Got rid of my TV do I still need a license?

DaSilva

About a month ago, an inspector came to the door and spoke to my girlfriend and gave her a little yellow slip that is only half filled in.
My girlfriend is new in the country and didn't know what a TV license was, so when I came home and asked her what the piece of paper was she said she didn't really know. I asked her specifically what the guy had said and she says he said exactly this.. "...the post would like it if you got a license..." and absolutely no explanation that if we did not in the next month we would receive a letter warning us of legal action.

Today I come home from work and there is a letter addressed to my girlfriend saying they will pursue legal action if we don't pay in 7 days. The TV is gone, we got rid of it when the inspector initially came, as we had not long moved into the house which is shared, and nobody watched it. The TV never belonged to us, we don't have it any more and there are more than just my girlfriend living in this house.

The house has no cable, satellite, internet or phone connections, there is an old satellite outside presumably from old tenants/owners and there are cable connections around the house also presumably from old tenants/owners.

An post phone number is closed now, and I won't get a chance to call them as I am at work. I called citizens information and they couldn't give me any definitive answers.

Do I still need a TV license? All the language on the citizens information and an post website is unclear about this situation, all the FAQ's are presented as though you do have a TV.

Also the Wireless Telegraphy Bill or whatever is called is technically ridiculous as it states "...with a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal (using an aerial, satellite dish, cable or other means) must have a television licence.", I am capable of receiving television signals, a coat hanger is capable of receiving television signals.

Our man in Havana

If you have no tv you don't need a licence. However if your girlfriend let the inspector in and he saw the old tv you will be liable and prosecuted. The question is did he see the tv?

dxhound2005

The TV never belonged to anyone in the household and you don't have it any more since the inspector called. Who had authority to get rid of it? If you contact An Post or have to go to court you might be asked who owned it and what happened to it.

If you are willing to let the inspector come back to check the premises again An Post might agree to this. Ring them to find out.

Whoever you and your housemates are paying rent to could pay for a TV licence, have you got an agreement with them about bills?

Farcear

Haddockman wrote: »

If you have no tv you don't need a licence.

Possibly the OP does.

I thought I read something a while back about computers coming within the definition to catch those who just use laptops instead of TVs.

DaSilva

Just an update, I had to buy a license today. Turns out if there was a TV in the house when the inspector is present, you have to buy a license, regardless if you get rid of it. Also, if you are renting a room in a house then if there is a TV in the house, basically whoever answers the door is liable (which is messed up), unless you are paying separate electricity bills/utilities.

This seems a bit messed up to me, I bought it to avoid my girlfriend having to go to court just when she started a new job, but I would liked to have challenged it if I could.

Putting the responsibility on anyone in the house is somewhat understandable in a owned / rented residence, however in a shared residence it's a little bit different and unfair, yes technically I could then bring the other tenants to court to force them to pay their share, but that's forcing me put the responsibility where it belongs, and letting An Post off the hook. It would be like if the Gardai could fine anyone in your family for you speeding, because then your family members could bring you to court to finally put the blame where it belongs.

Also requiring a license simply for possession is pretty messed up, I don't need a license to own a car, but to operate it.

This all stems from the fact that RTE needs financing, why not just finance them directly from tax revenue, and increase tax if needs be, this system is bizarre and doesn't even fairly distribute burden of financing to the users, I am financing RTE and I don't even own a fecking TV or radio.

mikemac

DaSilva wrote: »

Also, if you are renting a room in a house then if there is a TV in the house, basically whoever answers the door is liable (which is messed up), unless you are paying separate electricity bills/utilities.

Putting the responsibility on anyone in the house is somewhat understandable in a owned / rented residence, however in a shared residence it's a little bit different and unfair, yes technically I could then bring the other tenants to court to force them to pay their share, but that's forcing me put the responsibility where it belongs, and letting An Post off the hook. It would be like if the Gardai could fine anyone in your family for you speeding, because then your family members could bring you to court to finally put the blame where it belongs.

Where are you getting this from?
If all your housemates watch TV then they all pay a share of the license. You're making this out to be a lot more difficult then it is. Bringing housemates to court?

You can even give your landlords name to the inspector if you don't want to give your own. The tenants then pay the licence, equal share for all but it stays in your landlords name.
Sure all of you may be gone next year.

DaSilva wrote: »

Also requiring a license simply for possession is pretty messed up, I don't need a license to own a car, but to operate it.

I lived in a flat with no cable or satellite. I couldn't even get a signal with an aeriel. When you live beside Croke Park, you'd struggle to even get a mobile signal sometimes
So I used it for computer games only but I still got hit with a demand from the inspector.

In fairness though, if they allowed this sure everyone in the country could claim they owned a TV but never used it.

DaSilva

feelingstressed wrote: »

Where are you getting this from?
If all your housemates watch TV then they all pay a share of the license. You're making this out to be a lot more difficult then it is. Bringing housemates to court?

The bringing housemates to court stems from the fact that only my house mate has a tv in his room, I have no access to any TV yet my girlfriend is the one who would have had to appear in court. If my housemate refuses to pay all of it, or even his part of an equal share (which isn't fair on me) I would have to bring him to court. The post doesn't care who pays, they get one of you and force that one to pay, even if you aren't fundementally responsible for it, so we would have to properly force the resonsibility ourselves by bringing them to court. IF the law was more intelligent and went after the owner of the TV that would make more sense.

feelingstressed wrote: »

You can even give your landlords name to the inspector if you don't want to give your own. The tenants then pay the licence, equal share for all but it stays in your landlords name.
Sure all of you may be gone next year.

I didn't know this but it still has it share of problems, we pay for a license that we don't own now, the landlord keeps it for the premises even if we all move out.

feelingstressed wrote: »

I lived in a flat with no cable or satellite. I couldn't even get a signal with an aeriel. When you live beside Croke Park, you'd struggle to even get a mobile signal sometimes
So I used it for computer games only but I still got hit with a demand from the inspector.

Exactly and just because you don't mind that doesn't make it not rediculous.

feelingstressed wrote: »

In fairness though, if they allowed this sure everyone in the country could claim they owned a TV but never used it.

Yeah and see how well that works with the judge, "yes your honor, we have a 42" flat screen in the sitting room and three other portables around the house but we don't watch TV", yet that rule still allows for the legit cases, "Yes your honor there is one TV in the home but it is in my housemates room, we are not permitted to enter that persons room and so we have no access to the TV." or "Yes your honor there is a TV in the shed but it is broken, and has been broken for years.."

Shield

Law is very different in NI and the rest of the UK on this.

You can own a TV up here all you like, but you only need a licence if you use it to watch or record TV programs as they are being shown. On occasion, we go with the TV licence inspectors when they have secured a search warrant on a property. This ensures the person who answers the door understands they have to let the inspector in, and usually prevents anything from kicking off.

Surprisingly, on a few occasions, the inspector has found a TV, but no means of watching or recording TV programs as they're being shown - in other words, no Sky, Virgin Media, Freeview or Freesat set top box in sight. They were just hooked up to an xBox, Wii, PS3 or the like, but no possible means of watching or recording live TV in sight - and the inspector has to record that fact on his paperwork. In these cases, no grounds to prosecute are secured in such cases, so the matter goes no further.

You can hook your TV up to a PC or laptop and use 'Catch Up' services for free too, without the legal need for a licence. With bona fide concessions like that in the law, why would you even need a set top box in the first place?

ishtarcelt

Only if it's a TV enabled PC or laptop, with a TV card - I checked, because I have no TV.
I have no TV because I refuse to pay a licence, I don't want to be paying for RTE's terrible programming and Pat Kenny's Wages. I was never much of a TV watcher anyway, I hate ads.
So when the TV inspector called I was out, so they assumed I had a TV - the box for TV observed was ticked! I don't know how they observed a TV that wasn't there, so I sent the form back to them stating that I did not have a TV, or cable connection either. Tehy called again, when I was out, leaving the same kind of form, which I again sent back. tehn teh final notice arrived.
I was perfectly happy to let it go to court, I had my PC specs all printed up and I was prepared to have my house searched, but a nice lady called, asked me about my TV licence, and believed me when i told he I had none, and didn't want one. She asked about my PC, and I said 'it's not TV enabled, I'll get you the specs', and she said, 'no that wont be necessary' joted a few things down and left.
I haven't been bothered since!
I wonder what eh wrote down?
probably 'mad hippy lookin one'

ishtarcelt

Sorry had spell checked, but had to reload page and it reverted to an earlier version

Builderfromhell

Havn't had aTV in our home for over 2 years. when I visit my Mums house I can't believe the quality of programming they have on.
Watch stuff on internet and rugby in local pub.

Got form from an Post once asking me a few questions but there was no section where you could confirm you didn't have a TV.

I guess not having a TV makes you odd.

padma

No, t.v in the house for 8 or 9 years, was getting them nasty worded cards from the licence inspector for years too. Then one day got a letter from them saying that they observed an aerial and a t.v in the house and I would be receiving a summons soon. So I emailed them and told them I've no t.v and have no intention of ever having one and that I took umbrage at the tone of the letter they sent me stating it was proving me guilty of an offense I hadn't committed.

Long story short I got a massive apology from An Post, who informed me that these letters are just to help motivate those breaking the law to amend their wicked ways.

Mike 1972

I thought defamation/harrasment/demanding money with menaces was illegal in Ireland ?

padma wrote: »

Then one day got a letter from them saying that they observed an aerial and a t.v in the house and I would be receiving a summons soon. .....Long story short I got a massive apology from An Post, who informed me that these letters are just to help motivate those breaking the law to amend their wicked ways.

Dear Mr/Mrs Padma

Do you still beat your wife/husband ?

Kind Regards,
An Post :rolleyes:

DaSilva wrote: »

basically whoever answers the door is liable (which is messed up).

Unless theyre
1) Under 18
2) Smart enough not to give their name