Tv licence

dambarude

I realise that this issue has been done to death on threads in different forums on Boards, but I'd like a definite answer for my situation.

I bought a TV licence last year, which ran out this month, but after the summer I don't have any TV in the property (it's rented). I've got three warning letters from An Post regarding the licence. The apartment has aerial sockets in the walls, and I'm guessing some form of aerial that serves all the apartments in the block. I'm guessing I'm going to have a call from the licence inspector some time soon, so I'm wondering if having aerial sockets require you to have a tv licence? And also, if the inspector comes, should I just let him in and let him see that there is no TV? Will he actually believe that there is none, or will he have to look through every press in the apartment to see I'm not hiding one?!

Hearing about fines and court cases is frightening me a tad!

aidan_walsh

You need to have something capable of receiving a signal, so television, Sky box, computer with a TV tuner card, etc.

dambarude

Thanks for that.

When I rang the local TV licence number I was told that I'd shortly be sent out some type of statement that I can sign saying that I don't have a TV. Any info on that? Somehow I find it hard to believe that they'll just leave it at that and accept that I don't have a TV.

watty

They may actually do.

But if you have no TV, and nothing with a tuner (DVD recorder, USB stick on laptop (analog or digital), VHS etc) then there is nothing to worry about.

ILA

dambarude wrote: »

Thanks for that.

When I rang the local TV licence number I was told that I'd shortly be sent out some type of statement that I can sign saying that I don't have a TV. Any info on that? Somehow I find it hard to believe that they'll just leave it at that and accept that I don't have a TV.

Yes, you only have to sign a form, like the Commerical vehicle regulations. But they might send an inspector around to check, often randomly, and if you have a TV in the apartment without a license, after signing that document, you will fined and it will be an open and shut case for them if you try and take it to court.

Edit: by TV I mean any electronic item capable of and intentionally being used to receive a TV signal: TV, DVD recorder, USB stick on laptop, Sky Box, etc.

STB

dambarude wrote: »

Thanks for that.

When I rang the local TV licence number I was told that I'd shortly be sent out some type of statement that I can sign saying that I don't have a TV. Any info on that? Somehow I find it hard to believe that they'll just leave it at that and accept that I don't have a TV.

Yes this declaration came in under broadcasting act 2009. Onus on you.
Thats it.

Mike 1972

What is the legality regarding those aerial sockets though ?

Ive heard of people (in Ireland) being told they needed a licence even if there was no TV if the property had an aerial/dish/cable connections.

Ive always thought this was a load of codswallop because
1) Aerials can be for other things besides TV. Would your average "licence inspector" be able to differentiate an aerial for FM radio or a dish for satellite broadband from TV aerials/dishes ?
2) Under certain circumstances a coat hanger (or other metal/wire objects) can be used as a aerial but one never hears of people being chased for a licence for their wardrobe.
3) Aerials/dishes can be put there by previous tenants/owners, landlords or even the current occupant (before they decided they didnt want/need TV anymore) but In most cases they are effectively a "fixture/fitting" part of the fabric of the building. Therefore removal is not really a practicable option.

But people have claimed that a TV aerial is designed to be part of a system for receiving TV (cant remember exact legal terminology but something to that effect) and so fall under the legal definition of "Television set". On the other hand one could make the same argument for a standard 3 pin mains plug.

Now the OP can argue that the aerial sockets are part of the building from before they bought/rented the place but how is that any different from someone who buys/rents a single unit dwelling with an aerial/dish/cable connection

In fact a cable connection is more or less what the OP has (albeit a private internal one established by the apartment developer/management company)

So for once and for all can we establish what the law is in relation to aerials/dishes/cable connections/etc sans TV ?????

ILA wrote: »

Edit: by TV I mean any electronic item capable of and intentionally being used to receive a TV signal: TV, DVD recorder, USB stick on laptop, Sky Box, etc.

Is that the current legal definition ??? because if so the "intentionally being used" bit represents a move to a more UK style setup (where one can even have an actual TV set if only used for games/DVD's etc) ??????

watty

A receiving apparatus for Broadcast TV
Broadcast is Cable, Satellite, IPTV (i.e. DSL or fibre "copy" of Cable TV type service from Homevision, Magnet but not iPlayer, YouTube, RTEplayer or quality VOD service from UPC or Magnet), Terrestrial, MMDS.

Intention is irrelevant. It's Possession.

Aerial sockets, TV aerials, Dishes etc are not relevant. But are often regarded as evidence that there might be a TV, so you might have to allow search to prove no TV. A dish can be for VSAT (two way Internet). What looks like a TV aerial can be for any number of things or date from when there was a TV. MMDS style dish can be for WWLAN/FWALA data/internet service.


This has been done to death before. I'm not going to look for the links yet again.

Mike 1972

Current definition from Broadcasting Act 2009:

“ television set ” means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus;

Obviously a TV set (even if there is no aerial/cable/dish) is covered. Whether an aerial/dish (particularly where an LNB or "Booster" Preamplifier) is fitted still seems to be a bit of a grey area.

The "software" reference is another can of worms. A PC runing Ubuntu Linux and VLC media player could be covered even if there is no physical tuner device present ???

watty

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Current definition from Broadcasting Act 2009:


Obviously a TV set (even if there is no aerial/cable/dish) is covered. Whether an aerial/dish (particularly where an LNB or "Booster" Preamplifier) is fitted still seems to be a bit of a grey area.

The "software" reference is another can of worms. A PC runing Ubuntu Linux and VLC media player could be covered even if there is no physical tuner device present ???

That last bit is to cover Broadcast type IPTV like Magnet or Homevision on setbox or PC. No tuner. But those are "electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception"

"Web" TV is not true IPTV nor "television broadcasting services broadcast" as the frame rate isn't 25FPS, the quality is rubbish and it's rarely a minimum of 544 x576 pixels. Hence the fact they talked about exemption for Mobile Phones (thinking of Web TV, IPTW-TV, Media-Flo, 3G TV etc..) However you can get a mobile phone with DVB-T and HMDI port! That was not envisaged! I'd imagine if it is plugged into an HDMI monitor they will want to regard it as a TV.

However the Phone Exemption isn't law yet. Any portable TV (including a phone) is covered by your Home TV licence as long as it is battery operated. I.e. Not a 2nd TV at the Holiday Home or Student Flat which would need a TV licence of its own. Though students sharing a Kitchen only need one TV licence.

IMO the dish/aerial/LNB/Booster etc is irrelevant

Mike 1972

With Linux though a lot of drivers for common devices (including a lot of tuner cards/USB devices) comes bundled with it. So while the one mightnt have all the hardware for watching TV the "software" (as per the legislation) is already there.

watty wrote: »

"Web" TV is not true IPTV nor "television broadcasting services broadcast" as the frame rate isn't 25FPS, the quality is rubbish and it's rarely a minimum of 544 x576 pixelst

Yes but not for the reasons you state. One cannot get out of paying a TV licence for an actual TV set on account of the picture being (for whatever reason) "rubbish"

watty wrote: »

IMO the dish/aerial/LNB/Booster etc is irrelevant

Unfortunately it is relevant if thats what the law says (or appears to say) it is. How ridiculous you (or I) might consider it to be is whats irrelevant.

watty

No you're misreading it.

There is no issue with bundled TV software without a card. That's not what they are talking about. Nor Dishes/aerials.

“ television set ” means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus;

That's an all of a piece clause. "any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus" A program on its own is no issue.

watty

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Yes but not for the reasons you state. One cannot get out of paying a TV licence for an actual TV set on account of the picture being (for whatever reason) "rubbish"

I wasn't suggesting that, the act is about "Broadcast TV". Real IPTV (from your ISP direct like Magnet) is Broadcast TV and "WebTV" via public Internet isn't

Mike 1972

dambarude wrote: »

And also, if the inspector comes, should I just let him in and let him see that there is no TV? Will he actually believe that there is none, or will he have to look through every press in the apartment to see I'm not hiding one?!

You can let them in but (unless he is accompanied by a Uniformed police officer with a search warrant) you dont have to. You dont even have to speak to them, give your name or answer any of their questions.

The onus is on them to prove you dont have a TV. Given that youve no TV you may prefer to cooperate with them in order to clear the matter up as quickly as possible alternatively you may be offended at the intrusion (or have a dead body/stash of weapons/dozen cannabis plants in your spare room that you dont want them to see ) Its entirely your prerogative.

STB

Mike you make it sound like we are dealing with the gestapo.

That is not the spirit in which the TV licence is enforced. There will always people who refuse to pay their way

It has been done to death.

OP you are also getting wrong information here. The onus is ON YOU to declare you dont have a TV (the majority of people do - the and the reason for that part of legislation is to cut down deliberate or smart ass evasion). No one is out to get you, just fill in the form and forget about it. Its not personal.

dambarude

Thanks to everybody for the advice, I really wasn't expecting such a debate about my question when I started the thread.

It just shows how unclear certain things are regarding the licence. When I googled info on what I should do if I don't have a TV licence there was no official info (as far as I could see) to be found on any An Post page. Even the letters that they send out presume you have a TV, and at no point do they say what you should do if you don't have one. When I found out about the statement that I can sign the man in the TV licence office wouldn't even send me one out early. I could have let them know 2/3 weeks ago that I didn't have a TV rather than wait a month or more for them to send out the statement. In the mean time I could stop wondering if there's an inspector looking in the window trying to catch me watching bleedin Fair City!

Mike 1972

STB wrote: »

Mike you make it sound like we are dealing with the gestapo.

Nope I didnt. It would be positively Godwinesque hysteria to compare them with the Gestapo. Theyre only the Stasi

STB wrote: »

OP you are also getting wrong information here.

When and from whom ?

STB wrote: »

The onus is ON YOU to declare you dont have a TV

Only if and when one is served with a notice addressed to them (and not just "the occupier") requiring such a deceleration to be made.

STB wrote: »

No one is out to get you, just fill in the form and forget about it. Its not personal.

Like I said earlier

Mike 1972 wrote: »

The onus is on them to prove you dont have a TV. Given that youve no TV you may prefer to cooperate with them in order to clear the matter up as quickly as possible alternatively you may be offended at the intrusion (or have a dead body/stash of weapons/dozen cannabis plants in your spare room that you dont want them to see ) Its entirely your prerogative.

Refuse to speak with them and slam the door in their face or invite them in for a cup of tea. Its entirely up to you.

STB

Mike there is no messing with you is there ?

The Stasi wont demand entrance to your house. Whats all this stuff about search warrants. The OP already says he had a TV licence but no longer had a TV. Thats how he was contacted. Its a automated request to renew your licence which after eventual repeat letters (op received 3 warning letters) turns into a court summons for failure to pay a licence. I dread seeing the reminder letter myself!

The post office wont know the man doesnt have a TV anymore until he responds to their correspondence tells them he doesnt have a TV and fills in the declaration form.

And yeah it was you giving him the incorrect information. The onus is on him to fill in the form. It doesnt have to be a saga.

Mike 1972

STB wrote: »

The Stasi wont demand entrance to your house.

Er so you just tell (truthfully or otherwise) them youve no TV and they believe you and thats the end of the matter ??

STB wrote: »

Whats all this stuff about search warrants..

I merely stated that one doesnt have to let them in unless they have one . Whats the problem with that statement ? Is that not what a search warrant is for ?

STB wrote: »

And yeah it was you giving him the incorrect information. The onus is on him to fill in the form. It doesnt have to be a saga.

If you actually read my post youll see that I said they does have to fill in the form (I even pasted a link to the relevant legislation stating this) but only if and when they are actually issued with such a form addressed to them personally. You hardly expect them to fill out a form they havent been issued with.