TV license question

white_falcon

Got a letter from the TV license people saying we should have one - its addressed to "the occupant"

Can the bring us to court if they don't have our names?...also how can they bring us to court if they havent even checked if we have a TV or not - they can't get into our apartment block to ask to look around our place?

I'm not trying to break the law, and I'm gonna get one, I'm just curious what the law is around this

Victor

If you have a TV, you must pay the licence.

They have various means of finding out if you have a TV, including from cable TV companies or seeing the blue glow coming from your living room.

Our man in Havana

They can get the names form various sources, Cable company, postman, rifling thru your garbage. They must prove you have a TV and in order to do that they need to get in first. They have no right of entry unless they have a search warrant and are accompanied by a Garda. Therefore let no one in.

white_falcon

thanks, was just curious as to what the law was about someone threathening to bring you to court when they don't even know your name

getting one tomorrow on my day off

inisboffin

I was in bed with the Flu and lo and behold the TV license person came.
Now I have a laptop but NO telly.
My friend went to the door and told them we had none. My name was given as the occupant.
They insisted on 'needing to inspect the premises'...I refused as I wasn't dressed and wasn't in the mood to 'prove my innocence'
The inspector said they would get a 'warrant' if I didn't let them in...I said 'go ahead' (I am not very negotiable with a headache and temperature!).

Now I am wondering what to expect..if anything.
Do they, as mentioned earlier, need to be accompanied by a Garda?
Will I get a letter?

This is a bit annoying, as, like I mentioned earlier I have NO telly!
Thanks!

Our man in Havana

They will need to prove you have a tv.

They may or may not bother to get a warrant. If they do they must have the Gardaí with them. Unless you they have a warrant and are accompanied by the Gardaí you are not obliged to let them in.

viv2

I could be completely wrong but you dont actually need to have a tv to have to have a license.There have been loads of ads lately on the radio and one of them has a student who says he only watches dr phil on his computer.
I know years ago if you didnt have a tv you had to have a radio license but that was in the days when there was black and white tv lol.
I just see it as another tax and it annoys the hell out of me to have to pay it but i do.

inisboffin

Yeah, I don't even have one of those tv receiver things (spot the Luddite!). I watch Youtube on occasion, but that's about it.
Haven't heard anything about a computer license.
Thanks for that though, so it seems like they need a Garda with them..just curious if there is another postal step before that happens, thanks.

Just to note, the former owner had a TV (and a license I think) - but are gone since June.
I have broadband only, perhaps that is what is making them suspicious, but then again I pay a 'broadband only' fee to those feckers at N** for NOT having a TV! Can't win!

white_falcon

Apparently if you have the equipment to receive a signal that is the same thing...

That means if you have a cable going into your house that "could" be used to have a tv plugged into it, that is counted as it aswell...

inisboffin

Well I was so p*ssed off at the inspector's attitude that I phoned them up - woo hoo!
I explained the situation, the guy was really nice. He said 'normally they just ask to "peep in the sitting room" and not "inspect the premises"' - I didn't want someone going through the house. I pointed out I could have a telly in the bedroom - he laughed.
I told him he could check with N** and SEE I only had broadband for internet.
He said it had nothing to do with this - I see his point - you could have access to 100 channels and not have a telly, it is all about the SET, not the incoming cable, etc. You could have a telly with just a coat-hanger for RTE and that would be enough.

A laptop doesn't count, unless, and this is a grey area, it is set up to receive TV - this is an additional piece of equipment I believe, but still a grey area.

Basically he is sending me a 'declaration of no telly' (hi-laaar-ious I think, and a copy is going on my wall!) so I can fill it our in order not to be bothered any more (we'll see...)

todolist

I always think of Pat 'the plank' Kenny on his 600k+ wages and Gerry Ryan on 500+ thousand wages while I'm an ordinary Jo smo expected to transfer my tiny wealth over to these ****.i won't do it.

witnessmenow

Isnt the law " a device capable of processing or displaying Tv signal" or something to that effect?

Wouldnt that mean if you had a NTL box and no tv you still have to pay?

Our man in Havana

I have heard of a conviction where the only equipment in the house was a pair of rabbit ears.

amcalester

Bond-007 wrote: »

I have heard of a conviction where the only equipment in the house was a pair of rabbit ears.

where was the rabbit?

Our man in Havana

Watching Dr. Phil.

inisboffin

witnessmenow wrote: »

Isnt the law " a device capable of processing or displaying Tv signal" or something to that effect?

Wouldnt that mean if you had a NTL box and no tv you still have to pay?

Yeah, well that is what I was wondering. But according to N*L I pay a 'stand alone fee' for the pleasure of NOT being able to receive telly signals.

A friend did say that this is likely B*ll*x anyway, as they can't really separate the two.
However, officially, I do not have any capability to receive a telly signal.

No Gardai at the door as of today, I am guessing mid Christmas week, if they do appear at all!

shoegirl

viv2 wrote: »

I could be completely wrong but you dont actually need to have a tv to have to have a license.

AFAIK you have to have some kind of TV tuning enabled equipment in order for them to charge you for not having a license at the address. And your name. You cannot charge a property. I understand though as for about 6 years I had no tv and it was annoying to have to keep responding to letters saying "I don't have a tv set of any kind."

shoegirl

witnessmenow wrote: »

Isnt the law " a device capable of processing or displaying Tv signal" or something to that effect?

Wouldnt that mean if you had a NTL box and no tv you still have to pay?

I think they mean a TV by that!!

fergalr

inisboffin wrote: »

I was in bed with the Flu and lo and behold the TV license person came.
Now I have a laptop but NO telly.
My friend went to the door and told them we had none. My name was given as the occupant.
They insisted on 'needing to inspect the premises'...I refused as I wasn't dressed and wasn't in the mood to 'prove my innocence'
The inspector said they would get a 'warrant' if I didn't let them in...I said 'go ahead' (I am not very negotiable with a headache and temperature!).

Now I am wondering what to expect..if anything.
Do they, as mentioned earlier, need to be accompanied by a Garda?
Will I get a letter?

This is a bit annoying, as, like I mentioned earlier I have NO telly!
Thanks!

They will need to prove you have a tv.

You may well get letters - if you do, deal with them quickly and assertively.
Don't necessarily trust that they will have to prove it, as they should.


I had a very similar situation to the above, never had a TV in the place. Just before I moved out of student accommodation for the summer, one day someone rang in over intercom, I innocently gave my name, it was TV license inspector.
Explained that I had no TV (was very clear on this point), and was sick; also mentioned I was moving out the following week. Inspector was very nice, friendly, said not to worry about it, he'd get on to the next tenant when he was back the next week.

Ended up unexpectedly staying in the same accom next year, (after 3/4months of summer away) arrived back to find 4 letters of escalating harshness, promising court action etc.

Went asap to TV licensing office on O'Connell St. explained situation.
I went to the office, was very reasonable, but no matter what I said, no matter how much I insisted, they told me that the inspector wouldn't have marked me down as having a TV until he actually saw I had a TV set in my apartment. I told them this was not possible, but didn't get anywhere (I'm sure they got a lot of excuses).

(I only dealt with the inspector over intercom when he came to visit. I lived on the 3rd floor, had no TV set, no housemates, and no one else stayed in apartment over summer that could have had a TV, in case there was confusion on that point.).


The people in the office told me they were bringing me to court and I would get done for it. I got pretty desperate; they told me if I paid them right there and then they'd forget about it.

Had no choice in the end but to pay them, there and then in the office, for a license; was a lot of money I could have put to better use as a student.
I never did have a TV. (or any device capable of receiving a television signal, to be pedantic).


Lessons learned:
Don't give name over intercom.
While in theory the burden of proof is with them, in practice I bet I'd have lost in court.
Just because you're doing nothing wrong doesn't mean you have nothing to worry about, unfortunately.
If they're willing to be aggressive, undertake intimidating campaigns, presume guilt, accept no excuse etc. in order to stop people cheating the system, they're going to catch innocent people too.
I had heard lots of people's stories about bad treatment from TV license people; before it happened to me, I always thought that they in fact had TVs and were just sour about having to pay, or trying to save face - I'd say this still accounts for a lot, but I'm not so sure.

As an aside, I believe that most people are basically honest, and are going to pay with only a little persuasion, and that they extra last 10% of sternness of enforcement probably harms honest users while making very few dishonest ones actually pay.

Mike 1972

TBH I would have let them take me to court and have the inspector summoned and cross examined and asked how they ascertained there was a TV on the premises without gaining entry and why they didnt produce photographic evidence of same.

A blue flickering light is not evidence of TV possession. Ever heard of a thing called a computer ? (not to mention a faulty florescent lamp) claiming a blue flickering light as evidence of TV possession is akin to claiming Bob Marley music as evidence of drug use.

A cable subscription could be for (in some areas) UK FM radio although its a rather expensive way of getting it

fergalr

Mike 1972 wrote: »

TBH I would have let them take me to court and have the inspector summoned and cross examined and asked how they ascertained there was a TV on the premises without gaining entry and why they didnt produce photographic evidence of same.

A blue flickering light is not evidence of TV possession. Ever heard of a thing called a computer ? (not to mention a faulty florescent lamp)

A cable subscription could be for (in some areas) UK FM radio although its a rather expensive way of getting it

It probably wouldn't have worked. I'd say judges give short shrift to people disputing the claims of the TV license inspectors.

Either way, the cost of going to court, in terms of time, and the financial costs of losing, plus the potential of a criminal record, mean its much simpler to just pay - even if its not right.

There's sort of a broader issue there with a justice system where its easier to get justice if you have more financial resources.

Our man in Havana

You can always appeal and keep appealing.