TV Licence and the rights of the home owner

masculinist

Whats the situation with a TV license inspector entering your home without your permission ?

I don't watch TV and I don't find this unusual at all.

The biggest issue I have is this notion that you are guilty of having a license until proven innocent. As a law abiding citizen entitled to a presumption of innocence, I have a great issue with the idea that an official of the state can enter and violate the privacy of my home without my permission and turn it upside down in the search for a TV which doesn't exist.

To sum up , I am feeling as a new homeowner who has started to get letters from An Post, that some time soon , an inspector will turn up expecting me to allow him inside my house to inspect my girlfriends underwear drawer etc.
They don't even do this for drug traffickers who can afford better legal representation than I can. Whats the deal here ?

Do they need a warrant and will you get notice of such or can they enter your home legally at will ? Someone in another forum was posting some link to legislation saying they always have a right to inspect your home. This really feels like a violation of privacy.

Do I need to pay for a license sort of like a protection racket to keep them out of my private home in which only invited guests are welcome ? Is that what it all boils down to ?

lertsnim

You are within your rights to tell him to **** off.

masculinist

lertsnim wrote: »

You are within your rights to tell him to **** off.

but they are going to violate the sanctity of my home arent they ? I will have to buy a license as a protection racket to stop them trampling over my carpet in their dirty shoes etc ...

silverharp

if you dont have a tv just say so but dont invite them in , they cant force their way in. Have a camera phone handy and just start videoing " for your protection" they will go after easier prey

masculinist

silverharp wrote: »

if you dont have a tv just say so but dont invite them in , they cant force their way in. Have a camera phone handy and just start videoing " for your protection" they will go after easier prey

how long until they return with a Garda or something ? Do they need a warrant ? I know nothing about warrants. Do they need a judge to get one or can they get one from a superintendant ?

I am feeling like this TV license is a scam to force me to buy one just to protect the privacy of my home.

frostypants

He once called to my house years ago when I didn't have a TV and told him I didn't. He said fine and the usual stuff like if you do you have to get one. I said grand out and never saw them again.

Be nice and be human and non confrontational. Just say I don't have a TV. That should be good enough. They'd only want to come in if they hear Coronation Street coming from the sitting room

pa990

silverharp wrote: »

if you dont have a tv just say so but dont invite them in , they cant force their way in. Have a camera phone handy and just start videoing " for your protection" they will go after easier prey

FFS..

1) just be polite, explain that you dont have a TV

2)Ask him what form you need to fill out or who to ring to so as not to waste his time again next year.
3) if you need protection buy a condom

There's no point in aggravating a guy at the doorstep who's only doing a job.

Politeness and manners will get you further.

BTW, he wont enter your house to check for a TV. a warrant from a judge would be needed.

silverharp

pa990 wrote: »

FFS..

1) just be polite, explain that you dont have a TV

2)Ask him what form you need to fill out or who to ring to so as not to waste his time again next year.
3) if you need protection buy a condom

There's no point in aggravating a guy at the doorstep who's only doing a job.

Politeness and manners will get you further.

BTW, he wont enter your house to check for a TV. a warrant from a judge would be needed.

sure but for some reason they kept coming back in an annoying way. If its one visit then one letter a year thats fine,polite will do the job

AnonoBoy

masculinist wrote: »

an inspector will turn up expecting me to allow him inside my house to inspect my girlfriends underwear drawer etc.

Yes. That's exactly what won't happen.

Mint Sauce

I'm sure there is a form you can sign stating you don't have a telly, that should be the end of it.

Loughc

Mint Sauce wrote: »

I'm sure there is a form you can sign stating you don't have a telly, that should be the end of it.

I'm pretty certain if that form exists 90% of the country would claim they didn't have a tv.

Guy:Incognito

Don't have a TV or dont watch TV? Those arnt really the same thing.:)

FloatingVoter

Don't identify yourself as the owner / occupier. You ask the callers to the door the questions. Whether they're cops or license freaks, until they guarantee they are offering you free sex or money they are Jehovahs Witnesses and as such are filed under street entertainment. The proper owner / occupier (ie. you) is down the shops / gone on holidays / recently deceased.
We're a nation of writers. Make **** up.

Guy:Incognito

FloatingVoter wrote: »

We're a nation of writers. Make **** up.

You spelled chancers wrong.

FloatingVoter

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You spelled chancers wrong.

"Chancers" does not have four asterisks. Can someone get me a childfree forum so I can curse like a child.


Edit: Ohh.. I get it.

corsav6

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

You spelled chancers wrong.

Took me a minute but ya, good one.

nibble

What happened in relation to that "media" bill that was being brought in? In essence it would have required every household to pay the licence television set or not. The idea was that you can access content from the national broadcaster and the others that recieve TV license funding from any internet connected PC rendering the TV rule ineffective..

FloatingVoter

nibble wrote: »

What happened in relation to that "media" bill that was being brought in? In essence it would have required every household to pay the licence television set or not. The idea was that you can access content from the national broadcaster and the others that recieve TV license funding from any internet connected PC rendering the TV rule ineffective..

...I think it got long-fingered due to water charge reaction and impending elections. It is a very legally grey area anyway. What next ? Charge me for wearing a ballgown. I'm capable of such, but due to being male, bald and not good in evening wear it won't happen. Prove the difference and tax upon production of said proof. Histrionics aside, they'd be taxing the internet - which would not make us a grand little country to fiddle tax in.

nibble

FloatingVoter wrote: »

...I think it got long-fingered due to water charge reaction and impending elections. It is a very legally grey area anyway. What next ? Charge me for wearing a ballgown. I'm capable of such, but due to being male, bald and not good in evening wear it won't happen. Prove the difference and tax upon production of said proof. Histrionics aside, they'd be taxing the internet - which would not make us a grand little country to fiddle tax in.

The best little country to tax the internet in!

FloatingVoter

nibble wrote: »

The best little country to tax the internet in!

Sell that to Google, Facebook, LinkedIn and all the boys downtown. Believe it or not we are a tax haven / piracy paradise. As long as we play Nassau the search engines and selfie storerooms will stay in dock. Our Data Protection laws ensure that.

masculinist

I dont have a TV set. I cant stand TV in fact. I was visiting a friend this evening and saw Tubridy and some shills droning on about property prices.; I am pretty sure thats the exact same subject they were discussing 5 years ago when I last sat down in front of one of those yokes.

Additional fact: There is a satellite dish on my roof. With no TV , is this dish on the roof that costs money [ and is dangerous in wet slippy weather] to remove [if I had a ladder and wasnt afraid of heights] going to cause me any grief from the TV license crowd ? How is it any different from the coaxial cable that brings me UPC internet ? In fact as its unused, its no different from a coat hanger in the wardrobe currently but if I sell my home in future it might be an additional attraction to somebody. I ask because according to some the legislation could be twisted to force me to pay regardless. As I said before , its a small sum and I'll give into this blackmail/protection racket if it means I retain my privacy but I'll still never sit down and actually watch or own a TV. I just want to live in peace - without the sanctity of my homes privacy being invaded - without some creepy dude in my front garden peering in my windows -[shudder] - without a Garda and search warrant type scenario giving me a bad reputation with the neighbours and also without the TV itself. What to do ? Pay up so they feck off ?

masculinist

By the way - a ''TV flicker'' from your front window doesnt mean you have a TV at all once you realise these things exist .


http://www.faketv.com/

http://www.maplin.co.uk/p/response-faketv-tv-simulating-anti-burglar-and-theft-deterrent-a65lq


I noticed Lidl selling them a few weeks ago

endacl

You need to talk to the freemen asap, op. They'll sort you out with some good advice and a 'what to say when a representative of the state' arrives at your door.

Or you could calm down, contact an post, tell them you don't have a telly, and get on with the rest of your day?

masculinist

endacl wrote: »

You need to talk to the freemen asap, op. They'll sort you out with some good advice and a 'what to say when a representative of the state' arrives at your door.

Or you could calm down, contact an post, tell them you don't have a telly, and get on with the rest of your day?

Who said I wasn't calm ? I don't have any more issues with the representatives of the state than most people. I just dont' want to be hassled as I think I explained already. I made an effort to explain a lot more than what you simplified the issue into. For example the disembodied satellite dish which connects to no TV. Some people claimed elsewhere that they were fined heavily for having related apparatus even if they did not actually have a TV so I am wondering where I stand with these officials.

endacl

Well, if you have a dish you need a licence. It's capable of receiving a broadcast signal, whether you use it or not.

From the good folks at citizens info:

"If your household, business or institution possesses a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal, you are required by law to have a television licence. Even if the television or other equipment is broken and currently unable to receive a signal, it is regarded as capable of being repaired so it can receive a signal and you must hold a licence for it. Failure to produce evidence of a television licence to an inspector can result in a court appearance and on conviction, you can receive a substantial fine. People who have been fined and who have breached court orders directing them to pay their television licence can be imprisoned."

So, straightforward solution: remove the dish. If you won't do it yourself, pay somebody. Half an hour's work won't cost as much as the licence fee you are (legally but admittedly stupidly) liable for.

masculinist

endacl wrote: »

Well, if you have a dish you need a licence. It's capable of receiving a broadcast signal, whether you use it or not.

From the good folks at citizens info:

"If your household, business or institution possesses a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal, you are required by law to have a television licence. Even if the television or other equipment is broken and currently unable to receive a signal, it is regarded as capable of being repaired so it can receive a signal and you must hold a licence for it. Failure to produce evidence of a television licence to an inspector can result in a court appearance and on conviction, you can receive a substantial fine. People who have been fined and who have breached court orders directing them to pay their television licence can be imprisoned."

So, straightforward solution: remove the dish. If you won't do it yourself, pay somebody. Half an hour's work won't cost as much as the licence fee you are (legally but admittedly stupidly) liable for.

Well that sucks. I thought it was a rather silly backward charge but now I really can categorize it alongside old taxes like a chimney tax and a window tax which might even have been more fair. The dish will add to the value of my home and give someone else an option of using it in future if they rent from me. Is a license being required for an unused dish but no TV inside a consensus opinion on this forum ? is there any chance they would just say well ok we know you dont want, need or have a TV so we will let you away with it or are they very strict about that ? They only seem to mention a TV , not anything else but the physical TV set in their warning letters...

lertsnim

A dish isn't going to add that much value to your home. They can be bought for very little.

masculinist

lertsnim wrote: »

A dish isn't going to add that much value to your home. They can be bought for very little.

I guess you are right but there seems to be a hassle involved in making an appointment for someone to come and instal it , set it up right , take valuable time off for this appointment etc .

masculinist

what if I just let the scum into my house and look around ? If theres no Television, is there any chance they would let me off in the spirit of the law ? The only warnings from them refer to a Television , not to unused antennas. Taken to extremes , a coat hanger could be seen as an unused antenna

worded

These are people just doing thier jobs

I brought one into the gaff and showed him that the was no TV.

He said no need you have an honest face, I showed him the sitting room anyway.

Prefer him out on the road knocking on doors to claiming the dole.

Don't agree with TV licences paying huge wages to RTE employees and their extended famalies that get the plum jobs. Nepotism is rife in RTE I hear and wages way too high.

Anyway these are just people making a wage knocking on doors

calex71

I'm pretty sure all you need to do is go to the post office and fill in some kind of "statutory declaration" form basically swearing you have no TV.

Had a look for more info on this on their website but didn't see anything relating to not having one. http://www.anpost.ie/AnPost/FAQs/TV+Licence+FAQs.htm if you scroll down there is an list of email and phone numbers , so I guess you could contact them that way and find out what needs to be done.

masculinist

calex71 wrote: »

I'm pretty sure all you need to do is go to the post office and fill in some kind of "statutory declaration" form basically swearing you have no TV.

I thought I had a right to silence ?


My position is clear. I have no TV. I hate TV in fact. I am calm away from vacuous celeb gossip etc.

However , the way this situation seems to be treated offends my sense of how justice is done. Am I obliged to speak with a stranger who calls to my door at unsocial hours late on a saturday evening ? particularly one who is judging me guilty until proven innocent or at least holds me under some form of accusation. What happened to my right to silence ?

evilivor

masculinist wrote: »

I thought I had a right to silence ?


My position is clear. I have no TV. I hate TV in fact. I am calm away from vacuous celeb gossip etc.

However , the way this situation seems to be treated offends my sense of how justice is done. Am I obliged to speak with a stranger who calls to my door at unsocial hours late on a saturday evening ? particularly one who is judging me guilty until proven innocent or at least holds me under some form of accusation. What happened to my right to silence ?

What right to silence?

Arbiter of Good Taste

masculinist wrote: »

I thought I had a right to silence ?


My position is clear. I have no TV. I hate TV in fact. I am calm away from vacuous celeb gossip etc.

However , the way this situation seems to be treated offends my sense of how justice is done. Am I obliged to speak with a stranger who calls to my door at unsocial hours late on a saturday evening ? particularly one who is judging me guilty until proven innocent or at least holds me under some form of accusation. What happened to my right to silence ?

Seriously? Here's a novel idea. Don't look for trouble where it doesn't exist. You can write to An Post and declare you don't have a television. Or you can pretend you are a bit character on Law and Order and rant about a "right to silence".

And I wouldn't refer to the television license inspectors as "scum". It doesn't do anything to help your credibility

masculinist

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

And I wouldn't refer to the television license inspectors as "scum". It doesn't do anything to help your credibility

Look. From the tactics I have observed and widely read about I do believe it to be a scummy job. ''I'm just following orders'' doesnt' absolve somebody of their sins as you should well know

aido79

It'll be almost impossible to avoid paying it when they change it to a broadcast licence. You will need to prove that you don't have a tv, radio, ipad or tablet, laptop or pc, smartphone or any other device capable of picking up a signal from rte. There'll be no need for inspectors then as it will just be assumed that every home has at least one of these devices and a record will show who's paid and who has not.

masculinist

aido79 wrote: »

It'll be almost impossible to avoid paying it when they change it to a broadcast licence. You will need to prove that you don't have a tv, radio, ipad or tablet, laptop or pc, smartphone or any other device capable of picking up a signal from rte. There'll be no need for inspectors then as it will just be assumed that every home has at least one of these devices and a record will show who's paid and who has not.

See thats the problem right there. The whole TV License enforcement attitude is that an innocent man has to prove his innocence whereas a drug dealer is automatically assumed innocent until proven guilty. Despite any of this nonsense , you still have people on a high horse for this and similar topics worrying more about accurate descriptive language used instead of about this violation of the principles of a free society. Are we now going to have a license inspector ask us to empty our pockets in case we have a smart phone inside ? Will ladies now need to empty their handbags in case a tablet is hiding there ?

coffeepls

Why don't you contact an post & let us know how you get on. I've read the thread and now I'm interested to know what an post's view is when you query it with them.

Banjoxed

Anything capable of playing the RTÉ player will come under the ambit of the broadcast license - so it will be cheaper for the rest of us when libertarian grandstanders are brought in.

aido79

masculinist wrote: »

See thats the problem right there. The whole TV License enforcement attitude is that an innocent man has to prove his innocence whereas a drug dealer is automatically assumed innocent until proven guilty. Despite any of this nonsense , you still have people on a high horse for this and similar topics worrying more about accurate descriptive language used instead of about this violation of the principles of a free society. Are we now going to have a license inspector ask us to empty our pockets in case we have a smart phone inside ? Will ladies now need to empty their handbags in case a tablet is hiding there ?

I don't agree with having to have a tv licence at all because a lot of people don't even watch rte but still have to pay for it.
There are people who genuinely don't have a tv but the broadcasting licence has come about because of years of people with tv's saying that they don't have tv's. I believe that rte should be able to fund themselves from advertising and a reduction of the ridiculous salaries paid to some of the presenters.
you missed the part where I said there won't be inspectors. They will just assume you have a device capable of receiving a signal.

masculinist

aido79 wrote: »

you missed the part where I said there won't be inspectors. They will just assume you have a device capable of receiving a signal.

Thats a different ballgame if they tax the very means by which I am making this post.

However do you mean that even if I have no electronic devices , they will still forceme to pay ? This sounds like a poll tax to me

nxbyveromdwjpg

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

Seriously? Here's a novel idea. Don't look for trouble where it doesn't exist. You can write to An Post and declare you don't have a television. Or you can pretend you are a bit character on Law and Order and rant about a "right to silence".

And I wouldn't refer to the television license inspectors as "scum". It doesn't do anything to help your credibility

His credibility isn't in question. Your attitude to it is poor - why should he write a letter to anyone? The onus should not be on him to prove he doesn't have a TV.

To respond to the OP, unfortunately ridiculous attitudes like the above allow this situation to exist, you can email them about your situation and the contact emails are here.

evilivor

The UK's House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee has been looking at the issue of the Licence Fee there.

They say "The TV licence does not have a long-term future and is likely to be replaced by a new levy within the next 15 years…

…The MPs suggested every household could pay a new compulsory levy instead."

From the BBC News report.

The licence fee currently costs £145.50 per year for every household where people watch or record live TV.

A TV licence is not required to watch catch-up TV, using services such as the BBC iPlayer.

One option to replace the licence fee would be to make some BBC services available by subscription.

But the committee said choosing which programmes remained available subscription-free would require careful thought.

The best alternative to the licence fee, the report concluded, would be a compulsory broadcasting levy paid by all households, regardless of whether they watch TV, or how they watch.

Such a system was introduced in Germany in 2013 and would do away with the need to detect and prosecute those who avoid buying a TV licence, the committee said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31623659

masculinist

nm wrote: »

His credibility isn't in question. Your attitude to it is poor - why should he write a letter to anyone? The onus should not be on him to prove he doesn't have a TV.

To respond to the OP, unfortunately ridiculous attitudes like the above allow this situation to exist, you can email them about your situation and the contact emails are here.

Thank You Very Much for this information


Thank you in particular for this part of your post

nm wrote: »

His credibility isn't in question.

It is nice to be treated in the manner in which we all deserve . To be treated as innocent in opinions of law and in all interactions with the state by default and it is also nice to see upstanding citizens rigorously defend this hard fought for right. People who scoff at this right obviously know nothing about history.

As for my situation - with no TV anywhere inside my house, car, shed or anywhere else anywhere near myself , who can blame me for feeling silly or in fact very stupid if I actually went and bought a TV license. I am also shocked at this idea that I should allow a stranger from the government to force his way into my home uninvited and search all the rooms. Even invited guests aren't freely wandering into the bedrooms. This leaves me wondering if the TV license is actually a ''privacy tax''

coffeepls

So have you queried this with an post yet at all? What do they actually say? I've never heard of a licence inspector going into anyone's property tbh. Why would you let anyone past the doorstep if you don't want them in your home? You have rights. I think you're getting yourself all het up on rumours of tv licence invasion of your home without checking from the actual authorities.
I understand you are worried, but you really do need to ask an post, and if you want to know your rights to refuse people entry to your home I'd suggest the citizens advice bureau. Arm yourself with facts