism, certainly: but since there are just as many people who are *not* found to be telling porkies, their attitude of mute disbelief, ignoring letters clearly setting out facts and motiviations for the absence of a TV installation, and continued p*ssing away of the fees they're paid to do their job on irrelevant reminders is unjustifiable, and entirely inconsistent with their declared aims of being 'courteous' and acting 'fairly, equitably and consistently'.

Grrr. I feel another phonecall to the TVLA coming on (may as well phone, they've told me there's no point writing since 'they don't keep letters on The System'; whether that's a lie or incompetent staff training I aim to find out.)

Stefek

Reply to
Stefek Zaba

No - Christian's right, you're wrong. There's no requirement to make the receiving apparatus incapable of receiving television services; it's installation or use (and, more recently, mere possession with intent to use) FOR THE PURPOSES OF RECEIVING TV BROADCASTS which requires a licence. The more visibly, explicitly, and clearly you make a TV which you're using solely for OTHER purposes *difficult* to use for receiving TV, and make it manifestly not installed for such purpose, the sillier the TVLA would be to try to prosecute you, and the more readily the magistrate would throw out the case; but there's NO requirement for a TV to be 'incapable' of receiving TV broadcasts in order not to need a licence. Chapter and verse are in my response to Peter Stockdale's posting in this thread; I've read and understood the relevant bits of primary legislation (Communications Act 2003) and secondary regulations (Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004) to be confident that the group consensus, TVLA's own FAQ, and my understanding are all in line with published, current law.

This'll be my last posting on this topic, for a goodly little while. You're welcome to respond by counter-assertion, Jerry, but this is me (and the world of fact) all done. If you want to reassert your own personal reality for the benefit of all, the floor is free and will stay so...

Stefek

Reply to
Stefek Zaba

As long as you have SORNed it, which is a bit like declaring that your TV has had the tuner disabled, and just like a car and SORN they might come looking....

Reply to
:::Jerry::::

And?

Dave

Reply to
Dave

Oh! Jeeze!

Can you pleas define the act of 'installing a TV' please? I feel that if you do this, then we can move forward.

No argument there, if the equipment is receiving signals from a station that is not a video, DVD, CD, computer (that is not connected to a tuner that is able to receive signals from an outside source), or any other device that can output a signal to a TV that did not originate from a live broadcast. Broadcast is the operative word here.

Define installation and I will get back to you. Just get it right ;-)

Agreed

Dave

Reply to
Dave

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.