False claim by TV licence inspector

kkelly77

Came home this afternoon to a notification in the letterbox. Apparently the TV licence inspector came and ticked the 'aerial/satellite dish/TV' seen on premises box on the notification.

I do not have an aerial or dish and all the curtains were closed as I had left the house quite early this morning, so how could he say he saw a TV? How can an inspector make a false claim like this?

Fey!

Was this in Galway by any chance?

We were getting some building work done last year when the TV license inspector called to the door. Mrs. Fey! let her in, and she agreed that there was no TV in the house. The entire downstairs of the house was a building site.

Her report went back that she had been refused access and had seen a TV through the window.

We subsequently got the usual threathening letter from the TV license people.

I rang them looking for the person whose signature was on the letter, but was put on to the person in charge of their Galway office. They passed it to Dublin, and I got a call from the person whose signature was on the letter I received.

He stated that they had never had a complaint about the particular inspector. I stated that she had been given access to the house, as witnessed by noth Mrs. Fey! and a couple of the builders.

Eventually he agreed to give me a 3 month lapse on the license, which was roughly the length of time the building work was going on.

Sorry for the long rant, but wrong reports by their inspectors really should be followed up.

kkelly77

Fey! wrote: »

Was this in Galway by any chance?

We were getting some building work done last year when the TV license inspector called to the door. Mrs. Fey! let her in, and she agreed that there was no TV in the house. The entire downstairs of the house was a building site.

Her report went back that she had been refused access and had seen a TV through the window.

We subsequently got the usual threathening letter from the TV license people.

I rang them looking for the person whose signature was on the letter, but was put on to the person in charge of their Galway office. They passed it to Dublin, and I got a call from the person whose signature was on the letter I received.

He stated that they had never had a complaint about the particular inspector. I stated that she had been given access to the house, as witnessed by noth Mrs. Fey! and a couple of the builders.

Eventually he agreed to give me a 3 month lapse on the license, which was roughly the length of time the building work was going on.

Sorry for the long rant, but wrong reports by their inspectors really should be followed up.

That's unbelievable!! To answer your question, no it was not in Galway.

MagicSean

Fey! wrote: »

Was this in Galway by any chance?

We were getting some building work done last year when the TV license inspector called to the door. Mrs. Fey! let her in, and she agreed that there was no TV in the house. The entire downstairs of the house was a building site.

Her report went back that she had been refused access and had seen a TV through the window.

We subsequently got the usual threathening letter from the TV license people.

I rang them looking for the person whose signature was on the letter, but was put on to the person in charge of their Galway office. They passed it to Dublin, and I got a call from the person whose signature was on the letter I received.

He stated that they had never had a complaint about the particular inspector. I stated that she had been given access to the house, as witnessed by noth Mrs. Fey! and a couple of the builders.

Eventually he agreed to give me a 3 month lapse on the license, which was roughly the length of time the building work was going on.

Sorry for the long rant, but wrong reports by their inspectors really should be followed up.

I would not be satisfied with that. That kind of abuse of power is ridiculous.

schemingbohemia

kkelly77 wrote: »

Came home this afternoon to a notification in the letterbox. Apparently the TV licence inspector came and ticked the 'aerial/satellite dish/TV' seen on premises box on the notification.

I do not have an aerial or dish and all the curtains were closed as I had left the house quite early this morning, so how could he say he saw a TV? How can an inspector make a false claim like this?

Do you have a TV?

Smcgie

schemingbohemia wrote: »

Do you have a TV?

Does it matter? The inspector is making up the story as they go along, this is constant in every county. No matter how many times it's brought to An posts attention it still carries on.

They need to understand that we are now in 2011 and that some apartments and houses simply don't have a TV instead of making up lies.

Ms Minnie Mouse

Well, it could be a relevant point...seeing as it's to do with a TV Licence, or lack thereof...

a) if there is a TV it should be licensed and
b) if there is NO TV then it is clear fabrication.

My (rented) house has 3 satellite dishes. None of them are connected (we're on cable). An assumption cannot be made that the presence of a dish is evidence of the proof of a television. Unless they KNOW there is a TV in the property then they have no case. Equally, a cable TV drop outside a property, even leading into an outlet box within, is not evidence of a television being present. Only the TV itself is evidence of unlicensed equipment.

BrianD

kkelly77 wrote: »

Came home this afternoon to a notification in the letterbox. Apparently the TV licence inspector came and ticked the 'aerial/satellite dish/TV' seen on premises box on the notification.

I do not have an aerial or dish and all the curtains were closed as I had left the house quite early this morning, so how could he say he saw a TV? How can an inspector make a false claim like this?

What difference does it make? He/she is allowed a genuine error. If you have a TV and a license it makes no odds. Perhaps there was a chink in your curtains.

Not exactly an abuse of power.

Ms Minnie Mouse wrote:

My (rented) house has 3 satellite dishes. None of them are connected (we're on cable). An assumption cannot be made that the presence of a dish is evidence of the proof of a television.

How can it not be a reasonable assumption???? It's a fair indicator. Plus you also have to look at the number of non-tv households in this country. Not that big.

Unless they KNOW there is a TV in the property then they have no case. Equally, a cable TV drop outside a property, even leading into an outlet box within, is not evidence of a television being present. Only the TV itself is evidence of unlicensed equipment.

They are called inspectors for a reason.

If you were in charge of enforcement what premises would you call on first and eliminate? The one with an aerial/sat dish or the one without?

Bottom line is that they can knock on your door at any reasonable time to ascertain if you have a TV license whether you have an aerial or not.

castie

Yes but they shouldnt be allowed to make assumptions and then harrass you.

Even if they did have a TV.
Without proof you cannot just go making it up no matter how likely it is.

Ms Minnie Mouse

Making an assumption is one thing. Issuing a fine based on an assumption is completely different. The legal system would collapse completely if legal decisions (civil or criminal) were based on assumptions.

Hence evidence.

Assuming only makes an ass out of...

BigCon

They've heard all the excuses.

syklops

I could be wrong, but I was under the impression that the form the inspector fills out has a box which he ticks which says "Evidence of TV present".

I do not have an aerial or dish and all the curtains were closed as I had left the house quite early this morning, so how could he say he saw a TV? How can an inspector make a false claim like this?

So I am assuming you have a TV then.

Does it matter? The inspector is making up the story as they go along, this is constant in every county. No matter how many times it's brought to An posts attention it still carries on.

They need to understand that we are now in 2011 and that some apartments and houses simply don't have a TV instead of making up lies.

They are not making up stories, they are ticking a box on a form stating they think their might be a TV on the premises. They don't need to give a reason why they think it, but I would imagine having all the curtains closed on a house would be one such suspicion.

My (rented) house has 3 satellite dishes. None of them are connected (we're on cable). An assumption cannot be made that the presence of a dish is evidence of the proof of a television. Unless they KNOW there is a TV in the property then they have no case. Equally, a cable TV drop outside a property, even leading into an outlet box within, is not evidence of a television being present. Only the TV itself is evidence of unlicensed equipment.

I am pretty sure the letter the OP got is not stating that they know there is a TV on the premises. Instead it is most likely the declaration form, where you have the opportunity to declare you have a TV and get a license without facing any fine. You can also declare you do not have a TV and they will leave you alone, but it is a legally binding document, so if you sign it when you do have a TV, it could land you in hot water.

Making an assumption is one thing. Issuing a fine based on an assumption is completely different

The OP didn't say they got a fine, they got a notification.

Peregrinus

He could have seen the TV on a previous occasion, and called back later to talk to you about whether you had a licence or had any thought of getting one, and only left his card, so to speak, on the second occasion. The fact that your curtains were closed on the morning he left his notice only means that he didn't see your TV on that occasion, not that he never saw your TV.

Do you have a TV? Do you have a licence? If the answers to these questions are "yes" and "no" respectively then there isn't much you can do. If you take this to court, and if it comes out in court that, yes, you have a TV, then the offence is established and you will be convicted.

Pay the fine and take out a licence.

If, on the other hand, you have no TV, then raise hell.

BrianD

castie wrote: »

Yes but they shouldnt be allowed to make assumptions and then harrass you.

Even if they did have a TV.
Without proof you cannot just go making it up no matter how likely it is.

But why not? There's no burden of proof required because all they are doing is inspecting. Everybody will accept that signs of evidence of something does not necessarily prove that something exists. They can call to your door and ask you anyway. How could it be construed as harassment?

You know, if we were looking at more serious matters and signs or evidence of something was ignored we'd be all up in arms.

source

Harassment is a word that get's thrown around a lot more often than is necessary, often used in the incorrect context as is the case here. So just to clear up what harassment is under Irish Law:

10.—(1) Any person who, without lawful authority or reasonable excuse, by any means including by use of the telephone, harasses another by persistently following, watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with him or her, shall be guilty of an offence.


(2) For the purposes of this section a person harasses another where—


(a) he or she, by his or her acts intentionally or recklessly, seriously interferes with the other's peace and privacy or causes alarm, distress or harm to the other, and


(b) his or her acts are such that a reasonable person would realise that the acts would seriously interfere with the other's peace and privacy or cause alarm, distress or harm to the other.


(3) Where a person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1), the court may, in addition to or as an alternative to any other penalty, order that the person shall not, for such period as the court may specify, communicate by any means with the other person or that the person shall not approach within such distance as the court shall specify of the place of residence or employment of the other person.


(4) A person who fails to comply with the terms of an order under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence.


(5) If on the evidence the court is not satisfied that the person should be convicted of an offence under subsection (1), the court may nevertheless make an order under subsection (3) upon an application to it in that behalf if, having regard to the evidence, the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice so to do.


(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—


(a) on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both, or


(b) on conviction on indictment to a fine or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 7 years or to both.

Note that for it to be harassment, it has to be a persistent case of watching, pestering, besetting or communicating with a person. TV licence inspectors who call around to a house doing their legally appointed duty are not harassing a person by doing their job.

phil1nj

BrianD wrote: »

But why not? There's no burden of proof required because all they are doing is inspecting. Everybody will accept that signs of evidence of something does not necessarily prove that something exists. They can call to your door and ask you anyway. How could it be construed as harassment?

QUOTE]

From my understanding, the inspector didn't call to the door and ask the occupant if they had a TV on the premises. They just left the note. Surely the job of the TV inspector would be to enure that all their information is correct before submitting their feedback to head office (including talking to the occupant, which to me is the most crucial piece of information they can acquire from their inspection visit).

Came across an interesting article from the Irish Times, dated 2007, it's great to see the current system has improved in that time;)

http://www.irishtimes.com/blogs/pricewatch/2007/07/09/an-inspector-calls/

schemingbohemia

I note that the OP has declined to answer whether or not they have a TV.

syklops

schemingbohemia wrote: »

I note that the OP has declined to answer whether or not they have a TV.

I do not have an aerial or dish and all the curtains were closed

mcmoustache

Whether or not the OP has a tv or not is irrelevant.

What's under discussion here seems to be the ease at which a TV License Inspector can accuse a person of having a TV. A friend of mine was issued a summons to appear in court one time despite not having a TV and even inviting the inspector to take a look which he declined. Fortunately, in court, my friend was able to produce copies of correspondance with UPC which showed that she requested a switch from a broadband+cable package to a broadband-only package as she had no TV. She had to take a day off work to go to court.

The problem here is that An Post are effectively engaging in a fishing expedition. They assume that everyone has a TV and there seems to be no consequence for wrongly bringing a person to court. It makes a mockery of the legal system.

On a side note, in court that day, one man was asked why he had no tv license and he simply stated that he had no tv. The judge didn't demand any evidence and just took him at his word. I have a feeling that judges are aware that inspectors get it wrong all the time.

syklops

An Post dont take people to court willy nilly. Its usually followed after numerous requests for the person to declare whether or not they have a TV license. If you continue to ignore these requests then you get a summons.

swordofislam

If you've no TV just tell them. They pop in look around and put you on the No TV list. Simples.

phil1nj

syklops wrote: »

An Post dont take people to court willy nilly. Its usually followed after numerous requests for the person to declare whether or not they have a TV license. If you continue to ignore these requests then you get a summons.

I think you are confusing two different things here. The OP has said that they received a letter from An Post stating that the inspector had seen a TV set on the premises (since there was no antenna or satellite dish visible on the house, the TV had to be the reason for the note). Other posters have detailed stories of inspectors visiting houses and actually seeing first hand that no TV was on the premises and yet they still received threatening letters.

I've seen no mention yet of anyone receiving a letter from An Post asking them to declare whether or not they actaully have a TV on the premises(because, now correct me if I'm wrong, this is supposed to be job of the current licence inspectors). Instead all I've seen is evidence of An Post sending letters to people telling them to get a licence or face prosecution (whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty btw?)

But seeing as the inspectors don't appear to be doing their job correctly, perhaps the route they should take in future; Send a few letters to any questionable addresses on their "up to date" database of unlicensed dwellings (with a prepaid return evelope included). Get the tenants/owners/occupiers to send these back within a reasonable time frame. If no reply is received then let them start to send out threatening letters promising fire and brimstone and the full wrath of the court system. At least this way, they can take the moral high ground and not look like a bunch morons who ignore facts or fill in blanks to suit themselves.

Ms Minnie Mouse

Syklops - thank you for explaining that to me. As I have a television licence I wouldn't be overly familiar with the 'paperwork' dropped through the door. I had misinterpreted the OP's comments.

If the TV Licence Inspector was incorrect and I did not in fact have an unlicensed television on my premises, I would have no hesitation in correcting him.

Finnbar01

swordofislam wrote: »

If you've no TV just tell them. They pop in look around and put you on the No TV list. Simples.

And what if you refuse to allow them to pop in and look around?

Ms Minnie Mouse

From what I understand they mark you down as 'refused entry'. I suppose their stance on it is - if you're harbouring certified bubonic plague then that's a valid reason to refuse entry - otherwise, you might have something to hide...

...I mean, come on, someone has to fund the Toy Show tomorrow night!

Finnbar01

Ms Minnie Mouse wrote: »

From what I understand they mark you down as 'refused entry'. I suppose their stance on it is - if you're harbouring certified bubonic plague then that's a valid reason to refuse entry - otherwise, you might have something to hide...

You have a right to you privacy.

...I mean, come on, someone has to fund the Toy Show tomorrow night!

They get plenty of money from the taxpayer as it is already.

Ms Minnie Mouse

Finnbar01 wrote: »

You have a right to you privacy.



They get plenty of money from the taxpayer as it is already.

You are of course entitled to privacy. There is no question of that. I believe though that their view may be that you are also being given an opportunity to prove them wrong - so why wouldn't you avail of that opportunity if, indeed, they are? Note - their view, not mine.

As for the Toy Show - I was being a little tongue-in-cheek. I apologise. I don't enjoy paying for my TV licence any more than the next person.

BrianD

Finnbar01 wrote: »

You have a right to you privacy.

Yes, you do within the laws of the society that we live in.

They get plenty of money from the taxpayer as it is already.

They get no money from the taxpayer. It comes from the licence payer and hence the need for inspectors.

I would suspect that those who are complaining the loudest on this board, down the pub and in the work place are those with a TV and no licence.

Finnbar01

BrianD wrote: »

Yes, you do within the laws of the society that we live in.

Yes I agree, as enshrined in our constitution. I hardly think though, that an inspector has a right to access your property to see if you have a TV or not.

They get no money from the taxpayer. It comes from the licence payer and hence the need for inspectors.

Tax payer, license payer no difference.

I would suspect that those who are complaining the loudest on this board, down the pub and in the work place are those with a TV and no licence.

I have a TV and a license.

Finnbar01

Ms Minnie Mouse wrote: »

You are of course entitled to privacy. There is no question of that. I believe though that their view may be that you are also being given an opportunity to prove them wrong - so why wouldn't you avail of that opportunity if, indeed, they are? Note - their view, not mine.

Well it's up to them to prove it, since they're the one make the allegations.

As for the Toy Show - I was being a little tongue-in-cheek. I apologise. I don't enjoy paying for my TV licence any more than the next person.

I know you were, I should have used a smilie in my last post.

BrianD

Finnbar01 wrote: »

Yes I agree, as enshrined in our constitution. I hardly think though, that an inspector has a right to access your property to see if you have a TV or not.

Accordingly to the law, he or she can.

Tax payer, license payer no difference.

Wrong. Could not be more different.

I have a TV and a license.

Well you're on the pigs back!

Finnbar01

BrianD wrote: »

Accordingly to the law, he or she can.

What law would allow them to gain entry?

BrianD

Finnbar01 wrote: »

What law would allow them to gain entry?

Section 146 (3) of the Broadcasting Act 2009.

"(3) An officer of an issuing agent may enter at any reasonable time any premises or specified place for the purposes of ascertaining whether there is a television set there and a television licence is for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place authorising the keeping of a television set at the premises or specified place."

and when they are in ...

"(4) An officer of an issuing agent may request any person on the premises or at the place where he or she finds a television set or evidence of such to produce the television licence for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place for inspection by the officer."

Also note section 149 ...

149.— (1) An officer of the issuing agent may, if and whenever he or she thinks proper so to do, send by post or deliver personally a notification in writing (“ reminder notification ”) to any person whom he or she believes to keep or be in possession of a television set at a premises or specified place other than in accordance with a television licence pointing out the requirements of section 142 .

(2) Where an officer of an issuing agent has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is committing or has committed an offence under section 148 he or she may, subject to subsection (4), serve the person personally or by post with a notice (“ fixed payment notice ”) in the prescribed form, stating that—

So all an inspector has to do is reasonably believe that there is a TV on the premises and pop a notification through the letterbox. A tv aerial or sat dish would lead somebody to conclude that there either is or was a TV on the premises. It's not harassment, it's not false claims or allegations nor are you being tried without evidence.

castie

BrianD wrote: »

Section 146 (3) of the Broadcasting Act 2009.

"(3) An officer of an issuing agent may enter at any reasonable time any premises or specified place for the purposes of ascertaining whether there is a television set there and a television licence is for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place authorising the keeping of a television set at the premises or specified place."

and when they are in ...

"(4) An officer of an issuing agent may request any person on the premises or at the place where he or she finds a television set or evidence of such to produce the television licence for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place for inspection by the officer."

Also note section 149 ...

149.— (1) An officer of the issuing agent may, if and whenever he or she thinks proper so to do, send by post or deliver personally a notification in writing (“ reminder notification ”) to any person whom he or she believes to keep or be in possession of a television set at a premises or specified place other than in accordance with a television licence pointing out the requirements of section 142 .

(2) Where an officer of an issuing agent has reasonable grounds for believing that a person is committing or has committed an offence under section 148 he or she may, subject to subsection (4), serve the person personally or by post with a notice (“ fixed payment notice ”) in the prescribed form, stating that—

So all an inspector has to do is reasonably believe that there is a TV on the premises and pop a notification through the letterbox. A tv aerial or sat dish would lead somebody to conclude that there either is or was a TV on the premises. It's not harassment, it's not false claims or allegations nor are you being tried without evidence.

People are just annoyed that these guys can assume you have a tv and then badger you and possibly bring you to court unless you invite them in and do a little dance.

Discodog

If a TV license inspector gives evidence in Court that you have or had a TV when he called & you didn't, he has committed a serious offence. An aerial or dish is not proof even if it may provide grounds for suspicion.

If you invite an inspector in to verify that you do not have a television then film or record the conversation. Ideally you should ask him to sign something to confirm that he is satisfied that you do not have a TV.

I know of someone where the inspector claimed in Court that he had seen a TV through the window when he definitely didn't - the house is split level & the TV was upstairs & totally out of view.

I also know of a case where an inspector insisted that the person had a TV - it was a 24 inch computer monitor.

syklops

Its amazing this thread is continuing with such passion.

Oh and:

I know of someone where the inspector claimed in Court that he had seen a TV through the window when he definitely didn't - the house is split level & the TV was upstairs & totally out of view.

I hope your friend pleaded guilty of not having a license. Other wise he also committed an offence.

I think you are confusing two different things here. The OP has said that they received a letter from An Post stating that the inspector had seen a TV set on the premises (since there was no antenna or satellite dish visible on the house, the TV had to be the reason for the note). Other posters have detailed stories of inspectors visiting houses and actually seeing first hand that no TV was on the premises and yet they still received threatening letters.

No, the OP said they received a notification in their letterbox, and 'apparently' the inspector had ticked the 'evidence of Television' box. The OP then said the inspector could not have seen a TV because the curtains were closed - not that the inspector could not have seen a TV because he/she did not have one - which would suggest to me that the OP has a TV. It is therefore plausible that the inspector did see evidence of a television.

Thats very different from what you describe.

That sounds like the notification they put in your letterbox to say they were around but did not see you. If you do not have a TV you can return the form to them declaring you do not have a television set. If you do that then they leave you alone. However, and I stress this, if you do that, and you do have a television set then you are committing an offence.

Ayla

As someone who does not have a tv, nor any capability or desire for cable/satellite, what worries me about this situation is the debate that came out awhile ago about whether or not to include any device that could access the internet, as it could potentially access RTE and the likes. This would mean that anyone with a computer or mobile phone could come under the same scrutiny that tv-owning (or non-owning) homeowners currently do.

Discodog

Ayla wrote: »

As someone who does not have a tv, nor any capability or desire for cable/satellite, what worries me about this situation is the debate that came out awhile ago about whether or not to include any device that could access the internet, as it could potentially access RTE and the likes. This would mean that anyone with a computer or mobile phone could come under the same scrutiny that tv-owning (or non-owning) homeowners currently do.

This is why the TV license will be replaced with a "Media Tax" that everyone will have to pay.

Ayla

Any indication of when that will happen?

phil1nj

syklops wrote: »

No, the OP said they received a notification in their letterbox, and 'apparently' the inspector had ticked the 'evidence of Television' box. The OP then said the inspector could not have seen a TV because the curtains were closed - not that the inspector could not have seen a TV because he/she did not have one - which would suggest to me that the OP has a TV. It is therefore plausible that the inspector did see evidence of a television.

Thats very different from what you describe.

Look at the language you are using in your above post - "apparently", "suggest to me" and "plausible". All speculative terms. The OP claimed that the curtains were closed and there was no antenna or dish on the side of the house, therefore the inspector could not have seen a TV during that particular visit. Whether or not the OP has a TV set is irrelevant and is a separate point from the one I was making. The point I was trying to make (and what I thought was the point of this thread) is that the licence inspector made a false claim at the time of that particular visit.

You can put forward all the assumptions that you want but it sounds like this inspector did not do his or her job correctly. Reading some of the other accounts on this and other threads, it sounds like they have form for this.

I'd also like to know why you think the burden of proof should be on the occupier to let An Post know whether or not they have a valid licence (i.e. the occupier should inform An Post that the do/do not have a TV set)? I still maintain that this is the job of the inspectors. If they can not do it effectively and honestly then that is their problem and they should be challenged on it at every oppurtunity.

Stark

Happened to a friend of mine a few years back as well. TV license inspector just put down that he'd seen the TV through the window even though the guy had just moved into the flat at the time and didn't have a TV. Guy just had to pay the fine, he wasn't going to win in a "his word vs my word" case.

Discodog

Ayla wrote: »

Any indication of when that will happen?

No but it was being discussed a while ago.


This is the relevant phrase from the FG Manifesto:

We will change the TV Licence into a household-based Public Broadcasting Charge applied to all households and applicable businesses regardless of the device they use to access content. We will look a new ways of collection including the possibility of paying in instalments through another utility bill (electricity or telecom), collection by local authorities, the Revenue or a new contract with An Post. This will reduce the cost of collection and widespread evasion and could yield a further €20m per annum.


http://politico.ie/component/content/article/7557.html

Ayla

Thanks Discodog - that's what I'd read as well, wasn't sure if a timeline had been rolled out since I heard of it.

syklops

This will be my final post on the subject.

Look at the language you are using in your above post - "apparently", "suggest to me" and "plausible". All speculative terms.

The OP used the word apparently. I was quoting her. You are right. It is speculative.

Came home this afternoon to a notification in the letterbox. Apparently the TV licence inspector came and ticked the 'aerial/satellite dish/TV' seen on premises box on the notification.

Truth is the OP does not know, however, he/she then started a two sentence thread entitled "False claim by TV inspector", which is very light on hard facts, such as exactly what the notification said. The notification he/she received has been re-quoted a number of times as being a threatening letter.

If you dont like speculation, then either the OP should clarify exactly what her notification says or the thread should be locked.

phil1nj

syklops wrote: »

This will be my final post on the subject.

Before you head off, why didn't you answer my question about why you continually seem to think that the burden of proof should be on the occupier and not An Post when determining whether or not a TV set is being used on the premises?

Discodog

Stark wrote: »

Happened to a friend of mine a few years back as well. TV license inspector just put down that he'd seen the TV through the window even though the guy had just moved into the flat at the time and didn't have a TV. Guy just had to pay the fine, he wasn't going to win in a "his word vs my word" case.

I would suggest that if you came home & found evidence that a license inspector had called, it might be an idea to get a friend or neighbour to verify that you could not see a TV from the outside. But the inspector could still claim that you moved it. If the inspectors are "performance" assessed then it could be in the interests of an inspector to lie.

A friend in the UK built one of those cabinets where the TV disappears at the push of a button & he ran all the cabling under the floorboards. The inspector was adamant that he had a TV so my friend invited him in. Apparently it was hilarious as the inspector knew that there was a TV somewhere but couldn't find it.

BrianD

castie wrote: »

People are just annoyed that these guys can assume you have a tv and then badger you and possibly bring you to court unless you invite them in and do a little dance.

We're in the 21st century. A household without a TV would be unusual. There's no dancing involved though.

discodog wrote:

If a TV license inspector gives evidence in Court that you have or had a TV when he called & you didn't, he has committed a serious offence. An aerial or dish is not proof even if it may provide grounds for suspicion.

An inspector is never going to risk that.

If you invite an inspector in to verify that you do not have a television then film or record the conversation. Ideally you should ask him to sign something to confirm that he is satisfied that you do not have a TV.

So far as I understand, the inspector will never sign anything nor does he/she have to prove anything at that point. You'll have to sign the declaration that you do or don't have a set. The inspector just inspects.

I know of someone where the inspector claimed in Court that he had seen a TV through the window when he definitely didn't - the house is split level & the TV was upstairs & totally out of view.

Eh, there are plenty of homes where the TV is out of sight and you can still tell there's one. That's no brainer. The light created by a TV in operation can be seen even if the TV is not. Like the sat dish or aerial, this is evidence of the possible presence of a TV.

I also know of a case where an inspector insisted that the person had a TV - it was a 24 inch computer monitor.

Errors can be made.

phil1nj wrote:

Before you head off, why didn't you answer my question about why you continually seem to think that the burden of proof should be on the occupier and not An Post when determining whether or not a TV set is being used on the premises?

Under the Act the "burden of proof" is effectively on the occupier who has to make a legal declaration as to whether they have a set or not. The proof is only required for a prosecution if it arises.

BrianD

castie wrote: »

People are just annoyed that these guys can assume you have a tv and then badger you and possibly bring you to court unless you invite them in and do a little dance.

We're in the 21st century. A household without a TV would be unusual. There's no dancing involved though.

discodog wrote:

If a TV license inspector gives evidence in Court that you have or had a TV when he called & you didn't, he has committed a serious offence. An aerial or dish is not proof even if it may provide grounds for suspicion.

An inspector is never going to risk that.

If you invite an inspector in to verify that you do not have a television then film or record the conversation. Ideally you should ask him to sign something to confirm that he is satisfied that you do not have a TV.

So far as I understand, the inspector will never sign anything nor does he/she have to prove anything at that point. You'll have to sign the declaration that you do or don't have a set. The inspector just inspects.

I know of someone where the inspector claimed in Court that he had seen a TV through the window when he definitely didn't - the house is split level & the TV was upstairs & totally out of view.

Eh, there are plenty of homes where the TV is out of sight and you can still tell there's one. That's no brainer. The light created by a TV in operation can be seen even if the TV is not. Like the sat dish or aerial, this is evidence of the possible presence of a TV.

I also know of a case where an inspector insisted that the person had a TV - it was a 24 inch computer monitor.

Errors can be made.

phil1nj wrote:

Before you head off, why didn't you answer my question about why you continually seem to think that the burden of proof should be on the occupier and not An Post when determining whether or not a TV set is being used on the premises?

Under the Act the "burden of proof" is effectively on the occupier who has to make a legal declaration as to whether they have a set or not. The proof is only required for a prosecution if it arises.

Even if an inspector makes a false claim the immediate effect is for you to make a declaration and not a prosecution. Also An Post will know what addresses have a licence so, in theory, would only be checking on addresses without one (for whatever reason).

phil1nj

BrianD wrote: »

Under the Act the "burden of proof" is effectively on the occupier who has to make a legal declaration as to whether they have a set or not. The proof is only required for a prosecution if it arises.

Even if an inspector makes a false claim the immediate effect is for you to make a declaration and not a prosecution. Also An Post will know what addresses have a licence so, in theory, would only be checking on addresses without one (for whatever reason).

Then by that logic, the inspector's primary role could be viewed as being redundant because all the inspector would have to do is claim that every house they visited had evidence of a TV set (they wouldn't even have to physically visit the household).

This smacks of "guilty until proven innocent" and could easily be avoided if the inspector tried to do their job properly (i.e. establish first hand if a TV set is in use on the premises by speaking with and/or inspecting the premises in the correct way)

Discodog

BrianD wrote: »

An inspector is never going to risk that.

Of course he would because there is no risk. He can just maintain that he saw a TV.

BrianD wrote: »

So far as I understand, the inspector will never sign anything nor does he/she have to prove anything at that point. You'll have to sign the declaration that you do or don't have a set. The inspector just inspects.

So it is in your own interest to record/video the conversation so that you have proof.

BrianD wrote: »

Eh, there are plenty of homes where the TV is out of sight and you can still tell there's one. That's no brainer. The light created by a TV in operation can be seen even if the TV is not. Like the sat dish or aerial, this is evidence of the possible presence of a TV.

You can buy a security light that mimics a television.

This must be why some people have their aerial in the loft

BrianD wrote: »

Errors can be made.

And they can be very difficult to get corrected if the inspector insists that you have a TV. How can you prove that you don't have something - apart from an illness ?

The simple answer to a lot of these problems like unwelcome callers is either automatic gates (expensive) or a simple PIR alarm to alert you if someone enters your property (cheap).

At the end of the day far less people would avoid the license if they thought that it was fair. Just as we can buy various Sat & Cable receivers you should be able to buy a unit that cannot receive RTE & then be excused the license fee.

Ayla

Discodog wrote: »

At the end of the day far less people would avoid the license if they thought that it was fair. Just as we can buy various Sat & Cable receivers you should be able to buy a unit that cannot receive RTE & then be excused the license fee.

This!

Just as we can reduce our motor tax by buying a more efficient car, we should be able to control the amount of media/tv tax we pay by how we access the network. If we don't want RTE, we shouldn't have to pay for it.