Tenant summoned to court for no TV license (with no TV)

Mr. CooL ICE

If somebody was to be summoned to court over an unpaid TV license fee, despite them not having a TV in the premises, is it likely that any action would be taken?

For example, if the tenant would have once had an unused TV in the house, and an inspector called, found out about the unused TV (i.e. tenant saying they had a tv that wasn't being used, i.e. in storage) but not actually setting eyes on it, ordering the tenant in question to 'do something about it', and the tenant removing the TV from the premises, would this evidence stand up against the tenant in court?

Hobart

As far as I know, whether the TV is in use or not (i.e. in storage) you must have a licence for it. Once you have in your possession a unit capable of receiving a television signal you are duty bound to have a licence for it.

Hypothetically, if I was in a similar situation I would go to court and plead my case with the judge. If you get a reasonable judge and make a good case, you may have an outcome in your favour.

Mr. CooL ICE

Thanks Hobart. The exact rules for having a TV license can be found here here



However, my main question is this. If a TV license inspector made an inspection (i.e. called to the door to ask to see a license), but never actually saw anything capable of receiving a TV signal and only going by what the tenant has stated, is this enough to warrant the assumption that there must be something capable of receiving a TV signal on the premises in the eyes of the law?

Our man in Havana

Would the admission on its own be enough evidence to secure a conviction?

seamus

Bond-007 wrote: »

Would the admission on its own be enough evidence to secure a conviction?

Probably. The inspector would state in court that the tenant said he had a TV. The court will ask the tenant if that's what he said. If the tenant says "No", he's in contempt of court. If he says yes, he's bang to rights.

The law is quite black-and-white, but it kind of has to be. Anyone could say, "I have a TV here, but I don't use it". The strictness of the rules makes it easy - if you don't use the TV, don't have it on the premises.

Hobart

LordChessington wrote: »

Thanks Hobart. The exact rules for having a TV license can be found here here



However, my main question is this. If a TV license inspector made an inspection (i.e. called to the door to ask to see a license), but never actually saw anything capable of receiving a TV signal and only going by what the tenant has stated, is this enough to warrant the assumption that there must be something capable of receiving a TV signal on the premises in the eyes of the law?

For clarification I'll make the following hypothesis:

TV Licence Inspector: Good evening sir our records show that there is no TV licence registered against this address

Tenant: I don't use a TV

TVLI: Do you have a TV on the premises?

Tenant: Yes

TVLI: Is it yours?

Tenant: Yes

TVLI: You must have a licence then

Tenant: Even if I have it packed away under the stairs?

TVLI: Yes

Tenant: But I'm not using it at all

TVLI: Doesn't matter, you will have to get it sorted

If that is a pharaphrasical(sp?) way of saying what has happened, then I guess the following will happen in court.

TVLI will stand up in court and give his version of events. The tenant will be asked for his/her version of events. The tenant can tell the truth or deny what happened. The judge will make a call on what he sees fit is a proper outcome.

Your question seems to imply that the TVLI did not actually see the TV but was told that the TV was on the premises. If you are asking can he stand up in court and actually say that he was told what he was told, yes is the answer. Will he/she be believed? I don't know, but I would suspect that the Judge would be minded to err on the side that the TVLI is telling the truth.

seamus

Hobart wrote: »

I would suspect that the Judge would be minded to err on the side that the TVLI is telling the truth.

That would be my suspicion too - remember that the TVLI has nothing to lose or win by telling the truth, he's just doing his job. He doesn't *really* care whether the court rules in favour of the tenant.

Hobart

seamus wrote: »

Probably. The inspector would state in court that the tenant said he had a TV. The court will ask the tenant if that's what he said. If the tenant says "No", he's in contempt of court. If he says yes, he's bang to rights.

The law is quite black-and-white, but it kind of has to be. Anyone could say, "I have a TV here, but I don't use it". The strictness of the rules makes it easy - if you don't use the TV, don't have it on the premises.

It's a lot more serious seamus. Lying in court is perjury (which is technically contempt) but it could also be construed as attempting to pervert the course of justice (imo).

In my (non-legal) experience these things can tend to snowball, when there is no need. I would not encourage or advise any person to go into court and willingly tell lies. The bottom line is that having the TV on the premises and in your possesion without a licence is against the law. Ignorance is no defence.

I would suggest, if you let it go to court, that the tenant stands up, makes his/her case, and hope for a sympathetic ear from the Judge. They may be told to cough up the €100 odd and take it as a lesson learnt. Going down the road of lying is a dangerous one.

mirrorimage

I had an experience with this where there was a tv in the house but I neither owned it nor had access to it. when I queried it at An Post I was told if there was a TV in the house that I was living in I was liable!! I gave the name of the person who own the TV but they did nothing about it. I pleaded with the owner and they said to just ignore it. A good friend convinced me to go and explain to the judge which I did and he took the name of the owner and that was that.

You are much better off to explain that you were unaware at the time the inspector called that merely having the device in the house - even if it wasn't functioning required a licence and that since learning this you have removed it. It would be even better if you have proof of sale, letter from person you gave it to or from where you got rid of it?

Better to stick to the truth!!! Good luck

Mr. CooL ICE

Thanks for the replies all. Legal discussions are rather interesting!

It would be interesting to see what would happen in the case like this, especially if the tenant's landlord, who would have been the owner of the TV, was able to explain that the tenant had contacted him after the initial inspection and took away the television set with him. I seriously doubt that would be evidence in favour of the tenant, but it could probably show compliance of the law on the tenants side.