This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

TV License investigation

Scroll to see replies

the sand man

i lived in halls with 700 student no one got a linence but every one got the letter year after year but they did nothing if you got a ref number but no paper atter just ponhe them up with your address and it should be fine that what happed to m

I can assure 700 students did not buy a licence... unles you knew 700 of them, you can not make a sweeping statement. With these new gigantic halls then they have tv's in the lounge... if that is plugged in, that is proof enough for the TV licening. Your hall manager may also let in the tv licening people without your knowledge.

Reply 41

Age_of_Innocence

TeDaX

Proceedings? What do you mean by proceedings? Some further harassment maybe?

Yep. Some more threatening letters maybe. layla_1234 is either a plant for the TVLA or an idiot

Reply 42

layla_1234

Just buy one... it is stealing after all.

Reply 43

Jingaling

We used to get letters like that all the time when I lived in uni halls, once a month or more sometimes. They were like 'WE'RE COMING TO CHECK AND CATCH YOU OUT BECAUSE WE *KNOW* YOU DON'T HAVE A LICENSE!'

Problem was you would see them in piles addressed to EVERYONE in halls regardless whether they even owned a television or not. Most didn't..

Reply 44

bexicle89

layla_1234

Just buy one... it is stealing after all.

Har har har. Stealing! What, another zero off Jonathan Ross or Chris Moyles paycheque? I don't think you can justify why 20odd million people in the country have to fork out £130 a year for the BBC when in America you get basic terrestrial for free.

IMO There should be an option - pay the licence to get BBC coverage or not to pay it and no BBC channels.

Reply 45

speedbird

I get the BBC here in Spain for nothing, and it's completely legal. And besides I don't see how not paying a TV Licence is stealing if you don't watch the BBC -- whose contents are mostly rubbish by the way

Reply 46

Reue

layla_1234

if that is plugged in, that is proof enough for the TV licening.

Fortunatly the TV licensing company are not a judge nor jury. What may be 'proof enough' for them certainly would not be sufficient in court.

I think you are vastly over-estimating their legal powers. They cannot issue fines and prison sentances wherever they want. They still need to prove your guilt beyond reasonable doubt within a court of law.

Having a TV plugged in is not sufficient evidence for a convicion alone.

Reply 47

speedbird

Reue

Having a TV plugged in is not sufficient evidence for a convicion alone.

If you have a TV plugged into the aerial and the BBC, sorry, TV Licensing gets to prove that it is likely that you'll be fined.

They may also use five-year-olds' psychology and interview you under caution.

Reply 48

Reue

TeDaX

If you have a TV plugged into the aerial and the BBC, sorry, TV Licensing gets to prove that it is likely that you'll be fined.

This is completely false. The Tv license can attempt to prove you had your tv plugged in all they wish, that is not enough for a conviction. They need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were watching live or near live television on that device. Quite how they could possibley do that other then filming you whilst they are in your house, I have no idea. Prehaps that is why the huge huge huge majority of TV licensing convictions are due to confessions of guilt rather then proven guilt.

We all know the TV licenseing company love to use scare tactics and unfortunatly these work and people will confess, sometimes even when no crime has been comitted. Attempt to fight this in court and chances are you will get off.

Simply have a tv plugged into an aerial is not a crime.

TeDaX

They may also use five-year-olds' psychology and interview you under caution.

Good for them. They can apply to a judge, to get the court order, to interview me under caution, where I will still not confess to any crime, and we are back to square 1.

I shall make this crystal clear to anyone reading: The TV Licensing bullies need to prove beyond reasonable doubt that you were knowling watching live or near-live television on a non-portable device. This is an extremely hard thing to do and so they rely on scare tactics to gain confessions. Dont confess and you are totally fine.

Reply 49

speedbird

Having a TV plugged into an aerial is a crime. I wrote to them to ask under the Freedom of Information Act. It's true

Reply 50

Reue

TeDaX

Having a TV plugged into an aerial is a crime. I wrote to them to ask under the Freedom of Information Act. It's true

Yes, because the company is going to give you a totally unbiased answer. just because you wrote to them under an FOI request does not make it automatically true.

Taken directly from the relevant laws:

Refering to Communications Act 2003, Section 363(1)";

Licence required for use of TV receiver (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.

Taken from The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004;

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.

Therefore unless you have installed a TV specifically for the purpose of recieveing television, you are not in breach of the law. Having it plugged into the aerial does not automatically mean you have installed it for that purpose and it may purely be because it came pre-plugged in (as is the case for most uni students on these forums).

Having a TV plugged into an aerial is not a crime. Saying statements like that are completly moronic because taken out of context it would mean that absoloutly everyone who watches tv regardless of having a license or not is commiting a crime as their TVs are plugged into aerials. If you wish to discuss legalities, at least show me the courtesy of ensuring your statements made of 'fact' are indeed factual.

Reply 51

jaw

all I know is that I'm sick of these people harrassing me with threatening letters capped off with ''yeah you should probbaly buy a licence now.''

I wouldn't mind, but most of the channels provided by the licence pur annoy me. if people can complain against russell brand and the like on the basis of 'I dont pay my licence for this' I should be able to complain on the basis of 'Chris Moyles is a ****'. They wrote threatening letters to my mum's place when I bought a tv which plain annoyed me, and within a week of buying my flat I had a flurry of threats and advisories, half of whihc arent worth their weight in the paper their written on. ''you're being investigated'' 1) I dont live at the property at the moment 2) when you do get around to sending the goons - I sure as hell won't answer! I refuse to get a licence until I'm living in the property, but they rely on knee jerk reactions to their totally inapropriate letters and warnings. The whole scheme is a bit of a farsce I think; I wish I could ask for the licenced channels to be removed from my sky package in a way.

Reply 52

squirrellywrath

If you write to them and inform them that you consider their letters harassment, and that you are withdrawing their right of access to your property, they're not allowed to send you threatening letters or come and knock on your door (unless they bring the police with them, and they're hardly going to go to all that trouble). Sorted :smile:

Reply 53

_eeyore_is_a_donkey_

omg i havent paid my tv licence for 6 months!! and new tv licence year is coming!!!

Reply 54

L i b

squirrellywrath

Whilst the implied access thing is true, you cannot call it harassment for them to send you letters in the normal course of their duties. That would never stand up.

Reply 55

Democracy

L i b

That's the wrong use of 'denote'.

You can be awfully dry sometimes, you know?

:rofl:

Reply 56

speedbird

L i b

Whilst the implied access thing is true, you cannot call it harassment for them to send you letters in the normal course of their duties. That would never stand up.

You can indeed. You may write to them saying that you're withdrawing their implied right of access to your home. That'll stop so-called inspectors or 'enforcement officers' knocking at your door. Then go on saying that since you are not required by law to have a TV licence (you don't need to explain yourself as in 'I do not own a TV') you consider their letters harassment and will consider legal action if they contact you again.

Sorted

Reply 57

L i b

TeDaX

I'm saying there's no way in hell that sending you letters within their lawful duties of investigating TV licence evasion is going to be held to constitute harassment. It's like trying to sue the police for searching your pockets or something equally ludicrous.

Reply 58

_eeyore_is_a_donkey_

Can anyone go to prison w/out tv licence.?
And what happens if you don't have enough enough money to buy the tv licence?

Reply 59

L i b

_eeyore_is_a_donkey_

Can anyone go to prison w/out tv licence.?

If convicted, you'd most likely be fined a couple of hundred quid. The maximum penalty is a fine of £1,000. If you fail to pay a fine properly issued by a court, then you will eventually (at least in theory) be sent to prison - but that would be for a completely separate offence.

And what happens if you don't have enough enough money to buy the tv licence?