Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

TV license

Options
124

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Nah, I just pay the bloody licence and gripe like normal people. I'm not saying that one should need to show the inspector, as they have no power, but eventually you're going to need to prove it if the presumption is that one has a TV
    Me too, but later this year I'll be getting rid of it and therefore not renewing the licence. I expect to get some hassle and I need to establish boundaries.


  • Options
    #93
    Banjoxed
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,844 ✭✭✭Banjoxed


    No Pants wrote: »
    Me too, but later this year I'll be getting rid of it and therefore not renewing the licence. I expect to get some hassle and I need to establish boundaries.

    You'll be goosed then when they replace the TV licence with the Public Service Broadcasting Charge.

    http://m.rte.ie/news/touch//2013/0717/463069-bai-public-service-broadcasting-charge/


  • Options
    #94
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Banjoxed wrote: »
    You'll be goosed then when they replace the TV licence with the Public Service Broadcasting Charge.

    http://m.rte.ie/news/touch//2013/0717/463069-bai-public-service-broadcasting-charge/
    Yes, I'm aware of that. Right now I can't even get RTE. Don't miss it.


  • Options
    #95
    rab!dmonkey
    Registered Users Posts: 629 ✭✭✭rab!dmonkey


    According to section 146 of the Broadcasting Act (2009), TV licence inspectors are entitled to enter any 'premises or specified place' in search of televisions. Presumably that includes private homes, so how can that be reconciled with the constitutional guarantee to the 'inviolability' of the private dwelling? Are there any other government officials which must be admitted into a private home regardless of whether they have a warrant or not?


  • Options
    #96
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    rab!dmonkey wrote: »
    According to section 146 of the Broadcasting Act (2009), TV licence inspectors are entitled to enter any 'premises or specified place' in search of televisions. Presumably that includes private homes, so how can that be reconciled with the constitutional guarantee to the 'inviolability' of the private dwelling? Are there any other government officials which must be admitted into a private home regardless of whether they have a warrant or not?

    If you deny the inspector entry and he still wishes to enter, then next time he would need a guard alongside him who is in possession of a warrant for your property.
    Chances.......... slim and none.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,237 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    rab!dmonkey wrote: »
    According to section 146 of the Broadcasting Act (2009), TV licence inspectors are entitled to enter any 'premises or specified place' in search of televisions. Presumably that includes private homes, so how can that be reconciled with the constitutional guarantee to the 'inviolability' of the private dwelling?
    The Constituational provision is that "the dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law". And Broadcasting Act 2009 s. 146)3 is, of course, law.

    Legislation authorising entry without a warrant is not unique to TV licence inspectors. Under Health Act 1947 s. 94 an "authorised officer" can enter premises without a warrant to check for various breaches of the Health Act. I think Revenue officials have similar powers in certain circumstances, but I can't trace the citation right now. Social Welfare inspectors have powers of entry without warrant under Social Welfare (Consolidation) Act 2009 s. 250.


  • Options
    #98
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    They need your permission or a guard with a warrant.
    Without either......... they are not coming in.


  • Options
    #99
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    So if you show them the living room, either through the window or from the living room door and there is no tv, how far are they going to insist before they'd believe someone that doesnt have a tv, another poster said they had to show every room in the house??


  • Options
    #100
    234
    Registered Users Posts: 1,529 ✭✭✭234


    cerastes wrote: »
    So if you show them the living room, either through the window or from the living room door and there is no tv, how far are they going to insist before they'd believe someone that doesnt have a tv, another poster said they had to show every room in the house??

    That's hardly a legal question, and something that nobody here (excepting the possibility of a random TV licence inspector dropping by) will have any knowledge of.


  • Options
    #101
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,237 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    They have a right of entry, provided they show you their credentials. The more obstructive you are about the exercise of that right, the more suspicious they will be that you have a television and are trying to conceal it; hence the more thorough examination they will want to make when they do get in. If you want to minimise hassle for yourself, let him in at the first opportunity. If, on the other hand, you want to maximise hassle for him, stonewall him. But you need to realise that maximising hassle for him is also likely to maximise hassle for you, and that's the choice you are making.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    They have a right of entry, provided they show you their credentials. The more obstructive you are about the exercise of that right, the more suspicious they will be that you have a television and are trying to conceal it; hence the more thorough examination they will want to make when they do get in. If you want to minimise hassle for yourself, let him in at the first opportunity. If, on the other hand, you want to maximise hassle for him, stonewall him. But you need to realise that maximising hassle for him is also likely to maximise hassle for you, and that's the choice you are making.
    And where does it end? Do they then turn the house upside down, looking for an illicit TV? How compliant do I need to be to prevent harassment from state agents?


  • Options
    #103
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,237 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    No Pants wrote: »
    And where does it end? Do they then turn the house upside down, looking for an illicit TV?
    They're more likely to, if your behaviour arouses suspicion that you are concealing a television. And given that you did previously have a television, as evidenced by the fact that you had a licence, it's not completely unreasonable on their part to want to verify that you no longer do.

    As a general rule of life, when somebody says "it's the principle of the thing!", whatever is actuating his behaviour, it is not the principle of the thing. The more you complain about a TV licence inspection as "harrassment", the more they will suspect that you have a television. The suspicion may, of course, be wrong, but it's nevertheless going to inconvenience you. So if your object is to avoid inconvenience to yourself, you want to dispel that suspicion, not magnify it.
    No Pants wrote: »
    How compliant do I need to be to prevent harassment from state agents?
    Depends on what you regard as "harrassment". In general, you should try to radiate an air of benevolent innocence. When you get the letter saying that you need to renew your licence , write a letter back saying that you no longer have a television; that if the inspector calls some time when you are home you will be delighted to let him in to verify that for himself; and that if they want to check in advance if you're home they can ring you on [landline], and you'll put on the kettle.


  • Options
    #104
    Skatedude
    Registered Users Posts: 2,674 ✭✭✭Skatedude


    It ends with the broadcasting fee. No excuse allowed, all must pay even if they live at the bottom of a cave with no electricity or signal or tv


  • Options
    #105
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    They're more likely to, if your behaviour arouses suspicion that you are concealing a television. And given that you did previously have a television, as evidenced by the fact that you had a licence, it's not completely unreasonable on their part to want to verify that you no longer do.
    I've been paying for a TV licence since August 2006. I have a TV. I cancelled my Sky TV service in February 2014. The currently licence expires in August 2014. At that point I will move this TV out of my house and into another house that will be covered by a TV licence. I will not be renewing mine.

    Are you suggesting that my currently law-abiding behaviour will not be used as cause to search my home? That does not seem reasonable to me.


  • Options
    #106
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,237 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    No Pants wrote: »
    I've been paying for a TV licence since August 2006. I have a TV. I cancelled my Sky TV service in February 2014. The currently licence expires in August 2014. At that point I will move this TV out of my house and into another house that will be covered by a TV licence. I will not be renewing mine.

    Are you suggesting that my currently law-abiding behaviour will not be used as cause to search my home? That does not seem reasonable to me.
    Reasonable or not, that is quite possibly what will happen, and Broadcasting Act s. 146(3) will be the legal basis for the search.

    You have a choice. You can:

    (a) Seek to minimise the impact on yourself by being co-operative and open. If you pro-actively tell them that you have disposed of your television and indicate that they are welcome to inspect if they want to, it's very possible they won't inspect or, if they do, it will be a very polite and not unneccesarily disruptive affair. The do have an alternative procedure in which they can ask you to make a statutory declaration that you do not have a TV set, and perhaps they will ask you to do this, and not bother with an inspection.

    (b) Protest what you see as unreasonable state interference in your home by being obstructive and unco-operative, in which case you will probably be inspected anyway, but with a more heavy-handed touch and quite possibly with a garda presence. While this will obviously be more upsetting for you, it will give you the satisfaction of being more upsetting for them too. If you really want to make a point, you can sue for trespass, alleging that s. 146(3) is repugnant to the Constitution and so does not provide a lawful basis for entry into your home. But you'll have to take that all the way to the Supreme Court, so you'd have to be very highly motivated.

    Your call, obviously. You have to decide which is your priority, minimising disruption to yourself, or maximising disruption to them, and then decide on a course of action accordingly.


  • Options
    #107
    Graces7
    Registered Users Posts: 32,634 ✭✭✭✭Graces7


    joeysoap wrote: »
    probably just absorbed back into the general post office work. AFAIK (again) they are officially 'post office clerks' and there is one or two a county to do this work. read somewhere that the total is under 100, counting administration. Unlike the lotto ' An Post' staff unlikely they will get any 'transfer' or bonus payments when the licence stops being collected by An Post. Probably keep their jobs, though.


    was not regreeting the job losses; the way they behave as i know from personal experience,,, no manners..scuse typos,, broke my wrist


  • Options
    #108
    joeysoap
    Registered Users Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭joeysoap


    From reading through this post, it's no surprise or wonder why the government is going to change the tv licence collection method. The current model clearly is past it's sell by date, many more ways to keep up/receive with broadcast/media than 'traditional' televisions sets. I would guess that if they stick to the €160 per electricity bill (or whatever but this is the easiest way) then they will gather much more revenue than the are currently collecting.

    fwiw I have a colleague who has a property in Portugal, he says he has never watched Portuguese tv (up to now anyway) but still has to pay the licence, its added on to his electricity bill something around €27 last year he tells me. Now I cannot see our 'licence' fee being reduced to that amount but with everybody paying there is definitely scope for a reduction.


  • Options
    #109
    CiniO
    Registered Users Posts: 16,089 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    Losty Dublin wrote: »
    From www.tvlicence.ie

    Do I need a licence if my television set has not been "upgraded" to receive digital signals?

    An analogue television set, with or without a set-top box, will still require a Television Licence.

    The definition of a Television set (Section 140 (1) of the Broadcasting Act 2009)
    "television set" means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception ( whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it ) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus.

    Hmm.
    Technically then, my PC monitor with HDMI plug is perfectly capable of receiving television broadcasting services once I plug DVB-T tuner to it.
    Does this make me liable for having TV licence?


  • Options
    #110
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #111
    Skatedude
    Registered Users Posts: 2,674 ✭✭✭Skatedude


    dosent matter if you own a pc, tv, phone or ouija board anymore. from 2014, all must pay even if they dont use the service in anyway.

    I havent watched any irish tv stations for years, but i'm given no choice but to pay for them. Cant say i agree with it all, but the fee is now for broadcasting, not receiving. Not sure how that can be legal. but thats never stopped the government before.

    Even if you are dumb, blind and deaf, you still have to pay.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #112
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #113
    No Pants
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,347 ✭✭✭No Pants


    joeysoap wrote: »
    From reading through this post, it's no surprise or wonder why the government is going to change the tv licence collection method. The current model clearly is past it's sell by date, many more ways to keep up/receive with broadcast/media than 'traditional' televisions sets.
    You're assuming that anyone who's not got/getting a TV licence is still consuming RTE services by other means. Speaking personally, I almost never did (my Ma would watch the Late Late when she came to visit :rolleyes: ) and now I don't at all.


  • Options
    #114
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,237 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Although the licence fee revenue goes to fund RTE (and TV4), it's never been the case that only people who watch RTE have to pay it.

    If you have a TV then RTE is provided to you; whether you watch it or not is up to you, but your decision doesn't affect your tax liability. In the same way, you pay tax to support national schools, regardless of whether you choose to send your kids to national schools or to private schools. (Indeed, regardless of whether you have kids at all.)

    What's anomalous about this is not that you have to pay the tax regardless of whether you consume the service it funds; it's that we have a tax whose proceeds are "ring-fenced" in this way, and can only be spent for certain purposes. Most taxes can be spent for any purposes. But there is a certain advantage in having a public service broadcaster whose financing is not completely at the whim of the current government.


  • Options
    #115
    CiniO
    Registered Users Posts: 16,089 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Although the licence fee revenue goes to fund RTE (and TV4), it's never been the case that only people who watch RTE have to pay it.

    If you have a TV then RTE is provided to you; whether you watch it or not is up to you, but your decision doesn't affect your tax liability.


    I do have TV, but RTE is not provided to me.
    Firstly I don't have an aerial to receive it.
    Secondly, even if I had aerial, my TV doesn't have appropriate DVB-T decoder built in it.

    So I'm no different to anyone having no TV at all, yet I have to pay TV licence.


  • Options
    #116
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    joeysoap wrote: »
    From reading through this post, it's no surprise or wonder why the government is going to change the tv licence collection method. The current model clearly is past it's sell by date, many more ways to keep up/receive with broadcast/media than 'traditional' televisions sets. I would guess that if they stick to the €160 per electricity bill (or whatever but this is the easiest way) then they will gather much more revenue than the are currently collecting.

    fwiw I have a colleague who has a property in Portugal, he says he has never watched Portuguese tv (up to now anyway) but still has to pay the licence, its added on to his electricity bill something around €27 last year he tells me. Now I cannot see our 'licence' fee being reduced to that amount but with everybody paying there is definitely scope for a reduction.

    Im not sure how up t date it is, but a quick wiki says Portugal has no tv licence? although some marginal annual charge is applied via electric utility accounts
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

    If anything, a broadcasting charge should be cheaper as the cost to administer it is significantly reduced, the effectiveness is complete, regardless of any personal circumstances, unless certain people can gain exemption from it and even then there is the possibility some of those wont bother or notice.
    It would be an increase in the charge just to leave it at the same price as it is.
    Our charge should be similar to countries of our circumstance and how state tv is funded.
    Portugal, greece and Italy.


  • Options
    #117
    cerastes
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,601 ✭✭✭cerastes


    CiniO wrote: »
    I do have TV, but RTE is not provided to me.
    Firstly I don't have an aerial to receive it.
    Secondly, even if I had aerial, my TV doesn't have appropriate DVB-T decoder built in it.

    So I'm no different to anyone having no TV at all, yet I have to pay TV licence.

    Yes, but they are sending you the signal, its there whether you know or care or like it or not, whether you have the equipment to decode the signal or not isn't their problem, crappy tv, biased news and overpaid and rated tv personalities are not going to pay itself, if you have the box a tv came in, you should pay, seems fair to me and any reasonable and right minded person wouldnt think otherwise.


  • Options
    #118
    joeysoap
    Registered Users Posts: 6,238 ✭✭✭joeysoap


    cerastes wrote: »
    Im not sure how up t date it is, but a quick wiki says Portugal has no tv licence? although some marginal annual charge is applied via electric utility accounts
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licence

    If anything, a broadcasting charge should be cheaper as the cost to administer it is significantly reduced, the effectiveness is complete, regardless of any personal circumstances, unless certain people can gain exemption from it and even then there is the possibility some of those wont bother or notice.
    It would be an increase in the charge just to leave it at the same price as it is.
    Our charge should be similar to countries of our circumstance and how state tv is funded.
    Portugal, greece and Italy.

    thanks cerastes, yep that's the figure he tells me that he pays for his 'television licence' , must tell him next time I see him that he doesn't pay a tv licence but does pay a 'radio licence'.

    If they leave the price as it is now they will gain millions of extra euros annually just by doing nothing, well able to reduce the price when everybody pays.



  • Options
    #119
    CiniO
    Registered Users Posts: 16,089 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    cerastes wrote: »
    Yes, but they are sending you the signal, its there whether you know or care or like it or not, whether you have the equipment to decode the signal or not isn't their problem, crappy tv, biased news and overpaid and rated tv personalities are not going to pay itself, if you have the box a tv came in, you should pay, seems fair to me and any reasonable and right minded person wouldnt think otherwise.

    I know they are sending me the signal with RTE. They are sending it to everyone in this country.
    But I don't get your argument, why having a box tv came in, should make me liable for licence, while people who don't have tv set in their home are not liable.
    As my tv is not compatibile with their signal and on top of that I don't have an aerial, I'm no different to anyone without tv set at all. I can't receive RTE.
    Doesn't make logical sense to me why should I pay a licence, while my neighbour without tv doesn't need to.

    It should be either only people receiving public tv or everyone.
    current law doesn't make sense


  • Options
    #120
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,237 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    CiniO wrote: »
    . . . Doesn't make logical sense to me why should I pay a licence, while my neighbour without tv doesn't need to.

    It should be either only people receiving public tv or everyone.
    current law doesn't make sense
    Tax laws don't have to make sense. They just have to be clear.

    Almost everything we buy, or consume, is subject to VAT. But a variety of products and services attract further taxes on top of that. Television receiving apparatus is subject to the TV licence fee. Tobacco products are subject to excise. Most fuels are subject to excise . Eletricity consumption is subject to excise. Alcoholic drinks are subject to excise. Cheques, credit cards and a variety of documents are subject to stamp duty. Share transfers are subject to stamp duty. Sales of houses or land are subject to stamp duty. Licences under the Licensing Acts are subject to excise. Airline tickets are subject to air travel tax (or were, until Monday). Bets with a bookmaker are subject to betting duty. And so forth.

    Any or all of these taxes are anomalous, if you like, but the TV licence fee is not particularly anomalous, except in the fact that the Revenue it raises is ring-fenced and can only be spent for certain purposes, whereas the revenue raised by most of the others is not.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #121
    CiniO
    Registered Users Posts: 16,089 ✭✭✭✭CiniO


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Tax laws don't have to make sense. They just have to be clear.

    Well, they are not.
    You do not require a television licence to watch television on your computer or mobile phone. However, the computer must not be able to receive a signal distributed by conventional television broadcasting networks, for example, cable, satellite or aerial.

    So as my computer is not able to receive a signal distributed by conventional television broadcasting networks. I can't use it for watching TV. So I don't need TV licence according to this.


    But:
    "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 my computer is capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcase, if I use something else with it (f.e. PC compatibile DVB-T tuner, or even standard DVB-T tuner which I can plug into my pc monitor.

    In fact anything is capable of receiving and exhibiting signal, once you use something else in conjunction with it.
    My fridge or washing machine with tiny LCD display could exhibit tv signal, if I managed to find (or construct) DVB-T tuner compatibilie with it.

    That law is not clear at all.


Advertisement