TV Licence Thread Megamerge

dontKnow

What is the best thing to do about a tv licence summons?

The tv licence is all now in order and paid up, but was unlicenced previously.

dont appear and pay whatever fine seems best and easiest.

Or should one write apologetically to the court / sercetary in advance if not going to appear,advising licence is now paid ?

Or is it best appear in court and put up with the aggravation?

Jo King

If a person is summoned to court they should turn up! The District Court is entitled to convict a person in their absence and judges take it as an insult as well as being in disobedience of a court order if the accused is not present.This leads to higher penalties. The best thing to do is show up and explain that the licence is now paid and that it was all due to a terrible mix-up. If there has been a family tragedy it should be mentioned. Express great shame and embarassment and undertake that it will not happen again. Show evidence of previous good character such as working for charity. For a small fee a solicitor will do the job or will get a junior barrister to do it.

dats_right

I am a trainee solicitor and I get enquiries about this the whole time. Somepeople panic themselves silly over this, I blame those ridiculous tv licence adds on tv and radio. Trust me this really isn't a big deal at all. And I can assure you, from my personal experience, that the best thing to do is to telephone the relevant TV Licencing section of An Post and tell them that the licence is now up to date. They can verify this and then in all likelihood will say "thank you very much, there is no need to turn up in court we will get the matter struck out" (infact I have had about 6 enquiries in the last few months and all were successfully resolved this way).

If you foolishly choose not to do this, then you should turn up to court and usually the judge will ask those who have paid their licence fee to identify themselves thank them for showing up and strike-out the proceedings against them. Usually only those who have not purchased a licence or not bothered to show up will be fined. Indeed the worst thing you could do would be not to turn up.

Don't even consider getting a solicitor involved it would be a total waste of money. And while Jo King makes some very valid points in regard to district court appearances for slightly more serious issues, to be fair I don't think much of what JK says applies to TV Licence offences.

Jo King

It is always best to turn up. I have a number of exapmles of people being told by the guard not to turn up and then find they have been convicted in their absence. It may not be necessary to go over the top with a tear jerker in mitigation but it is as well to be prepared.

miltown

My recent experiance was that when is telephoned the TV Licencing section of An Post and told them that the licence is now up to date, they asked for 70 Euro to cover Legal expenses before they would stike the matter struck out. Maybe it is the recession.

nuac

Re request from An Post official to pay €70 legal expenses.

Only a court can order you to pay legal expenses - very much out of order for An Post to seek to impose costs. The official could indicate that the Judge in the area usually awards that much costs against defendants, but that is as far as (s)he could go.

Pay the licence and turn up in court. As already mentioned failing to turn up does not impress most judges. You don't have to make a big drama - previous good character etc etc do not come into it - you will be one of a longist list of cases.

Our man in Havana

When I worked in a similar job serving summonses we would often agree to drop a case provided the fee was paid plus a nominal cost for legal expenses as well. What an post is doing is typical of semi state and councils tbh.

goldenwonder

what if you either deny that you have a tv at all or just get rid of your tv altogether.
does it still have to be back paid?

i know of someone that doesnt have a tv in there place and the inspector still came to their house looking for a license.

tomo536

dontKnow wrote: »

What is the best thing to do about a tv licence summons?

The tv licence is all now in order and paid up, but was unlicenced previously.

dont appear and pay whatever fine seems best and easiest.

Or should one write apologetically to the court / sercetary in advance if not going to appear,advising licence is now paid ?

Or is it best appear in court and put up with the aggravation?

Turn up for court and give him sob story,in present climate im sure he will understand.The fact that you have paid it will be in your favour

lynchie

tomo536 wrote: »

Turn up for court and give him sob story,in present climate im sure he will understand.The fact that you have paid it will be in your favour

Considering the OP posted this 3 1/2 years ago, i'm sure they have gotten this sorted by now

goldenwonder

still relevent and interesting

123easy

What powers does the tv licence inspector have to enter your property?

What evidence is needed for someone to be summonsed for not having a tv license i.e. does the inspector have to enter your property and actually find a tv?

Our man in Havana

What powers does the tv licence inspector have to enter your property?

None. They can knock on your door but they cannot enter without being invited in or unless they have a search warrant and a member of the Gardaí present.

What evidence is needed for someone to be summonsed for not having a tv license i.e. does the inspector have to enter your property and actually find a tv?

Yes, or someone admits they have a TV.

PCPhoto

123easy wrote: »

What powers does the tv licence inspector have to enter your property?

none - unless invited in - its trespassing if they enter without consent.

123easy wrote: »

What evidence is needed for someone to be summonsed for not having a tv license i.e. does the inspector have to enter your property and actually find a tv?

Evidence required
- admission of no licence
- signs of signal receiver (ariel or satellite dish on the roof or out back...attached to the house)

The TV licence inspector cannot ask for a summons to be issued if they don't have the name of the person living at the home - I don't have a TV licence - one of the lads I live with has it in his name.

Personally I think its a disgrace that every home is charged a fee for a TV licence - some homes do not have the ability to receive Irish TV stations - one such example is my girlfriend - she has free to air TV - no irish TV stations a couple of english ones ...yet she pays a TV licence to pay for RTE !!

johnboysligo

PCPhoto wrote: »

Personally I think its a disgrace that every home is charged a fee for a TV licence - some homes do not have the ability to receive Irish TV stations - one such example is my girlfriend - she has free to air TV - no irish TV stations a couple of english ones ...yet she pays a TV licence to pay for RTE !!

The way the license works is that if she owns any device (satellite dish, RF tuner for a TV, VCR, PC, and of course a radio) that can be used to receive a broadcast regardless even if she can tune into an RTE broadcast than she is required to pay the fee.
The joke of it is that she doesn't need equipment that is currently able to receive a rte broadcast only that it is capable of receiving a broadcast from anyone.
I am not aware of any ways around this other than being legally blind or to remove every device that is capable of receiving a broadcast from anyone.

PCPhoto

johnboysligo wrote: »

The way the license works is that if she owns any device (satellite dish, RF tuner for a TV, VCR, PC, and of course a radio) that can be used to receive a broadcast regardless even if she can tune into an RTE broadcast than she is required to pay the fee.
The joke of it is that she doesn't need equipment that is currently able to receive a rte broadcast only that it is capable of receiving a broadcast from anyone.
I am not aware of any ways around this other than being legally blind or to remove every device that is capable of receiving a broadcast from anyone.

which is why they worded it that way !!!

lots of people are using their laptops to watch TV online these days - that is included in what the TV licence people consider "capable of receiving a signal" .... but its the hardest way for them to prove as there are no external signs of receiving antennae.

johnboysligo

PCPhoto wrote: »

which is why they worded it that way !!!

lots of people are using their laptops to watch TV online these days - that is included in what the TV licence people consider "capable of receiving a signal" .... but its the hardest way for them to prove as there are no external signs of receiving antennae.

What constitutes a device that the TV license covers has probably never been challenged. Just because I own a laptop or pc does not mean I am capable of receiving a broadcast or even using said computers to view anything online. I may not have an internet connection.

I really really doubt that a computer is deemed a device capable of receiving a broadcast.

wrote:

"Apparatus for wireless telegraphy", "wireless telegraphy" and "television set".

2.—(1) Section 2 of the Act of 1926 is hereby amended by—
[GA]

( a ) the substitution for the definition of "apparatus for wireless telegraphy" therein contained of the following:
[GA]

"'apparatus for wireless telegraphy' means apparatus capable of emitting and receiving, or emitting only or receiving only, over paths which are not provided by any material substance constructed or arranged for that purpose, electric, magnetic or electro-magnetic energy, of a frequency not exceeding 3 million megahertz, whether or not such energy serves the conveying (whether they are actually received or not) of communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals, or the actuation or control of machinery or apparatus, and includes any part of such apparatus, or any article capable of being used as part of such apparatus, and also includes any other apparatus which is associated with, or electrically coupled to, apparatus capable of so emitting such energy"; and
[GA]

( b ) the substitution for the definition of "wireless telegraphy" (as amended by section 18 of the Broadcasting Authority (Amendment) Act, 1976 ) therein contained of the following:
[GA]

"'wireless telegraphy' means the emitting and receiving, or emitting only or receiving only, over paths which are not provided by any material substance constructed or arranged for that purpose, of electric, magnetic or electro-magnetic energy of a frequency not exceeding 3 million megahertz, whether or not such energy serves the conveying (whether they are actually received or not) of communications, sounds, signs, visual images or signals, or the actuation or control of machinery or apparatus.".
[GA]

(2) Section 1 (1) of the Act of 1972 is hereby amended by the substitution of "capable" for "designed primarily for the purpose" in the definition of "television set" contained therein, and the said definition, as so amended, is set out in the Table to this section.


TABLE


"Television set" means any apparatus for wireless telegraphy capable of receiving and exhibiting television programmes broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith) and any assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1988/en/act/pub/0019/sec0002.html#zza19y1988s2

neris

My fiances brother had a call a few weeks ago from the tv licence inspector. There is no tv in the house but the inspector issued a fine of €160. He doesnt speak english so he didnt understand what the inspector was saying on the day and he couldnt explain that there was no tv. When the inital fine was issued I wrote a letter for him saying that no tv is in the house and the inspector hadnt been in the house soi he was automtically assuming the house had a tv. Now theyve written out saying their applying to court for a hearing and there is no mention of the letter we sent them. The letter issued looks like a standard letter that thier system just prints out. I sit worth going to court and fighting this if an post wont take note of any letters or phone calls we make in relation to this

Compudaro

This might help...

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=69130206

Hogzy

neris wrote: »

I sit worth going to court and fighting this if an post wont take note of any letters or phone calls we make in relation to this

If you dont actually have a TV in your house then yes it most certainly is worth going to court.
Stand up for yourself as nobody else will.

Reloc8

Be careful as to what constitutes a 'TV' for the purpose of requiring a licence...

si_guru

Reloc8 wrote: »

Be careful as to what constitutes a 'TV' for the purpose of requiring a licence...

True.. if he has broadband he has the possibility to watch TV... and his ISP will know everything he has looked at!

aidan_walsh

si_guru wrote: »

True.. if he has broadband he has the possibility to watch TV... and his ISP will know everything he has looked at!

This is becoming a common fallacy. You are only required to have a TV license for a computer if it contains the card or connections required to use a signal the same as a television does. Streaming services, downloads, etc don't require a license.

FreudianSlippers

I was wondering this myself recently. Theoretically if you had a UK satellite and couldn't get Irish networks would you still have to pay? Probably.

mikom

Reloc8 wrote: »

Be careful as to what constitutes a 'TV' for the purpose of requiring a licence...

si_guru wrote: »

True.. if he has broadband he has the possibility to watch TV... and his ISP will know everything he has looked at!

aidan_walsh wrote: »

This is becoming a common fallacy. You are only required to have a TV license for a computer if it contains the card or connections required to use a signal the same as a television does. Streaming services, downloads, etc don't require a license.

Please read this............ http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=69119736&postcount=69

PCPhoto

OisinT wrote: »

I was wondering this myself recently. Theoretically if you had a UK satellite and couldn't get Irish networks would you still have to pay? Probably.

my girlfriend has the same .... she has free to air ... which means she can NOT get RTE or any of the Irish Channels - but has a number of free stations (and no bills)

she HAS to have a TV Licence - unfortunately due to some bright spark the wording was changed a few years ago ....so its not actually a TV licence - but having the capability to receive a TV Signal (doesnt matter if its not an irish channel - just being able to receive a TV signal)

for me its a disgrace - but its another hidden tax.... pretty much every household is expected to pay for a TV licence (€160 a year)...no wonder RTE can pay so much in wages !!

GerardKeating

si_guru wrote: »

True.. if he has broadband he has the possibility to watch TV... and his ISP will know everything he has looked at!

Not correct, but if there is an aerial on the house, even if not connected to anything, they one has to pay.

Jay D

My understanding was if you had radio or indeed anything capable of picking up a signal, which the internet and computer definitely is, you still have to. Is this the case?

It pisses me off the bs letters they send out assuming you have a tv.

slimjimmc

aidan_walsh wrote: »

This is becoming a common fallacy. You are only required to have a TV license for a computer if it contains the card or connections required to use a signal the same as a television does. Streaming services, downloads, etc don't require a license.

Correct. See SI 319/2009.
Basically a device it is not exempt from a licence if it is capable of displaying a simultaneous or near simultaneous broadcast even over closed cabled/wireless/satellite networks but it is exempt if the signal is broadcast over the public internet.
So plugging a PC into a satellite receiver would require a licence but plugging it into the web won't.

and also portable TVs with a display area not more than 160 square centimetres are also exempt.

GerardKeating wrote: »

Not correct, but if there is an aerial on the house, even if not connected to anything, they one has to pay.

By definition (SI 5/72) a television set is one or more devices capable of receiving and displaying a broadcast. I know of no aerial that is capable of displaying an image without being connected to a tuner and display. An aerial on its own unconnected does not meet the definition of a TV set and therefore does not require a licence.

"television set" means any apparatus for wireless telegraphy designed primarily for the purpose of receiving and exhibiting television programmes broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction therewith) and any assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.

si_guru

GerardKeating wrote: »

Not correct, but if there is an aerial on the house, even if not connected to anything, they one has to pay.

Okay I will retract that... but then why is BBC iplayer blocked? I presumed it was that reason???

neris

GerardKeating wrote: »

Not correct, but if there is an aerial on the house, even if not connected to anything, they one has to pay.

So even if there is a dish on the chimney or back wall and no tv or satellite box they still have to have a licence? €160 for a bit of circular metal that does sweet shag all seems a bit of a scam. Then again this is Ireland and ripping off is what state quangos and monopolies

Our man in Havana

Those items do not meet the definition of a television.

aidan_walsh

si_guru wrote: »

Okay I will retract that... but then why is BBC iplayer blocked? I presumed it was that reason???

No, thats generally blocked because the BBC want to be able to sell shows outside of the UK, or may not have the entire rights to the show when they are created by third party production companies who may want to sell the show outside the UK.

neris

Update on this issue

we wrote a letter for fiances brother to an post saying


Further to your letter in relation to the above reference you state that “it is alleged that I was found in possession of unlicensed TV apparatus”.

On the day your representative called he did not have access to the house so they could not see that there is no TV in the house and there is still no TV or receivers in the house.

Please explain to me how having no TV or receivers in the house can result in a trip to court and a further waste of tax payers money on behalf of An Post.

I look forward to your prompt response


Next day liecnce inspector called out to the house and was taken inside shown every room in the house to prove theres no tv. Inspector aplogised for fine letter and said they wouldnt be proceeding with case and left

RangeR

The amount of dis-information and mis-information [and pure assumption as fact] in this thread is astounding

Our man in Havana

Explain?

RangeR

si_guru wrote: »

True.. if he has broadband he has the possibility to watch TV... and his ISP will know everything he has looked at!

OisinT wrote: »

I was wondering this myself recently. Theoretically if you had a UK satellite and couldn't get Irish networks would you still have to pay? Probably.

GerardKeating wrote: »

Not correct, but if there is an aerial on the house, even if not connected to anything, they one has to pay.

Jay D wrote: »

My understanding was if you had radio or indeed anything capable of picking up a signal, which the internet and computer definitely is, you still have to. Is this the case?

It pisses me off the bs letters they send out assuming you have a tv.

si_guru wrote: »

Okay I will retract that... but then why is BBC iplayer blocked? I presumed it was that reason???

neris wrote: »

So even if there is a dish on the chimney or back wall and no tv or satellite box they still have to have a licence? €160 for a bit of circular metal that does sweet shag all seems a bit of a scam. Then again this is Ireland and ripping off is what state quangos and monopolies

...

seamus

From what I recall, the general rule is that the device must be capable of capturing a signal from the air or from a cable network. Any device with a coax plug on the rear is such a device, regardless of whether or not you have an aerial attached to it.
An aerial in itself is not capable of capturing the signal.

The relevant interpretation is this:

“ 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;

So unless the device can be plugged into *something* to display a TV signal, you don't need a licence for it. Computers are exempt by the SI quoted above. Set-top boxes or DVRs on their own do not require a licence.

However, if you have a TV card in your computer, or you are using an LCD/Plasma TV screen with a tuner as your computer monitor, then you are required to have a TV licence.

Our man in Havana

An aerial in itself is not capable of capturing the signal.

Correct, but many people will have you believe that it by itself needs a licence.

Certain types of TV aerials have amateur radio applications and are used to transmit as well as receive a signal but those signals are not TV signals so a TV licence is not needed.

RangeR

Haddockman wrote: »

Correct, but many people will have you believe that it by itself needs a licence.

Certain types of TV aerials have amateur radio applications and are used to transmit as well as receive a signal but those signals are not TV signals so a TV licence is not needed.

An Ariel cannot capture a signal on it's own. It needs a tuner.

Our man in Havana

Agreed.

But people have said they have been convicted on the strength of a mere aerial on the side of a house. I call shenanigans on that.

RangeR

Haddockman wrote: »

Agreed.

But people have said they have been convicted on the strength of a mere aerial on the side of a house. I call shenanigans on that.

I agree

FreudianSlippers

RangeR wrote: »

...

In defence of my question, I was making a point on principle rather than a statement about TV licences.

The legislation is quite clear (as has been correctly identified a few times in this thread) that devices capable of receiving, decoding and displaying a TV signal are Televisions and require licences.

My question was (not really a question - more of a principle point as mentioned earlier): If our money is going to pay for Irish TV/Radio, what if my TV cannot receive Irish stations (eg. UK box)?
I suppose there are implications to some kind of free-to-air nature of Irish stations, but my point is still valid.

A television only used to display films still has to pay the fee.

Surely there is a better/fairer way to implement the tax. Perhaps everyone should be forced to pay it, seeing as it goes to radio funding as well.

redredlisa69

I have just recieved a summonds today for 23rd december and too be fair i think am a total moran for not sorting this out before hand but am unsure what to do back in june i did have a guy come to the house now i had just moved in with my sister who had no tv licence but i had started one at prev address so had changed to new address but not realised with move and everything the direct debit not come out so i did reset one up with guy the came out and what happens it bouces then reset up in sisters name and my bank and again bounces this time my sister forgot to put money in so now am pretty screwed am not good at talking to people and to be fair i know its my mistake my sister has since asked for a payment card and one been sent out i cant pay for a new full new tv licence because i dont get paid till the 22 nd december and summonds in 23rd and cant have 2 tv licences for same address !!!!

Aka Ishur

. <- That is what is called a full stop. Learn to use it.

FreudianSlippers

Aka Ishur wrote: »

. <- That is what is called a full stop. Learn to use it.

While I agree that the post is difficult to read, there's no need to be catty about it.

Reloc8

nuac wrote: »

Re request from An Post official to pay €70 legal expenses.

Only a court can order you to pay legal expenses - very much out of order for An Post to seek to impose costs. The official could indicate that the Judge in the area usually awards that much costs against defendants, but that is as far as (s)he could go.

Pay the licence and turn up in court. As already mentioned failing to turn up does not impress most judges. You don't have to make a big drama - previous good character etc etc do not come into it - you will be one of a longist list of cases.

No its not (out of order). It gives an opportunity to the Defendant to avoid the hassle of a court appearance and a far higher fine than 70 quid. I agree that only a judge can order costs but...

...fines on telly licenses vary according to individual judges and the reason why it was unpaid. I've seen fines of between 300 and 400 imposed on cases where the reason was 'I forgot' or 'I meant to do it but then I was really busy with work and I forgot.

I'd take the 70 quid to an post like a shot if I was given the option.

axer

Reloc8 wrote: »

No its not (out of order). It gives an opportunity to the Defendant to avoid the hassle of a court appearance and a far higher fine than 70 quid. I agree that only a judge can order costs but...

...fines on telly licenses vary according to individual judges and the reason why it was unpaid. I've seen fines of between 300 and 400 imposed on cases where the reason was 'I forgot' or 'I meant to do it but then I was really busy with work and I forgot.

I'd take the 70 quid to an post like a shot if I was given the option.

And what if the defendant says he/she does not have a TV? or would it only reach court if they have already admitted it?

Reloc8

Well if the defendant has already admitted it then they have a tv so the question wouldn't arise would it ?

Because nobody who has a tv would go to court and lie on oath to say they hadn't got one would they ?

Or if they admitted it but they don't actually have a tv then they're too stupid to have a tv or in fact go to court and should tell the judge that instead.

Mr. Presentable

Aka Ishur wrote: »

. <- That is what is called a full stop. Learn to use it.

Be nice.

She already said she's not good at talking to people

ebbsy

Fax the licence to the TV licence records for your area, asking them nicely to strike it out.

Worked for me.