TV Licence inspector.

godwin

Is a person legally obliged to give their name , answer any questions they are asked , let them into their house?

MidlandsM

no

ResearchWill

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0018/print.html#sec146

mikom

godwin wrote: »

Am I legally obliged to give my name , answer any questions they ask me , let them in my house?

No, no, and no.

ResearchWill

From the Act the important bit in bold.


Request to show television licence.

146.— (1) An issuing agent may appoint persons to be officers of the issuing agent for the purposes of this Part.

(2) A person appointed under subsection (1) shall, on his or her appointment be furnished by the issuing agent with a certificate of his or her appointment and when exercising a power conferred by subsection (3) shall, if requested by any person thereby affected, produce such certificate to that person for inspection.

(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.

(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 from the Act


“ premises ” means land, a vehicle, a structure of any kind whether attached or affixed to the land or not and includes a part of a building occupied as a separate dwelling whether or not the occupier with any other person shares any portion of it or any accommodation, amenity or facility in connection with it;

“ specified place ” includes an apartment, holiday apartment or any individual room specified by order under subsection (2);

While quoting the above, it must be pointed out that forced entry is more than likely not allowed.

godwin

@ResearchWill: So a person can refuse the Garda entry to their premises without a search warrant , but cannot refuse the TV Licence Inspector?

ResearchWill

godwin wrote: »

@ResearchWill: So I can refuse the Garda entry to my premises without a search warrant , but I cannot refuse the TV Licence Inspector?

You may have missed this part of my post. "While quoting the above, it must be pointed out that forced entry is more than likely not allowed."

The reason I say the above is if we look at The Road Traffic Act 2010

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2010/en/act/pub/0025/sec0007.html


Power of entry.

7.— A member of the Garda Síochána for the purpose of—

(a) making a requirement of a person under section 9 (1) or 10 (4), or

(b) arresting a person under section 4 (8), 5 (10) or 6 (4),

may enter without warrant (if need be by use of reasonable force) any place (including the curtilage of a dwelling but not the dwelling) where the person is or where the member, with reasonable cause, suspects him or her to be.

godwin

@ResearchWill: Laymans terms please.

If a garda turns up to someones door and asks to come in they can refuse , he must go away and get a search warrant.
If a TV Licence Inspector turns up at someones door and asks to come in they can't refuse , he doesn't search warrant.

?

ResearchWill

godwin wrote: »

@ResearchWill: Laymans terms please.

If a garda turns up to my door and asks to come in I can refuse , he must go away and get a search warrant.
If a TV Licence Inspector turns up at my door and asks to come in I can't refuse , he doesn't search warrant.

?

If a Garda turns up at your door with out warrant or statutory authority yes you can refuse entry. If Garda has warrant or statutory authority he can Force entry as pointed out in the Road Traffic Act.

I quoted the relevant act for the question asked, it gives a power of entry, but no power of forced entry. It's up to any citizen if they want to have the argument there and or in court.

godwin

So basically they have the power to enter , but a person can refuse entry , then they must go get a search warrant?

ResearchWill

godwin wrote: »

So basically they have the power to enter , but I can refuse entry , then they must go get a search warrant?

To answer that question could be giving advice which is not allowed on the forum. I have set out the legislation, if any person wishes to take a certain view, and they are wrong then they risk a court appearance and possible fine.

godwin

ResearchWill wrote: »

To answer that question could be giving advice which is not allowed on the forum. I have set out the legislation, if any person wishes to take a certain view, and they are wrong then they risk a court appearance and possible fine.

I'm not asking for legal advice , I'm asking for clarification of the legislation you posted.

ResearchWill

godwin wrote: »

I'm not asking for legal advice , I'm asking for clarification of the legislation you posted.

There is no case law on point that I have ever found. So all anyone can do is look at and read the legislation. If I or anyone else says to you ya that's fine the law means X and you act on that, and up in court and the court says no the law means y, then as I am a professional lawyer you could sue me. So all I am willing to do is set out the legislation and the only opinion I gave is I personally believe they only have a right of entry, but the courts could decide they have a right of forceable entry. So simple answer is until it happens and it ends up in the courts we will not know.

godwin

I'm not asking for your legal council , you're not a judge setting a precedence , the legislation is set out in law , it has to mean something.

But whatever...

Does any non-moonlighting forum lawyer want to try give clarification of what the legislation is actually saying , I promise I won't reference something I read on a random forum if I'm ever in court.

mikom

(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.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2009/en/act/pub/0018/print.html#sec146

"I'm busy........ this is not a reasonable time".

Later.

"I'm busy........ this is not a reasonable time".

Later.

"I'm busy........ this is not a reasonable time".

Later.

"I'm busy........ this is not a reasonable time".

ResearchWill

godwin wrote: »

I'm not asking for your legal council , you're not a judge setting a precedence , the legislation is set out in law , it has to mean something.

But whatever...

Does any non-moonlighting forum lawyer want to try give of what the legislation is actually saying , I promise I won't reference something I read on a random forum if I'm ever in court.

Legislation says what it says, how it is interpreted is up to a court. An example the HC said over and over that in relation to the statutory Defence to a refusal or failure to give a sample in drink driving cases there was no obligation on AGS to inform a person of that Defence. This year the Supreme Court said there is an obligation.

You have read the Act your view as to what it means is currently as valid as anyone else's. but until a court says it does or does not include force to enter a dwelling no one will know. Yes looking at the legislation and the constitution it may be most people's opinion that it is not a blanket right of entry and any interpretation must be read in light of thè constitution. If any person wants to be the first test case then work away.

As an aside I have never heard of any officer trying to force entry but I may be wrong.

godwin

Cheers guys , I have edited my posts to make them as hypothetical and as ambiguous as possible. I'm just curious as to the extent of the powers the inspectors are granted under the law.

Del2005

godwin wrote: »

Cheers guys , I have edited my posts to make them as hypothetical and as ambiguous as possible. I'm just curious as to the extent of the powers the inspectors are granted under the law.

I don't think they'll ever force entry, but after 3 unsuccessful contacts it's off to court with you.

Carawaystick

Doesn't the "may enter" here just cover the inviolable dwelling part of the constitution (art40.5)

I.e. if there was no law allowing a tv licence inspector enter your dwelling, then the constitution forbids them.
So if an inspector conned someone into believing the inspector had a right to enter and inspect, it would've unconstitutional

FreezeUp

Reasonable time would be considered 12:00 - 17:00 or similar. NOT what you consider reasonable.

MajorMax

But as you are under no obligation to give your name to an inspector or a member of AGS (except under the obvious Road Traffic act & Misuse of drugs act). How can they take an unknown person to court.
You can't prosocute "Occupant". Or can you?

RustyNut

FreezeUp wrote: »

Reasonable time would be considered 12:00 - 17:00 or similar. NOT what you consider reasonable.

Not reasonable for me I work nights and sleep between 12:00 and 17:00.

mikom

FreezeUp wrote: »

Reasonable time would be considered 12:00 - 17:00 or similar. NOT what you consider reasonable.

Ever worked shift?

Viper_JB

Del2005 wrote: »

I don't think they'll ever force entry, but after 3 unsuccessful contacts it's off to court with you.

Surely they'd need a name to bring you to court, and by unsuccessful contacts do you mean...people not answering the door/no one home kinda situation?

clashburke

MajorMax wrote: »

But as you are under no obligation to give your name to an inspector or a member of AGS (except under the obvious Road Traffic act & Misuse of drugs act). How can they take an unknown person to court.
You can't prosocute "Occupant". Or can you?

does this mean AGS cannot for instance demand your name while walking harmlessly down the street?

Bit off topic sorry.

Del2005

Viper_JB wrote: »

Surely they'd need a name to bring you to court, and by unsuccessful contacts do you mean...people not answering the door/no one home kinda situation?

Unsuccessful means 3 times being turned away from the door after it's been answered. I've no idea how they'd get your name for the summons, but it is the company that delivers mail to your home.

RustyNut

Del2005 wrote: »

Unsuccessful means 3 times being turned away from the door after it's been answered. I've no idea how they'd get your name for the summons, but it is the company that delivers mail to your home.

What's the charge ?

Del2005

RustyNut wrote: »

What's the charge ?

TV Licence evasion, I'd assume.

RustyNut

Del2005 wrote: »

TV Licence evasion, I'd assume.

But there is no evidence that I have a telly and so no proof I need a licence.

Max Power1

RustyNut wrote: »

But there is no evidence that I have a telly and so no proof I need a licence.

Cant summons "The Occupant" anyway...

...

That's what I have been living by for the last few years

BRAIN FEEDs

godwin wrote: »

Is a person legally obliged to give their name , answer any questions they are asked , let them into their house?

no.

read the link given,the paragraph after the bit in bold says "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."

a request.......... says nothing about a demand or the like. you have no obligation from what i see to give your details to the an post employee