TV Licensing Letter

Status
Not open for further replies.
Burnsy2023 said:
1) Technically you could take someone to court without knowing their name
2) They could apply for a search warrant but the likelihood of one being granted is miniscule without decent evidence to give reasonable suspicion. This is a scare tactic.
3) Bear in mind you are under no obligation to give a statement if you don't feel you want to. It's very unlikely the police would ever get involved although this is a criminal offence not civil.
Click to expand...

Have also heard that the police are generally reluctant to task a couple of offers with helping them execute search warrants too and if you're not in then they're unlikely to actually break the door down.

Though it does apparently happen on occasions.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
Well that is up to them but they have the option. Also, the Police can assist in gaining entry if requested.
Click to expand...

AFAIK if they want to force entry they'll only do so with police present so it isn't uncommon for the warrant to not be executed because they couldn't get police to attend, the homeowner was out etc..etc..
 
That's an interesting point. So they get a search warrant and go along to the property to execute. Home owner is not in so in some bizarre world where they get a police escort to accompany them and do force entry, what exactly can they prove? Surely they have to catch you in the act of watching live TV?

For instance, my television in the lounge is plugged in to the wall and tuned in but only because I haven't unplugged it yet, I am incredibly lazy and mostly watch movies in the bedroom. TV in the lounge is on HDMI1 permanently. Just because it is plugged in and tuned in, there is no evidence that I am breaking any law as I am not actively watching it when they break the door down.
 
ubern00b said:
That's an interesting point. So they get a search warrant and go along to the property to execute. Home owner is not in so in some bizarre world where they get a police escort to accompany them and do force entry, what exactly can they prove? Surely they have to catch you in the act of watching live TV?

For instance, my television in the lounge is plugged in to the wall and tuned in but only because I haven't unplugged it yet, I am incredibly lazy and mostly watch movies in the bedroom. TV in the lounge is on HDMI1 permanently. Just because it is plugged in and tuned in, there is no evidence that I am breaking any law as I am not actively watching it when they break the door down.
Click to expand...

I suppose a connected skybox would be a reasonable hint that they're watching TV (especially if they have recorded programmes) but I think it's more likely they wouldn't fore entry if they don't think anyone is in.
 
I contacted licensing on line. Cancelled my license stating that I no longer watch live TV, and view catch up. Removed my TV ariel lead, placed a blanking plate over the ariel socket. My little linux Jarvis box of Kodi goodness connected to my router via hdmi to TV is everything I need.

Licensing sent me a letter confirming my license refund and stating that a visit can be arranged every two years. Not worried in the least as catch up TV does not require a license (Which is clearly stated on licensing web site)
 
Last edited:
jamiehavok said:
huh? since when did you need a tv license to watch catch up?
Click to expand...

The problem is that people will say "IPlayer is fine", ignoring the issue that whilst pre-recorded programmes (i.e. catch-up) are fine, IPlayer also provides live feeds on certain occasions which aren't.
 
Fun fact, the BBC outsource its online propoganda to various companies to act as Shills to try to counteract any anti BBC/Licence fee forum debates. I used to know the name of two of the companies they used, but long forgotten.

Digital Spy is their usual haunt. You can spot them a mile off, occasionally they forget which account they're signed in as and post from the wrong account!

They also got caught out with a FOI request.
 
ubern00b said:
For instance, my television in the lounge is plugged in to the wall and tuned in but only because I haven't unplugged it yet, I am incredibly lazy and mostly watch movies in the bedroom. TV in the lounge is on HDMI1 permanently. Just because it is plugged in and tuned in, there is no evidence that I am breaking any law as I am not actively watching it when they break the door down.
Click to expand...

If it is tuned in and connected to an aerial then you might well find a magistrate not believing you. I'd suggest taking a few seconds to at least remove the aerial if you don't intend to use it for live TV.
 
Brenn47 said:
Fun fact, the BBC outsource its online propoganda to various companies to act as Shills to try to counteract any anti BBC/Licence fee forum debates. I used to know the name of two of the companies they used, but long forgotten.

Digital Spy is their usual haunt. You can spot them a mile off, occasionally they forget which account they're signed in as and post from the wrong account!

They also got caught out with a FOI request.
Click to expand...

I remember reading about this sometime ago. As to the BBC not stating they do not advertise and then were caught out advertising in far flung countries.

Its about time the BBC earns its own keep and competes with other TV commercial companies who earn their keep through advertising.
 
dowie said:
If it is tuned in and connected to an aerial then you might well find a magistrate not believing you. I'd suggest taking a few seconds to at least remove the aerial if you don't intend to use it for live TV.
Click to expand...

Which I will do, just to be on the safe side. My father used to watch TV while he lived with me since he paid for the license. He left about 6 months ago and I haven't really even looked at the telly since then, only reason it is still set-up as it is.
 
Jim99 said:
The problem is that people will say "IPlayer is fine", ignoring the issue that whilst pre-recorded programmes (i.e. catch-up) are fine, IPlayer also provides live feeds on certain occasions which aren't.
Click to expand...

It does, but that's not catch up.

Catch up only = no license needed... for now. Tony Hall was on with Jeremy Vine the other day discussing the future of iPlayer and hinted that it may require payment sooner rather than later now that they're having to pay for all the old people's licenses.
 
spoffle said:
People often say this, but some people do actually get harassed even when they have stated via the proper channels, that they don't require one.

I don't have one, or need one and I haven't had any harassment, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
Click to expand...
I am one of them. No problem for 5 years, even let them in my house now all I get on year 5+ is harassment. Never owned a TV in my life.
 
MichaelAwkward said:
It does, but that's not catch up.

Catch up only = no license needed... for now. Tony Hall was on with Jeremy Vine the other day discussing the future of iPlayer and hinted that it may require payment sooner rather than later now that they're having to pay for all the old people's licenses.
Click to expand...

licenses are issued free to persons aged 74 and over. Elderly or senior is more dignified than old.
 
ubern00b said:
That's an interesting point. So they get a search warrant and go along to the property to execute. Home owner is not in so in some bizarre world where they get a police escort to accompany them and do force entry, what exactly can they prove? Surely they have to catch you in the act of watching live TV?

For instance, my television in the lounge is plugged in to the wall and tuned in but only because I haven't unplugged it yet, I am incredibly lazy and mostly watch movies in the bedroom. TV in the lounge is on HDMI1 permanently. Just because it is plugged in and tuned in, there is no evidence that I am breaking any law as I am not actively watching it when they break the door down.
Click to expand...
You do not have to be actively watching when they break the door down. The offence, IIRC, is "receiving", which is why even recording counts as needing a licence. If it goes to a prosecution, as usual, it'll be proving you received "beyond reasonable doubt" that is required, not catching you in the act. So whether you get convicted or not will depend on the overall case made, of which no doubt finding a set connected, with power, and tuned, will play a big part. If that set is turned on, with both power and aerial connected, and is tuned, it's receiving.

So your case would have to be that "reasonable doubt" was not reached, that the set had not been receiving, which means not turned on, whether you were caught actively watching it or not. No two cases are ever identical, and magistrates are individuals reaching opinions, so there is no 'one size fits all' answer to that, but I can tell you how that'd be likely to go with one magistrate and that set being there, powered and tuned, would be "persuasive" evidence against you.
 
Aldav said:
You do not have to be actively watching when they break the door down. The offence, IIRC, is "receiving", which is why even recording counts as needing a licence. If it goes to a prosecution, as usual, it'll be proving you received "beyond reasonable doubt" that is required, not catching you in the act. So whether you get convicted or not will depend on the overall case made, of which no doubt finding a set connected, with power, and tuned, will play a big part. If that set is turned on, with both power and aerial connected, and is tuned, it's receiving.

So your case would have to be that "reasonable doubt" was not reached, that the set had not been receiving, which means not turned on, whether you were caught actively watching it or not. No two cases are ever identical, and magistrates are individuals reaching opinions, so there is no 'one size fits all' answer to that, but I can tell you how that'd be likely to go with one magistrate and that set being there, powered and tuned, would be "persuasive" evidence against you.
Click to expand...

This, it's not a TV licence, it's a "broadcast recieve" licence.
 
glen8 said:
Devils advocate

Does a 20 year old TV sat up in the loft requires the licence fee if it's powered off

What about if its powered on?
Click to expand...


On or Off. I think a license would not be required. A TV of that age would only be capable of receiving the old UHF frequency and would be incapable of receiving a digital signal due to "switch over"

"nothing to see here"
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom