Had the same letter myself which I thought was odd as the licence is also under my name, in fact I'm the only one who lives here. Looking closely at the letter it turns out my name was spelt wrong. So instead of a simple check where it would be obvious what had happened, they decide to send me these threatening letters instead. Idiots.
Going without a TV licence
- Thread starter clv101
- Start date
Had the same letter myself which I thought was odd as the licence is also under my name, in fact I'm the only one who lives here. Looking closely at the letter it turns out my name was spelt wrong. So instead of a simple check where it would be obvious what had happened, they decide to send me these threatening letters instead. Idiots.
Simple answer - phone up the TV licensing people and ask - better still, get it in writing from them.
Much better than relying on half-baked opinions from a bunch of nerds.
'What do you mean, im getting prosecuted - some people on the internet said it would be OK!'
Why is it that people make such a meal out of TV Licensing?
There are simplier things in this world but seriously - not many.
Your first decision is if you want to break the law of not.
If you're going to watch the television and recieve broadcasts then you need a TV license.
Lets not get into the "grey areas" of which really there are none.
If you're watching live broadcasts you need the license.
So you've now got two choices - either buy one or not.
If you buy one then that is it - job done.
Licenses are not issued to "an address" rather a person and an address.
Why?
Well I would have though most people would have realised, but for the slower people this is because people move, the occupants in a house change.
So although a license covers the property it will be in a particular persons name.
So, if the license is in your name and your wife/son/daughter buys a television then yes - it will flag up as a potential none-licensed television.
That is because everything is automated, it's all done on computer.
Even if the surname is the same, who is to say it is the same family - I'm sure there is more than one property in the UK that has had at least a couple of "Brown" or "Smith" families living there over the years.
So there is no point getting all upset and calling then "stupid".
If it was all done manually they would need hundreds of thousands of staff checking all TV purchases manually against a database of licenses - great idea.
So you get a letter - it takes 5 minutes to fill it out and return it, they even give you a postage paid envelope to send your reply back in.
Not exactly difficult or time consuming.
So you get a knock at the door.
Well if you've got a license or you're not receiving broadcasts then it's nice and simple - five minutes of your time and job done.
If you are illegal you can shout as much "Internet Bravado" as you like - once they know you haven't got a license and are receiving broadcasts they will just pop off and get the required paperwork to enter the premesis.
So again it all really boils down to if you want to break the law or not.
Don't break the law and everything is nice and easy with just the slight chance of a letter if somebody else in the house buys a television.
Do break the law and constantly keep looking over your shoulder for the knock at the door followed by the going away and returning with a warrant.
£5000 fine or £140 (a whole £11.66 per month!) for the year - no brainer really.
There are simplier things in this world but seriously - not many.
Your first decision is if you want to break the law of not.
If you're going to watch the television and recieve broadcasts then you need a TV license.
Lets not get into the "grey areas" of which really there are none.
If you're watching live broadcasts you need the license.
So you've now got two choices - either buy one or not.
If you buy one then that is it - job done.
Licenses are not issued to "an address" rather a person and an address.
Why?
Well I would have though most people would have realised, but for the slower people this is because people move, the occupants in a house change.
So although a license covers the property it will be in a particular persons name.
So, if the license is in your name and your wife/son/daughter buys a television then yes - it will flag up as a potential none-licensed television.
That is because everything is automated, it's all done on computer.
Even if the surname is the same, who is to say it is the same family - I'm sure there is more than one property in the UK that has had at least a couple of "Brown" or "Smith" families living there over the years.
So there is no point getting all upset and calling then "stupid".
If it was all done manually they would need hundreds of thousands of staff checking all TV purchases manually against a database of licenses - great idea.
So you get a letter - it takes 5 minutes to fill it out and return it, they even give you a postage paid envelope to send your reply back in.
Not exactly difficult or time consuming.
So you get a knock at the door.
Well if you've got a license or you're not receiving broadcasts then it's nice and simple - five minutes of your time and job done.
If you are illegal you can shout as much "Internet Bravado" as you like - once they know you haven't got a license and are receiving broadcasts they will just pop off and get the required paperwork to enter the premesis.
So again it all really boils down to if you want to break the law or not.
Don't break the law and everything is nice and easy with just the slight chance of a letter if somebody else in the house buys a television.
Do break the law and constantly keep looking over your shoulder for the knock at the door followed by the going away and returning with a warrant.
£5000 fine or £140 (a whole £11.66 per month!) for the year - no brainer really.
Its all very well, but if you've actually read the OP, he won't be watching broadcasts other than through the internet, hence he won't be breaking the law if he doesn't purchase a license.
funny you should mention that. The horrendous fight we had with the TV licensing bafoon that knocked on our student digs.
He insisted that because we had 4 separate bedrooms, with locks on them, they were classed as separate and thus we needed 4 tv licenses. We continually pointed out to him that a lock on the door does not constitute being a separate flat. Because we shared living accomodation, toilet, kitchen etc.. we were not separate flats.
We refused to let him enter and sent him on his way with him cursing us about being illegal etc.. but we never heard no more about it.
so expect the worst you can imagine from the morons knocking at the door.
It's not quite a simple as you make out... As said above I wouldn't be receiving broadcast signals (analogue/freeview over air, satellite or cable). However it seems the licence is really all to do with receiving stuff "live". iPlayer is fine, for now, but as soon as they enable live streaming it will require a licence. Likewise it seems, ITV's live streaming F1 service requires a licence. What's the deal there?
That's the first point.
The second point is how does one prove you aren't receiving a broadcast signal? The receiving equipment will be in the house so it seems a little be of their word against yours
It's any live broadcast be it the BBC or (for example) Australian TV. And although the BBC get the majority of the license fee I think ITV/Ch4 get a bit for some stuff as well.
I was under the impression advertising on ch4/ITV was what payed for there brodcasts/costs in replace of the liscance fee's which is why the BBC dont have brand advertising between programs.
Apears im right, along with Radio stations etc.
"The BBC is paid for directly through each household TV licence. This allows it to run a wide range of popular public services for everyone, free of adverts and independent of advertisers, shareholders or political interests. 92.5% of the UK population used the BBC every month in 2006/2007.
The BBC provides 8 interactive TV channels, 10 radio networks, more than 50 local TV and radio services, the BBC's website bbc.co.uk, and the on-demand TV service, BBC iPlayer."
so if you can proove you dont recieve any of these anything else you watch is up to you!
IMHO, the BBC should be an optional channel set on freeview box's that you can pay a monthly sub for, this of course will never happen for the simple fact pretty much most of the UK would cease watching it for the garbage they put on it, I know my self i would only pay the monthly fee for 8 or 10 weeks of the year when the top gear show is on. of course the british public would wine a little untill they realised it would be any more expensive than it allready is to take out a sub with your cable company/sky or whom ever takes care of DVB subs to continue watching the BBC channel set.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 19 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 4,793
- Location
- London
fyi - i received several "we know you've been watching TV" letters when i didn't have anything capable of receiving TV in my flat. They even threatened me with court action on one letter.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but UK law is "innocent until proven guilty". If you aren't watching TV and are complying with the law then you shouldn't have anything to fear.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but UK law is "innocent until proven guilty". If you aren't watching TV and are complying with the law then you shouldn't have anything to fear.
Ho-Hum
Again, this is a commonly held misconception, aptly spread by the the Licensing people themselves as it scares up a lot of business. I'll break it down nice and simple to hopefully avoid too much extra debate.
1. Owning equipment capable of receiving broadcast signals (including ITV etc unfortunately)DOES NOT oblige you to purchase a TV licence.
2. Internet broadcasts that are not 'live' (iPlayer) DO NOT require you to own a TV license. - Seriously - what? Everyone who has access to the internet needs a TV license now - riiiiiiiiiight
3. In the United Kingdom (even Scotland
) You are considered innocent until proven guilty. The burden of proof rests, as it always has, with the accuser - you DO NOT have to prove that you do not watch broadcast signals - they must prove that you do. - seriously - UK not France here, get with the programme (just don't watch it!)Wow - from a guy with over 10000 posts - wow.Visage said:
As I said earlier to the OP. If you are genuinely not watching broadcasts, and don't want to pay the license fee you are acting entirely within the law. If you want I can dig up some sample letters you will need to send to them, as well as clarification from the Licensing Agency admitting that you are infact correct.
No opinion, just fact.
Understood. But what happens if/when iPlayer does do live streaming and what about ITVs live F1 coverage over the net?2. Internet broadcasts that are not 'live' (iPlayer) DO NOT require you to own a TV license. - Seriously - what? Everyone who has access to the internet needs a TV license now - riiiiiiiiiight
I'll check that one for you. As I understand it as long as the programme is not being broadcast concurrently on the net and via terrestrial then it is considered archived and OK. As for ITV's live coverage - I honestly don't know - but I can't see how the BBC could claim a chunk of it.
An interesting read: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/
Goes to show just how petty the BBC are, its surprising how many people dont realise what the TV licanse fee's are actually for. They spend £140 a year on a miss concieved notion they pay for the fact they own a TV when infact you are only paying for the previllige of recieving BBC broadcasts, no other channels just BBC endorsed ones.
If you could proove you didnt watch BBC broadcasts you could quite happily sit and watch, ITV/CH4/CH5 and all the other non BBC channels DVB or not without a liscance!
The BBC and the lacky collectors are very good with scare tactics, and the ill informed public are very serceptable to these tactics, surely people would have realised all this when its the BBC who have to apply to governmant for the ability to charge these fees, governmant could put a stop to this but they wont because they proberbly take a slice of the cake from the "politically neutral BBC".
If you could proove you didnt watch BBC broadcasts you could quite happily sit and watch, ITV/CH4/CH5 and all the other non BBC channels DVB or not without a liscance!
The BBC and the lacky collectors are very good with scare tactics, and the ill informed public are very serceptable to these tactics, surely people would have realised all this when its the BBC who have to apply to governmant for the ability to charge these fees, governmant could put a stop to this but they wont because they proberbly take a slice of the cake from the "politically neutral BBC".
interesting as in i didnt realise the world was so full of crackpots ?
tinfoil hats at the ready guys !
