TV Licensing intend prosecuting me for just owning TV sets

[Manx Shearwater]

No It did not re read..... anyway as I was trying to say its all about the actus reus the nastie here thinks he can prove it which is why he is going with a threat of court.

In my opinion, he's going with a threat of court because he will get brownie points from his boss if he makes the OP buy a licence. Its a scare tactic. In fact, by misrepresenting the legal position he's being very naughty indeed and opening himself up to all sorts of potential problems. Hopefully one day, he'll make similar threats to a barrister or something.

A friend of mine in Brighton doesn't even have a TV set anywhere in his house, and he's been threatened with all sorts of legal action by TV Licensing for years now. He just ignores them. Nothing's happened so far.

 

[Tricky Dicky]

I'm not ashamed or afraid to admit that I've NEVER bought a TV licence. I think the whole thing these days is a SHAM.

Regular letters make it into my building addressed to The Occupier, but for every flat, so I can't be the only one avoiding it. As others have said you don't have to allow their "enforcement officers" in and in all honesty I've never come across one anyway.

I think if you are caught out and they attempt to prosecute you there are a whole host of defences you can pull to wriggle out of it as essentially they need to prove that YOU personally have been watching live broadcasts, and this isn't as simple as saying you have a TV and an aerial and therefore must be watching TV. They need proof.

Have a look on BBCresistance.com | Home where there's a lot of info about avoidance and the law.

A lot of people are bullied into buying licences when they genuinely don't need to. The key is to stand up for yourself and not let their threats and demands intimidate you

You don't say whether you watch TV or not. If you do it's theft, end of.

 

[dingodan]

They can be quite aggressive.

The truth is though, they have NO RIGHT OF ENTRY to your property. So my advice is dont let them in.

Then, at the door, they will ask you things like, "I assume you are a resident at this property?", or "do you own a TV set?" etc.

Do not speak to them. The fact is that they need you to confess to owning a TV without a license. They have no right to come in and check so they need to get you to confess, and people frequently do. The only way that you will be prosecuted by TV licensing is if you unwittingly give evidence against yourself.

Do not talk to them under any cicumstances.

 

[perseus]

A couple of years ago I was spending so much time on the internet and watching TV that I really had to choose between the two. I chose the internet, and was quite surprised how little I missed TV after a while. Anyway, I was soon plagued with letters from TV Licensing which provided no prepaid envelopes and gave a profiteering 08something number as the only means of reply. So I ignored these, and after several months of letters telling me about their 'investigations' an officer finally turned up yesterday. I was happy to let him in and see that my three dusty old sets were disconnected and stored upstairs. However he said that as it would only take a couple of minutes for me to reconnect them then they would be considered as in use. After some argument, he said he would not proceed with prosecution if I bought a licence, and there would be no backdating required. This I declined and he left.
Is he correct, or was he lying in order to maybe earn commission on the new licence?

Plead NOT Guilty in person. Do not reveal anything in the preliminary hearing. Insist you want to cross examine the TV callers in Court. Odds on they will drop the case. If not you can have some fun questioning the bullies on Court. Next time, don't let them in.

 

[The Merry Prankster]

It's unnatural to not watch TV.

 

[happypig]

IF (and it's a big "if") they take it to court, ensure you attend. If you don't it's likely to be proved in absence and you will get fined with costs.

However, as the offence is that of not paying the TV license, they first need to prove that you used or intended to use one of the TVs. They need to prove this beyond reasonable doubt and it doesn't sound like they have much of a case; owning a television is not illegal.

Also, if you do go to court and fight it, ask for costs to be awarded if you win

 

[perseus]

IF (and it's a big "if") they take it to court, ensure you attend. If you don't it's likely to be proved in absence and you will get fined with costs.

However, as the offence is that of not paying the TV license, they first need to prove that you used or intended to use one of the TVs. They need to prove this beyond reasonable doubt and it doesn't sound like they have much of a case; owning a television is not illegal.

Also, if you do go to court and fight it, ask for costs to be awarded if you win

The summons has to be submitted within six months so it will be five months three weeks before your receive it just in time for Christmas. You should write up your notes of their/his visit and what you said or did right now as you would have forgotten it all by the time the summons arrives.

A TV Licence works out really expensive if you only watch TV say twice a week. My TV aerial blew down in a storm and I was in such a bad reception area I could not use an indoor aerial or loft aerial so I just used the TV for watching videos which does not require a licence. In the end I got an aerial but I got out of the habit of watching TV so it is ever so expensive per programme watched.

 

[seagullsovergrimsby]

A couple of years ago I was spending so much time on the internet and watching TV that I really had to choose between the two. I chose the internet, and was quite surprised how little I missed TV after a while. Anyway, I was soon plagued with letters from TV Licensing which provided no prepaid envelopes and gave a profiteering 08something number as the only means of reply. So I ignored these, and after several months of letters telling me about their 'investigations' an officer finally turned up yesterday. I was happy to let him in and see that my three dusty old sets were disconnected and stored upstairs. However he said that as it would only take a couple of minutes for me to reconnect them then they would be considered as in use. After some argument, he said he would not proceed with prosecution if I bought a licence, and there would be no backdating required. This I declined and he left.
Is he correct, or was he lying in order to maybe earn commission on the new licence?

Take a photo of the TV's covered in dust and in storage. Proof that they're not in use and haven't been for a while. TVL Nazis have targets to reach now its been outsourced and no longer overseen by the Post Office who used to deal with TV Licensing on behalf of the BBC.

 

[Nottseagull]

All you have to do then is sell your three dusty old sets which you never use and it's a win-win. No licence fee and some beer money.

They are all CRT sets, which in my opinion give a higher definition than any flat screen set I have seen in a shop. Those just blur things like grass when the camera pans quickly because the processor just can't handle the increased calculations required.

I was told once that you also need a licence for any computer equipment as it can receive a BBC signal... True or not I dont know?

PCs can only receive signals directly if you install a TV card. These have a co-axial socket for the aeriel. I bought one a few years ago (£29.99) because I thought it was a way round the regulations. It is languishing in the attic, never having been used

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Wrong. You do not need a licence. The bloke was trying it on. The key word is INTEND. They need to prove you have intent to do so, I proved to the inspectors who visited me that I did not have that intention so I need no licence. Despite the fact that should I chose to do so I could install my tvs and use them. I have no intention of doing so so no licence needed.

How did you PROVE to them that you had no intention of using it...it's just not possible.

 

[NMH]

How did you PROVE to them that you had no intention of using it...it's just not possible.

Just as they can't say for sure he has used. Bowing to them is an admission of guilt, telling them to sue you is a sign to them, that they don't have a case.

 

[Jimbo.GRFC]

A couple of years ago I was spending so much time on the internet and watching TV that I really had to choose between the two. I chose the internet, and was quite surprised how little I missed TV after a while. Anyway, I was soon plagued with letters from TV Licensing which provided no prepaid envelopes and gave a profiteering 08something number as the only means of reply. So I ignored these, and after several months of letters telling me about their 'investigations' an officer finally turned up yesterday. I was happy to let him in and see that my three dusty old sets were disconnected and stored upstairs. However he said that as it would only take a couple of minutes for me to reconnect them then they would be considered as in use. After some argument, he said he would not proceed with prosecution if I bought a licence, and there would be no backdating required. This I declined and he left.
Is he correct, or was he lying in order to maybe earn commission on the new licence?

Even if you were happy to let him in, you have no legal jurisdiction to do so. You were therefore more than entitled to say no and wave him on his merry ways. Those detector vans know nothing, they are simply working on addresses where a licence was held previously. Its nothing more than a tax

 

[Deleted User X18H]

Why have TV’s in the house if you have no intention of using them to receive pictures. Do you also have a chair in your house you absolutely never ever sit on as well?

 

[Deleted User X18H]

I'm afraid you're wrong - I should know, I have worked for Capita.

Blimey so have I. London Market Services 2002-3. Dreadful place.

 

[Seagull on the wing]

Just as they can't say for sure he has used. Bowing to them is an admission of guilt, telling them to sue you is a sign to them, that they don't have a case.

See your point, but in that case why does he have a TV in the house,does he collect old TVs and never use them (In which case there would be lots of TVs). Having a TV, shows that at sometime it has been in use or is intended for use and if you've never had a licence then your case is very thin. Seagull over Grimsby...afraid taking a photo is no proof,you could take a photo then use the TV afterwards.
I hope he does get away from prosecution but do you not think that they have'nt heard all these excuses before.

 

[rcf0712]

TV licenses eh? I remember them. Not that it helps the debate at all but we don't have them in Australia. Not sure if they ever have, certainly not for these past 16 years I've been here and there's even a government funded national broadcaster just like the BBC, called the ABC! The best irony of course is that a lot of what we get here is from the UK!

 

[Seagull on the wing]

TV licenses eh? I remember them. Not that it helps the debate at all but we don't have them in Australia. Not sure if they ever have, certainly not for these past 16 years I've been here and there's even a government funded national broadcaster just like the BBC, called the ABC! The best irony of course is that a lot of what we get here is from the UK!

Well that is one way round it,I downloaded a programme that shows TV from all over the world so I could watch TV in Aussie and stream into their CCTVs as well.The programme cost a one off fee of £35 but you do not need a licence for it but you do have over 2000 TV and Radio stations.

 

[NMH]

See your point, but in that case why does he have a TV in the house,does he collect old TVs and never use them (In which case there would be lots of TVs). Having a TV, shows that at sometime it has been in use or is intended for use and if you've never had a licence then your case is very thin. Seagull over Grimsby...afraid taking a photo is no proof,you could take a photo then use the TV afterwards.
I hope he does get away from prosecution but do you not think that they have'nt heard all these excuses before.

He told us that he doesn't watch these sets, so he must have a viable reason for having them.
If it's the truth, than he doesn't need to dodge the truth - they need to prove it's not so.

 

[perseus]

Video Camera

Why have TV’s in the house if you have no intention of using them to receive pictures. Do you also have a chair in your house you absolutely never ever sit on as well?

In the 20th century, I used the TV set to replay the footage taken on the video camera.

Take more than one TV down the dump and they think you are trade and will not let you give it away. The charity shops will not accept them.

 

[Nottseagull]

See your point, but in that case why does he have a TV in the house, does he collect old TVs and never use them (In which case there would be lots of TVs). Having a TV, shows that at sometime it has been in use or is intended for use and if you've never had a licence then your case is very thin.

Indeed, they have been in use and are also intended for use, but in both cases under a licence. One is destined for my mother's house when hers packs in (she doesn't have the storage).
I have a car on my drive under SORN; I also intend using that in the future, but I don't see why I should have to keep it in remote storage meanwhile.