[Celifein]

(Original post by SillyFencer)
Well apparently it doesn't work, and you still get the letters.

Another thing to bare in mind, is that the letters are not addressed to you if you are in student accommodation. They're addressed to "the legal occupant."

So by replying, I'm giving them a real, named person to harrass, rather than a theoretical occupant?

[SillyFencer]

(Original post by Celifein)
So by replying, I'm giving them a real, named person to harrass, rather than a theoretical occupant?

Quite possibly. I've never replied, so in all my occupancies during university, I am effectively a new person who has never been contacted before.

[Celifein]

(Original post by SillyFencer)
Quite possibly. I've never replied, so in all my occupancies during university, I am effectively a new person who has never been contacted before.

I've just realised that contacting them and giving them my details may also involve informing them each time I change halls room or go home in the summer. I think I'm probably just going to remain "the legal occupant" until I actually have a TV to license. Saves them and me both a lot of pointless typing.

[Mindez]

Regarding the unplugged-laptop thing; if I were to charge my laptops batteries in my halls room and just unplug it from the mains purely for the purpose of watching live TV for the duration of the programme, then plug it back in again, would I then not need a licence?

Seems a bit odd. Nothing to stop me leaving it plugged in while I watch TV, not like they can prove it was plugged in anyway.. :s

[SillyFencer]

(Original post by Mindez)
Regarding the unplugged-laptop thing; if I were to charge my laptops batteries in my halls room and just unplug it from the mains purely for the purpose of watching live TV for the duration of the programme, then plug it back in again, would I then not need a licence?

Seems a bit odd. Nothing to stop me leaving it plugged in while I watch TV, not like they can prove it was plugged in anyway.. :s

Exactly.

[Reue]

Have just found an amazing letter directly from the BBC which confirms that you 1. Are under no legal obligation to inform the licensing authority that you dont have a tv or that you have one but wont be using it to recieve tv.. And 2. That you DO NOT, i shall say again because someone thinks they are right and argues against this every single day: DO NOT need a license just because your tv is capable of recieveing a tv signal.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/freedo...quirements.pdf

[snaude]

(Original post by Reue)
Have just found an amazing letter directly from the BBC which confirms that you 1. Are under no legal obligation to inform the licensing authority that you dont have a tv or that you have one but wont be using it to recieve tv.. And 2. That you DO NOT, i shall say again because someone thinks they are right and argues against this every single day: DO NOT need a license just because your tv is capable of recieveing a tv signal.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/foi/docs/freedo...quirements.pdf

So according to that letter...

I could have a TV that can recieve signals and can watch TV. I could arrange for an inspector to come round and show him that the TV isnt tuned in...
He would leave, I could tune it in...and legally they wouldnt be able to contact me for 4 years.

Isnt this a loophole or am I missing something?

[snaude]

So from my understanding now:

You dont need a TV license if your TV is capable of receiving signal, you just need one if it actually is.
The only way they can tell if it is recieving is if you let them into your flat, which you are not obligated to do (or can they detect from the outside - if they can, in a block of uni flats how will they know it's yours?)

Also, you can watch TV on your laptop if its not power connected, but they obviously cant tell this.

And I could arrange to have an inpector come round, show him my TV linked up to an Xbox but not recieving any signal, then they will leave you alone for 4 years, in which time you can receieve TV...

How do they catch anyone???

[omicronlyrae]

Scare tactics. a friend of mine got a letter in the post telling him he'd not paid his tv license and it was a final warning, when he doesn't even have a TV xD

[Reue]

(Original post by snaude)
How do they catch anyone???

Now this is very very easy to answer:

People pleading guilty to accept a lesser fine.

The huge majority of people I speak to have no idea of the actual rules surrounding a TV license. Most believe you need one simply for having a tv.

As olileauk said; they use scare tactics. Make people believe they are about to go to jail and they will pay up for anything.. even if they didnt actually need it in the first place.

[Rubix]

I got that rubbish scary letter that I need a license when I don't watch tv at all. Only iplayer on the _unplugged laptop. Should I ignore it?

[Rubix]

After reading the thread. Yes

[stuw]

they use scare tactics and half of their "enforcement officers" don't have a clue what they are on about either according to most websites on the internet. eg they tried to fine one guy for having a new tv in a sealed box and no license and another who had a computer display (not a tv) hooked up to a cctv camera.

they are kind of like private wheel clampers etc in some respects. they are not the police and have no special powers.

the only case in which you actually could be fined is if they managed to obtain evidence that you were actually watching a live tv signal that could hold up in court. you may have to take them to court over a fine though...

[Melz0r]

That's a really good guide, nice one.

[BaBaFiCo]

I seem to remember an advert a few years ago in which the TV Licensing people said they had vans which travelled round and 'detected' if you were receiving a TV signal. Is this true or rubbish? And if it's true, how does it fare in court as evidence?

[BaBaFiCo]

Answered my own question http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/informa...tectorvans.jsp

http://www.bitterwallet.com/tv-licen...e-or-myth/5516

But I also heard at an open day for my Uni that the TV licensing people must give you 48 hours notice before searching your property. Is this true? (I'm going to be in Halls btw)

[mfaxford]

Theoretically there are ways they could detect a TV that's on and watching a TV channel. Whether they actually do that or not I don't know. It's probably easier to just drive along a road and look at windows!

It's also possible using suitable antenna to be able to pinpoint with reasonable accuracy where the signal is. (Similar principle as having to point your TV antenna at the transmitter to get a signal)

In terms of the battery powered bit whilst I believe it's true that the license for an address allows the use of a portable battery operated device from an alternative location I believe there's a clause that says this is only permited as long as no TV is being used at the main address at the same time. I believe the clause is to cover people who have a portable TV for camping etc.

[Reue]

(Original post by ash-corbett-collins)
I seem to remember an advert a few years ago in which the TV Licensing people said they had vans which travelled round and 'detected' if you were receiving a TV signal. Is this true or rubbish? And if it's true, how does it fare in court as evidence?

There has never been a case for which 'evidence' collected by these TV signal vans have been used in court. It is a scare tactic.

[BaBaFiCo]

(Original post by Reue)
There has never been a case for which 'evidence' collected by these TV signal vans have been used in court. It is a scare tactic.

Yeah, I've read since, that whilst the vans do exist and can sort of detect signals, because of their secrecy, the evidence is inadmissible in court.

[mfaxford]

(Original post by ash-corbett-collins)
Yeah, I've read since, that whilst the vans do exist and can sort of detect signals, because of their secrecy, the evidence is inadmissible in court.

It might give then enough evidence to investigate more (peer through a window, knock at the door etc.) or possibly even get a search warrant. Those could then lead to providing suitable evidence to take someone to court.