OT : TV licensing - must I compy?

[Kalico]

For about the past year or so I have been receiving increasingly threatening letters from the TV licensing people about the fact I do not have a license.

I'm not too fussed about buying one since I do not use the TV for anything other than watching the occasional video. Indeed, there is no TV in the main living room and no aerial lead on the TV that is upstairs.

The 'notices' are sounding increasingly nasty. If I do not get a license OR write to tell them I do not use a TV, then it is likely that the skies will darken and the seas will boil etc etc.

My first question is whether I have to tell them that I do not watch regular TV programmes? I know you can get a fine now for not declaring SORN on a vehicle if it is off the road, but is TV licensing as bad as that?

Secondly, does anyone have any experience of what happens when the inspectors call at your house? They surely will at some point. I could write to tell them what they want to know, but there is that little bit of rebel still left in me that hates conforming to the nanny state's big brother-esque dictats.

Does the inspector actually have to register radiation, or similar, coming from the back of my TV set to 'prove' I am watching it (not sure how they would get on with an LCD tv)? If so, surely I would have to let them into my house. Do I have to?

Also, can they tell the difference between me watching a video and a regular TV programme? It would be rare that my girlfriend and I would put a video on before 11pm (sounds fun doesn't it? - the reality is less exciting). Surely they would not start to bang on the door at that hour and I could be forgiven for not answering it if they did?

Cheers Rob

Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 22 Dec 2004, Kalico wrote

You need a licence if you "install *or* use" (my emphasis) equipment which can receive broadcast programme services. That includes not only the tuner inside your telly, but also the tuner inside your video; it would also include a PC card, which is another "tuner".

In other words, if you've *installed* a TV -- or a video machine -- you need a licence for it. The only exception I've heard of is if you can demonstratae that its capability for receiving programmes has been disabled (and probably permanently disabled, by removing the tuner and turning it into a monitor).

Basically, you need a licence for having the machines in your house -- regardless of whether or not you use them to watch broadcasts.

[John Borman]

Ok this is only my opinion but I was under the impression that If you own a TV you must have a TV licence even if you don't watch it. Its because it is meant to cover radio as well and there is no way of telling if a TV you have does or does not receive TV channels, Maybe ripping out the tuner would prove the fact that you cant watch normal TV but it may not be enough.

As for allowing them into your house I remember when I was at uni they kept knocking on out student flat and no one would let them in until all TV's were put in the communal areas, they have no right of access I.e they cant force there way in they have to be let in so just don't let them in get a chain for the door and don't open it any further.

[Grunff]

I don't believe this is true. It is what the TV Licensing often tell you, but that doesn't make it true.

[Ian Middleton]

We used to get pestered at work as we bought a large TV for use at trade shows and got on the TV licencing books that way.

Despite the TV not being used at work we had to get a licence as we "owned a piece of equipment capable of receiving a TV picture" on the premises. Got licence, letters stopped.

Mind you they started again when we didn't renew the licence as the TV was dropped at a show and ended up in the bin. Just told we got rid of TV, had a nice man call round just to confirm and get someone to sign at that was that.

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 22 Dec 2004, Grunff wrote

Well, that's what it states on the back of the licence itself, in writing:

You need a TV licence to install or use any equipment to receive television programme services -- for example a television set, video recorder, set-top box, PC with a broadcast card or any other TV receiving equipment.

So if it's an illegal statement, they're doing it in writing -- which strikes me as unlikely, as I'd have thought it would have been challenged in court by now.

[Al Reynolds]

They can not "detect" TV use. This is a well-propogated urban myth. You do however need a licence, just for having the TV in the house.

The first time they visit, they don't usually have a warrant. You are quite within your rights to send them away, but this is the time to buy a licence if you're planning to keep the TV.

If I was in your situation, I would buy one of those portable DVD players with an LCD screen. They don't have a tuner, so no licence required. Problem is you have to upgrade your video collection (unless you tear out the tuner from the video player and use a Scart->AV lead to connect the video to the LCD screen on the player - some have AV in).

Al

[Grunff]

Now you made me go and look it up!

See the section entitled "You do not use your television set or video recorder to watch or record authorised broadcast programmes".

[charlieopenshaw]

I believe the journalist Jonathan Miller is waging a war against the TV Licencing people.

His website is:

key info you are after is at: summarise:

You do NOT need a TV Licence for owning any kind of TV receiver/VCR/Satellite receiver/PC with TV-TCard [PC/TV] etc.

When you only use a TV for:

- playing video games

- watch pre-recorded videos [VCR/DVD]*

- closed circuit monitoring [CCD]

- displaying -for example- presentations using your PC Then "again" you do NOT need a TV licence.

There is loads more advice on the website on dealing with those nasty licencing people and their threatening letters!

Hope this helps

[Al Reynolds]

Interesting.

"... the television set and/or video recorder must be incapable of receiving all authorised broadcast programmes. This could be done, for example, by making sure that neither the television set nor the video recorder are tuned into any channels and ensuring that they are not connected to an aerial."

I'd be fascinated to know what would happen if the inspectors came 'round and someone used this line on them. My TVs aren't tuned into any channels and aren't connected to aerials, because I have cable boxes. Theoretically I could just hide the cable boxes and this would make me "acceptable".

Al

[Grunff]

True.

I think this is also a well-propagated myth!

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 22 Dec 2004, Grunff wrote

Yeah, that's the bit -- it states (as I mentioned in my first post) that you can get around it by showing that the TV is "incapable of receiving" broadcasts:

However, the television set and/or video recorder must be incapable of receiving all authorised broadcast programmes. This could be done, for example, by making sure that neither the television set nor the video recorder are tuned into any channels and ensuring that they are not connected to an aerial.

I take that to mean that it wouldn't be enough just to have no aerial connection: the TV -- and the video -- cannot even be tuned to pick up a signal. (FWIW I wouldn't be surprised if -- to qualify under that exemption -- you had to show that the tuning mechanism was inaccessible or otherwise disabled in some way.)

[Tony Collins]

I'm with Harvey on this.

When I read up on this some time ago, it was clear that you could only use a TV or Video without a licence if it was INCAPABLE of recieving (permanently).

Just stating that you don't use it to recieve is not enough.

[Steve Firth]

Umm no it's not, it's just that it is easier to use a database to keep track of who has or has not got a TV license. TV license detector vans used to exist, but they may well have been dropped as economically unviable.

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 22 Dec 2004, wrote

That's true, but I think it's been established that you have to show that the TV's ability to receive programmes has been disabled -- not just that you state "I don't use it for that purpose".

[Kalico]

On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 16:04:49 GMT, Harvey Van Sickle wrote: [snip]

Surely that cannot be the case. What if it was never turned on? I cannot think you would need a license for just possessing a TV or video.

I rang the TV peeps and spoke to a guy who must surely be the only person to work for them who does not have a TV license. He said that the practicalities of removing the receiving bit could not be expected from people.

What he said he had done was to shove a wine bottle cork over the aerial input and tape it round with lots of PVC tape. He said any inspector would easily conclude that he was not receiving broadcast TV pictures.

BUT, he had made the declaration that he did not need a TV license and he suggested I did the same. Of course, one of the reasons for making SORN declarations compulsory was that if the vehicle is subsequently found on the road, the owner cannot deny that he knew it should not be there. That's why I wanted to know if I MUST make a declaration that I do not need a license, or if the onus is on them to prove things one way or the other.

Rob

Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

[Steve Firth]

The statement is legal, you're just not reading it correctly. You do not need a licence to install or use equipment ( such as a TV or video recorder). You need a licence to install or use any equipment to receive television programme services.

Spot the difference?

It's not an issue of whether the equipment is capable of receiving television broadcast, it's one of whether the equipment is used to receive broadcasts.

[Kalico]

Now I think that would look very suspicious. Answer the door but refuse entry? I wonder what they would do if I did that.

Actually I remember a friend years ago just saying it was not his house so he could not let them in. Not sure how that would work if they could detect a TV in use though.

Of course, there are a lot of stories about them even being able to see what channel you are watching or see the picture you can see, but I very much doubt that. Or am I wrong?

Rob

Replace 'spam' with 'org' to reply

[Harvey Van Sickle]

On 22 Dec 2004, Steve Firth wrote

Oh, yes; I'm well aware of that. It's why in my first post I mentioned that people have been exempted from licencing for non- broadcast use -- but AFAIK only by showing that the receiving capability had been disabled.

I'd be interested to hear of cases where someone has got off on the basis that "The equipment is broadcast-ready, but I don't use it for that purpose"?

My suspicion is that one's word would not be enough to carry the day in a legal challenge -- some sort of physical evidence of disabled receiving capability would need to be shown -- but I'm happy to be proven wrong if a legal precedent can be pointed to.

[Grunff]

What about the line "However, the television set and/or video recorder must be incapable of receiving all authorised broadcast programmes. This could be done, for example, by making sure that neither the television set nor the video recorder are tuned into any channels and ensuring that they are not connected to an aerial."?