Do a monitor require a TV licence if not connected?

Sam Russell

Mike 1972 wrote: »

You are pretty spot on apart from the "working or not" bit given that the word "capable" is in there.

On the other hand the definition is ludicrously wide ranging. Is there a seperate definition for "electronic apparatus". Would a single electronic component (say an IN4148 diode) qualify or does it have to be assembled into some kind of device ?

Is a mains lead or plug an "electronic apparatus" ?

Is an aerial an "electronic apparatus". How elaborate does it have to be to qualify (piece of wire ????) Given that Band 3 is used for both DAB radio and Analouge TV is an aerial covering band 3 included ? What about a length of coaxial cable ?

And what of computer components (CPU, RAM etc) these could (if coupled with a Tuner card) form a TV set so are they covered even if they are not ?

What about something like a Windows or Linux CD ("software") or Hard drive with an O/S installed these could be used with TV tuner card software even if there is no software of this sort actually present ?

If something is broken, it is capable of repair, and therefor capable of fulfilling its original purpose.

Electronic means it has electronic components. The piece of wire is only electrical, not electronic. To have a TV, you must have a display, otherwise it is a radio. To receive TV images, you need a tuner. A tuner is a device that can convert frequencies from one band to another. This is the function of the LNB. The definition has been rewritten to catch component systems, such as amonitor, with a seperate tuner. The key component is the tuner, which is hard for a plod inspector to identify, given the huge variety. But a dish is easy to spot, as is a dirty great LCD screen.

It would be costly to fight this in court, but easier to convince the inspector that you do not have a tuner. Get rid of the dish.

Mike 1972

Sam Russell wrote: »

If something is broken, it is capable of repair, and therefor capable of fulfilling its original purpose..

If something is broken it is not capable of fulfilling its original purpose until its repaired. If something is broken to the extent that it would be uneconomic to repair then arguing with someone with such an item is breaching TV licence law is akin to suggesting that someone with no TV set is breaching TV licence law as they are capable of buying a new TV. Its a ludicrous proposition.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Electronic means it has electronic components. The piece of wire is only electrical, not electronic...

A piece of wire has inductance, resistance and wotnot. An aerial or dish (minus the LNB) usually doesnt have any electronic components either

Sam Russell wrote: »

To have a TV, you must have a display, otherwise it is a radio. ...

So if I have a satellite dish, LNB, reciever, and audio amplifier/speakers but no display Im in the clear (since I only have a "radio") but hang on arent some of these items capable of being used as part of a TV set up
????

A lot of contradictions here

Sam Russell

@ Mike1972: The OP was asking a question, I am trying to answer it but the law in this matter is unclear and poorly drafted, and will, ultimately be decided by a judge listening to legal arguement. It would be expensive for the OP to get involved in such a process, and I would consider him/her foolhardy to risk such involvement unnecessarily.

He makes that decision for himself, I have made my point and expanded to aid others who may consider themselves in a like position. They take from my words what they will, but it is at their own risk. If they want a legal opinion, they should consult a lawyer, and presumable pay his/her fee.

The semantics are for the birds, the law is decided by a judge, but if he finds against the OP, it could be expensive.

Chef-1st

Well in the wording itself, it is a "Television Licence".
Your paying a fee for a posession of the Television, nothing more.
A television been cabable of receiving and displaying video broadcasts.
As I said, the dish on the roof doesn't do me any favours, but your not paying this annual fee for having a Sky dish on your roof.

And if it's taken to court, it's them who take me to court, I just have to state my case, don't think it would cost me much at all.
Hopefully, it shouldn't come to that. I have yet to find one person who has fought the system and won though, so it's hard to say which way this will go.

Mike 1972

Sam Russell wrote: »

@ Mike1972: The OP was asking a question, I am trying to answer

Er you seem to think Im picking some kind of argument with you when Im actually highlighting the ludicrous wording of the law and the even more ludicrous interpretations of it on Government run websites.

Sam Russell wrote: »

the law in this matter is unclear and poorly drafted,.

So were all agreed then ?

Rulmeq

Interesting, I would have been of the opinion that "equipment capable of receiving a television signal" would have applied to dishes/antennae, but there are good arguments here against that - I still think "equipment" is vague enough for them to argue their case, but it's also vague enough for a counter argument.

Chef-1st wrote: »

And if it's taken to court, it's them who take me to court, I just have to state my case, don't think it would cost me much at all.

Unless you're unemployed a day in court will cost you more than the annual licence (and if you were unemployed, you wouldn't have to pay for it, I believe). Although, if you win, you would save money in the long run. But if you lose, you will face a fine up to €1000 - I haven't seen a judge award that much, but you may get a cranky old coote.

Chef-1st wrote: »

Hopefully, it shouldn't come to that. I have yet to find one person who has fought the system and won though, so it's hard to say which way this will go.

It would be nice if there was a way to test this without going to court.

Mike 1972

Rulmeq wrote: »

Unless you're unemployed a day in court will cost you more than the annual licence.

Surely if one was to win such a case then costs would be awarded in their favour ?

Unfortunately even one were to succeed in getting a case struck out in the district court it wouldnt do much in the way of establishing a legal precedent that others could follow

Rulmeq wrote: »

It would be nice if there was a way to test this without going to court.

Its a bad state of affairs that the only practical way to clarify a badly drafted law is to provoke the authorities into attempting to prosecute one under it.

Rulmeq

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Surely if one was to win such a case then costs would be awarded in their favour ?

I've never gotten my wages paid, for a day in court.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Its a bad state of affairs that the only practical way to clarify a badly drafted law is to provoke the authorities into attempting to prosecute one under it.

Although, I get the feeling they would "clarify" it in a way that might make it worse. I'm thinking they might decide to charge per TV, or some such...

Fuzzy Clam

A broken tv is subject to a licence. That is a fact, I'm afraid. How much the TV is broken before it's exempt, I don't know.

There are only 2 parts to the equation. A display and a receiver/tuner. Not an antenna nor a dish nor an LNB.

Both of these do not need to be connected to each other, just capable of it.

A display, no matter what type it is, is NOT capable of displaying a television broadcast, as defined, without a Sky box, Tv card, VCR, etc, etc, etc.

Ultimately, it's up to "them" to prove that you are evading the licence fee, not you to prove otherwise.

Unless you do have something to hide, let them do their worst.:)

Chef-1st

Fuzzy Clam, I'm not 100% yet, but I don't think your right there.
I don't think you need the two parts to fulfill the equation.
A disply in itself seems to be enough to require a licence.

Rulmeq, they definitely don't charge per TV, the licence is specifically for a household.
But what they could do is change the law so that any display capable of receiving visual broadcast would be deemed liable for a licence. (Eg: PC monitor with hdmi or multiple input connections).

Scary thought eh! There would be uproar. :rolleyes:

Fuzzy Clam

The reason In think that is because a PC monitor does not require a licence unless the PC has a tuner card.
In my interpretation, the same logic applies. Neither is capable of displaying TV pictures without other hardware.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong

Satdog

Chef-1st wrote: »

Fuzzy Clam, I'm not 100% yet, but I don't think your right there.
I don't think you need the two parts to fulfill the equation.
A disply in itself seems to be enough to require a licence.

Rulmeq, they definitely don't charge per TV, the licence is specifically for a household.
But what they could do is change the law so that any display capable of receiving visual broadcast would be deemed liable for a licence. (Eg: PC monitor with hdmi or multiple input connections).

Scary thought eh! There would be uproar. :rolleyes:

As the law stands I don't see how a monitor/display/screen can require a licence especially if part of a computer without a tuner card. See post 17 above.

Satdog

Fuzzy Clam wrote: »

The reason In think that is because a PC monitor does not require a licence unless the PC has a tuner card.
In my interpretation, the same logic applies. Neither is capable of displaying TV pictures without other hardware.

Or maybe I'm completely wrong

I'm with you on that one.

Rulmeq

Chef-1st wrote: »

Rulmeq, they definitely don't charge per TV, the licence is specifically for a household.
Scary thought eh! There would be uproar. :rolleyes:

lol, yeah, I was just saying the might decide to rewrite the law.

Chef-1st

Hey look, I'm totally with you on this.
This is why I bought an LCD screen with no tuner, so I wouldn't have to pay the licence. But this guys seems to think that because it has a HDMI input, SkyHD could be connected, therefore fits the description of a TV, as stated in the broadcasting act. Chancing his arm I reckon, we'll have to see where it goes.

My point is, that most LCD monitors + projectors today come with HDMI inputs, so in theory..........

Chef-1st

I happened to come across this old post there, and thought I'd give you all closure on my TV licence situation.
As it turned out, after a few letters back and forth with the head guy in the licencing department, he gave up, and they sent out an inspector to my home. As I stated previously, I got rid of Sky (and the dish off my roof), and I got rid of every TV in the home and replaced it with a TV panel without an in-built tuner (technically a big monitor).

Inspector came, I told him the story about not watching TV anymore; have my PS3 console to an LCD panel, even though the TV licence head guy was adomant it was a television I had; PC and monitor upstairs; etc etc. I offered him to come in and check this for himself, he said no that's fine, wrote me out a docket stating I had no TV in the home, and off he went. Haven't heard a word since! So I've saved 3-4 years of no licence fee, which is great, as I shouldn't have to pay it.

Have never got Sky back, which I don't miss. And still have the LCD panel in the living room. I stream shows totally online now. I hear there will be a new "all-in-one broadcasting licence" coming out in the future though. So anyone with broadband or TV (basically everyone) will have to pay. No avoiding it then really, but until then, I'll continue saving money.