TV Licence {MEGAMERGE}

BrianD

Tomk1 wrote: »

You have to qualify for a driving licence, which legally allows you to drive a car, it is a proof of ID and doesn't cost €160X10 yrs. Also by this logic the Car-tax should actually be called a Car-licence.

A Passport again is proof of ID for 10? yrs, just because you exist doesn't mean you need a passport.

A TV licence is a yearly tax for ownership of a TV, not reception of Irish broadcasts (opps rte broadcasts). Btw many many years ago there was a tax for having windows..daylight robbery, this is just a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum.

Next I suppose tobe fair it should be; the bigger the TV the bigger the fee, Why should someone with a 19" screen pay the same for someone with a 52" screen?

It's not a tax, it's a licence and it's how this country has decided is the best way to fund our public broadcasting service. It's a common approach used in other countries.

Check revenue.ie and it's not listed as a tax. In fact there are good reasons why it's not a tax and part of the Revenue system.

Furthermore, not all taxpayers have to pay a licence and not all licence holders are taxpayers.

Next you'll be calling it a stealth tax ...

Ronnie Beck

Hi folks,

The TV licences inspector keeps calling around and putting letters through the door about a TV licence. I told her clearly I don't have a TV, which I don't. The letters stopped for about three months but I got another one today. How can I put a stop to this. It says on the letter 'aerial/set observed' which is obviously not true and that they will call back in 5 days. Were taking about ten letters in the last two years.

Our man in Havana

They can do nothing. I would just ignore them.

Indricotherium

Harassment maybe?

Ronnie Beck

Indricotherium wrote: »

Harassment maybe?

That's what I thought. Not sure if that's overstating it a bit. It's the girlfriend who has to deal with them calling around as she only works part-time. She finds it quite stressful. She thinks were going to get a court summons unless we do something about it.

I was thinking a strongly worded letter would be a good plan. Don't want to end up in court in a his word against mine situation.

I should mention that the previous tenant owned a TV but he has gone back to Poland. The letters were originally in his name so we didn't pay any heed. I've given them my name since and told them I had no tv. It was a simple card that came through the door today but the more threatening letters will probably start again soon in my name.

areyawell

If they even see ya with a laptop u have to pay i'm pretty sure

Our man in Havana

areyawell wrote: »

If they even see ya with a laptop u have to pay i'm pretty sure

Nope.

ScouseMouse

As a genuine suggestion, could you try something like this.

If they are bothering you, surely it would be legal?

Link to youtube, hope its ok with mods....

él statutorio

I've often wondered how they get address details.

I got a number of warnings in the letterbox in my last gaff, all addressed to the householder/occupier. I ignored the lot of them. Anyway, the week after I moved out I got one addressed to directly to me.

I'd love to know how they got my name, the only other stuff addressed to me there were bank statement / utility bills which I'd assume would be covered under data protection laws? When I moved I used the mail forwarding service from an Post. I'm wondering if they got my name from that?

Still nothing addressed to me at my new address and I'll continue to ignore until that happens.

ScouseMouse

él statutorio wrote: »

I've often wondered how they get address details.

I got a number of warnings in the letterbox in my last gaff, all addressed to the householder/occupier. I ignored the lot of them. Anyway, the week after I moved out I got one addressed to directly to me.

I'd love to know how they got my name, the only other stuff addressed to me there were bank statement / utility bills which I'd assume would be covered under data protection laws? When I moved I used the mail forwarding service from an Post. I'm wondering if they got my name from that?

Still nothing addressed to me at my new address and I'll continue to ignore until that happens.

As its the post office who administer the inspectors, can they not just look at the name on the post going to your address?

Our man in Havana

It is the postman.

They are given a task once a year to compile a list of names and addresses on his route.
This is how they get you. You get letters so you must have a tv and are therefore guilty.

él statutorio

I can't help but wonder if there are data protection issues with that approach. Is the information owned by me or the post office, and if it's the post office are they allowed share that info with the licensing dept?

Ronnie Beck

superscouse wrote: »

As a genuine suggestion, could you try something like this.

If they are bothering you, surely it would be legal?

Link to youtube, hope its ok with mods....

The inspector never asked me if I had one or not. It was more along the lines of our records show bla bla bla so pay up. I told her I didn't have one. Her very words were "OK, you win" and off she went with her clipboard. It seems not. They're back on it again.

coylemj

OP, I've just checked your house on Google Streetview, are you sure you don't have a TV?

Peregrinus

él statutorio wrote: »

I can't help but wonder if there are data protection issues with that approach. Is the information owned by me or the post office, and if it's the post office are they allowed share that info with the licensing dept?

Why would there be data protection issues? The question of who lives in a house is a matter of common observation; it's generally very easy to find out without going to any great difficulty, or doing anything illegal.

They're the post office. They know where you live. This is not a statement which needs to be accompanied by sinister music.

phatdolfin

Pls don't ignore TV Licence warnings!!!
I told them repeatidelty that I DO NOT HAVE A TV and I'm up in court next week in Galway for not paying the TV Licence. I REALLY DO NOT HAVE A TV. They will not listen. I went to a solicitor and he told me I have 50:50 chance in court. Any advise would be greatly appreciated PLEASE

Procrastastudy

phatdolfin wrote: »

Pls don't ignore TV Licence warnings!!!
I told them repeatidelty that I DO NOT HAVE A TV and I'm up in court next week in Galway for not paying the TV Licence. I REALLY DO NOT HAVE A TV. They will not listen. I went to a solicitor and he told me I have 50:50 chance in court. Any advise would be greatly appreciated PLEASE

Invite the Judge round for coffee at your place.

28064212

phatdolfin wrote: »

Pls don't ignore TV Licence warnings!!!
I told them repeatidelty that I DO NOT HAVE A TV and I'm up in court next week in Galway for not paying the TV Licence. I REALLY DO NOT HAVE A TV. They will not listen. I went to a solicitor and he told me I have 50:50 chance in court. Any advise would be greatly appreciated PLEASE

Get a better solicitor. If they go to court and their evidence consists of "Sure everyone has a TV", the judge will laugh in their face.

Skinnykenyan

Tv licence covers a houses capability to receive a signal so if theirs an ariel on your house or if upc is piped in or a sky dish is visible you must have a tv licence

Procrastastudy

Skinnykenyan wrote: »

Tv licence covers a houses capability to receive a signal so if theirs an ariel on your house or if upc is piped in or a sky dish is visible you must have a tv licence

I'm not disputing this but could you link the legislation please? I know there was some discussion re - presumption in these cases - from what I rememeber the legislation looked pretty suspect.

28064212

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm not disputing this but could you link the legislation please? I know there was some discussion re - presumption in these cases - from what I rememeber the legislation looked pretty suspect.

Legislation: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0018/print.html#sec140

Most relevantly:
142.— (1) ...a person shall not keep or have in his or her possession anywhere in the territory of the State a television set save in so far as such keeping or possession is authorised by a television licence for the time being in force.

where "television set" is defined as "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"

An aerial is definitely not capable of "exhibiting television broadcasting services", so it does not need a licence

Procrastastudy

I'm waiting to see if a TV capable of receiving the old signal, but since switch over no longer can, is covered. I'm sure it probably is. I have an oldish Plasma hooked up to a HTPC for Netflix - I have to admit when I told the inceptor I just had a 'monitor' hooked up to 'Netflix box' he seemed more than happy and I stopped getting letters. Perhaps a summons is winging its way...

To be fair to the TV Licence guy he couldn't have been nicer.

Skinnykenyan

I see someone beat me to the legislation ha thanks. Yes you must have a tv licence for a tv which only receives the old signal.as it has the capability to receive a digital signal via a set top box and ariel.

Procrastastudy

Skinnykenyan wrote: »

I see someone beat me to the legislation ha thanks. Yes you must have a tv licence for a tv which only receives the old signal.as it has the capability to receive a digital signal via a set top box and ariel.

So would a laptop or monitor... I think this is less clear cut that people think. Links to decisions most welcome of course.

28064212

Procrastastudy wrote: »

I'm waiting to see if a TV capable of receiving the old signal, but since switch over no longer can, is covered. I'm sure it probably is. I have an oldish Plasma hooked up to a HTPC for Netflix - I have to admit when I told the inceptor I just had a 'monitor' hooked up to 'Netflix box' he seemed more than happy and I stopped getting letters. Perhaps a summons is winging its way...

That's an interesting one. I would think (IANAL) the section "television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception" covers you.

Broadcasting service is defined at the top of the act as

a service which comprises a compilation of programme material of any description and which is transmitted, relayed or distributed by means of an electronic communications network, directly or indirectly for simultaneous or near-simultaneous reception by the general public, whether that material is actually received or not, and where the programmes are provided in a pre-scheduled and linear order, but does not include:
(a) a service provided in a non-linear manner where each user of the service chooses a programme from a catalogue of programmes, or
(b) other audio and audiovisual services provided by way of the Internet;

The only broadcasting service that is broadcast for general reception is Saorview, and you can't receive that

Skinnykenyan wrote: »

I see someone beat me to the legislation ha thanks. Yes you must have a tv licence for a tv which only receives the old signal.as it has the capability to receive a digital signal via a set top box and ariel.

Nope, because they don't have the box. There is absolutely no way for him to use his current apparatus to receive a broadcast for general reception

Supraman

Our man in Havana wrote: »

It is the postman.

They are given a task once a year to compile a list of names and addresses on his route.
This is how they get you. You get letters so you must have a tv and are therefore guilty.

that's a complete lie anyway , I've worked in the P.o for the last few years delivering and have never once been asked to compile such a list . where do these stories come from .

Skinnykenyan

Nope im right about this your still liable for a licence without the stb just as your liable with an ariel but no tv. Struggling to pinpoint the exact legislation but in the mean time its on the citizens advice website under tv licence. The device dosnt have to be receiving a signal right now but if has the capability to a receive a signal at a future time then your liable. And thats inclusive of adding equipment in order to receive the signal

28064212

Skinnykenyan wrote: »

Nope im right about this your still liable for a licence without the stb just as your liable with an ariel but no tv. Struggling to pinpoint the exact legislation but in the mean time its on the citizens advice website under tv licence. The device dosnt have to be receiving a signal right now but if has the capability to a receive a signal at a future time then your liable. And thats inclusive of adding equipment in order to receive the signal

CI don't seem to have read the act that was enacted in 2009. They say:

a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal (using an aerial, satellite dish, cable or other means) must have a television licence

That was true of the old legislation. The updated legislation says:

any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception

If you can explain how an aerial exhibits a broadcast, I'm all ears

Skinnykenyan

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/media/tv_licence.html

under the section where it says digital switchover it clearly states an analogue tv with or without a tv licence still requires a tv licence. Forgive me for my lack of info im on my phone which is a heap of poo. It dosnt allow me to copy and paste stuff.

Also further down this page it states a television or equipment capable of receiving a signal must have a licence. Even if the tv is broken it is still required to be licenced as it can be repaired to a standard capable of receiving a television signal. As for the monitor question the minister put exemptions into the act for 3g phones and equipment capable of streaming tv and monitors or computer equipment capable of streaming tv. However equipment capable of using a tv card are not exempt

mikom

28064212 wrote: »

If you can explain how an aerial exhibits a broadcast, I'm all ears

Rabbit ears?