Tv Licence Letter.

Stasi 2.0

GM228 wrote: »

They arn't required to establish if anyone is the householder though, any person on the premises is legally required to produce a TV licence if requested to do so by an inspector..

So the first thing I should tell my visitors/babysitters/plumbers etc when they arrive at the door is where I keep my TV licence lest they accidently open the door to the Telly dude

GM228 wrote: »

They are not required to establish if you have a TV or not, just that you have a TV licence or not, the presumption of having a TV until proven otherwise is a matter of law.

It is an offence to be in possession of an unlicensed television set. Therefore in order to prove such an offence has taken place are they not required to determine.
1) Whether a television set actually exists
2) Who is in possession of it ?

Atari Jaguar

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

Who actually uses a TV these days anyway? It's all about the screen itself so paying a little extra for an LED screen *without* a TV tuner makes sense if all you do is watch netflix or stream things online..

Plenty of people watch Sky and Virgin or freeview options. You can't stream or Netflix everything.

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

So the first thing I should tell my visitors/babysitters/plumbers etc when they arrive at the door is where I keep my TV licence lest they accidently open the door to the Telly dude

You can tell them if you wish, but the law 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.

Once they believe they have evidence of such they can request the licence from any person on the premises.

Also if they don't have any evidence of such they can personally hand you a Statutory Declaration in which you must give your name and address within 28 days of being served the notice. It's the only time you are legally required to provide your name to an inspector.

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

It is an offence to be in possession of an unlicensed television set. Therefore in order to prove such an offence has taken place are they not required to determine.
1) Whether a television set actually exists
2) Who is in possession of it ?

No they are not required to prove the offence has taken place, it's what is know as the "reversed burden of proof" or the "evidential burden of proof", the legal doctrine where the accused must prove their innocence as opposed to the prosecution proving their guilt - which is known as the "legal burden of proof".

Stasi 2.0

GM228 wrote: »

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

And if they DONT find a television set because they havent been allowed in what happens then ?

Where does it say people are required to prove their innocence (not easy to prove a negative)?

Thats kinda unusual (possibly unconstitutional?) in common-law jurisdictions.

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

Had a licence inspector around last month. We genuinely don't actually have a TV in the house and he took my word for it (he could see in to the sitting room where we just have a router on a TV stand) and wrote up a little slip of paper confirming the inspection time, date and outcome i.e. 'no set'.....

What happens next i.e. how long before they are likely to return ?

Confused mum84

If your name was on letter , I'd get it sorted .. If your name wasn't on letter - ignore it .. Inspector may call back soon so don't open door to cold caller., once your face to face you can't ignore & once your in the system, you'll be stuck paying it forever

GrumpyMe

Confused mum84 wrote: »

Inspector may call back soon so don't open door to cold caller., once your face to face you can't ignore

The Inspector is given that name to make it appear that he/she/it is important!
While I agree with the sentiment of not answering to cold callers - if you do have the misfortune to open the door to The Inspector - just close it again without speaking or listening...
He/she/it has no magical powers to compel you to interact. Just close the door and go on about your business.
Simples - tisck!

mansize

Some people (and its usually NOT those most destitute), don't want to pay for ANYTHING it seems to me...

Dr Crayfish

Ok so I'm still a bit unclear on all this. I got a "The Occupier" letter to the house I bought earlier this year. Went in the bin of course, I'd never pay for the likes of Tubber's and Duffy's salaries.
Anyway. I do have a TV which I never watch, as I don't have any piped TV or anything at all.
If I go and put it in the attic and an inspector calls around, am I in the clear? Do they come in and start looking in your rooms? I'm very surprised that's legal, it seems so intrusive. Like would he be looking under your beds etc?

And can you own a phone/laptop without having to pay the licence?

GrumpyMe

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Anyway. I do have a TV which I never watch, as I don't have any piped TV or anything at all.
If I go and put it in the attic and an inspector calls around, am I in the clear?

If it is capable of working then No you are still obliged to have a licence

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Do they come in and start looking in your rooms? I'm very surprised that's legal, it seems so intrusive. Like would he be looking under your beds etc?

I refer the member to my previous answer!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101949294&postcount=189
They are TV licence inspectors not the Gestapo!
They have no powers that your local Eircom phone Watch salesman doesn't have!
They can go to court and ask the court to grant powers but they don't carry spare powers around in their pocket - just in case!

Dr Crayfish

GrumpyMe wrote: »

If it is capable of working then No you are still obliged to have a licence


I refer the member to my previous answer!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101949294&postcount=189
They are TV licence inspectors not the Gestapo!
They have no powers that your local Eircom phone Watch salesman doesn't have!
They can go to court and ask the court to grant powers but they don't carry spare powers around in their pocket - just in case!

Thanks. No I know I need a licence anyway. And if he visits once and sees there's no TV how often will the f*ckers want to check?

Stasi 2.0

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

If I go and put it in the attic and an inspector calls around, am I in the clear?

*Technically* No however I doubt they'd even think of looking up there. Bury it under a pile of other crap if you want to be sure.

ADDS: Assuming the set doesn't have a detachable mains cable you could also consider cutting the plug off in order to render it incapable of receiving broadcasts (and therefore perfectly legal) replacing it with a new plug if you later change your mind is a fairly simple/cheap DIY project.

GrumpyMe

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Thanks. No I know I need a licence anyway. And if he visits once and sees there's no TV how often will the f*ckers want to check?

FFS - He has no power to visit!
If he calls to your door tell him that you wish to withdraw any implied right he thinks he has to come onto your property - tell him to leave or you will use reasonable force to remove him! He is not a "f*ckers" - he is a joe soap just like any other caller to your door. They call to any door that they don't have a record of as being in possession of a current valid TV licence. It is not rocket science!He has no right to "see that there is no TV". He can go to court and get a warrant but that will only happen after some prolonged carry on!

Dr Crayfish

GrumpyMe wrote: »

He can go to court and get a warrant but that will only happen after some prolonged carry on!

Right, and then I'll have to pay it! What I'm asking is - if I let him in, and he can't find a TV, am I in the clear forever?

mansize

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Right, and then I'll have to pay it! What I'm asking is - if I let him in, and he can't find a TV, am I in the clear forever?

No. you would have to declare each time he visits! Its not as if its difficult to acquire a tv

GrumpyMe

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Right, and then I'll have to pay it! What I'm asking is - if I let him in, and he can't find a TV, am I in the clear forever?

He has the same powers before during and after you let him in or when you don't let him in or if he never calls!
If you are concerned that he might use his powers to find that you should have but don't have a licence then get a licence.
It seems stupid to me to keep a TV in the attic and have no licence when you are obliged to have one.
Why not just get rid of the TV - then the f*ckers can do their worst but can do nothing to you!

Dr Crayfish

mansize wrote: »

No. you would have to declare each time he visits! Its not as if its difficult to acquire a tv

I wont be opening the door for the rest of my life so

And can we confirm that as long as they don't get my name they can't get a warrant etc to enter the premises with Gardai or whatever?

mansize

GrumpyMe wrote: »

FFS - He has no power to visit!
If he calls to your door tell him that you wish to withdraw any implied right he thinks he has to come onto your property - tell him to leave or you will use reasonable force to remove him! He is not a "f*ckers" - he is a joe soap just like any other caller to your door. They call to any door that they don't have a record of as being in possession of a current valid TV licence. It is not rocket science!He has no right to "see that there is no TV". He can go to court and get a warrant but that will only happen after some prolonged carry on!

And you will bare these costs if convicted

Stasi 2.0

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

am I in the clear forever?

Doubt that. People do change address and former non-TV owners sometimes buy TV's (and "forget" to licence them). Presumably there wouldn't come back every week but have some kind of embargo period ?

And can we confirm that as long as they don't get my name they can't get a warrant etc to enter the premises

I seriously doubt that.

They need a name to issue a summons but if they needed if for a warrant one could be doing all sorts in their house provided they told everyone they were Mickey Mouse.

Dr Crayfish

GrumpyMe wrote: »

He has the same powers before during and after you let him in or when you don't let him in or if he never calls!
If you are concerned that he might use his powers to find that you should have but don't have a licence then get a licence.
It seems stupid to me to keep a TV in the attic and have no licence when you are obliged to have one.
Why not just get rid of the TV - then the f*ckers can do their worst but can do nothing to you!

Well maybe one day I'll want a TV. I live alone at the moment but maybe I'll live with a person who watches TV one day and it seems a waste to throw out a good TV.

Surely they don't start bringing ladders into the gaf to go up into the attic? lol. The whole thing is just hilarious.

For some reason I'm reminded of those English 70s sex comedys about Window Cleaners etc, except it's a TV licence inspector. Ooooh errr maybe we can come to another arrangement Mrs Patterson...

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

And if they DONT find a television set because they havent been allowed in what happens then ?

Then they can issue a statutory declaration which must be filled in or they can simply be satisfied that you don't have a TV and take no further action - their choice, or get a warrant if entry is refused.

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

Where does it say people are required to prove their innocence (not easy to prove a negative)?

They presumption stems from Sectiom 147 of the Broadcasting Act.

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

Thats kinda unusual (possibly unconstitutional?) in common-law jurisdictions.

It's far from unusual and applies to many offences, the reversed burden of proof is in fact a legal principle which operates  in probably every common law and civil law jurisdiction around the world and is well settled in Irish law in terms of constitutional compatability by our judicial system.

GM228

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

And can we confirm that as long as they don't get my name they can't get a warrant etc to enter the premises with Gardai or whatever?

A name is not required for the warrant (and the owner is also not required to be present to execute the warrant) as it is in relation to a place as opposed to a person.

GM228

GrumpyMe wrote: »

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Thanks. No I know I need a licence anyway. And if he visits once and sees there's no TV how often will the f*ckers want to check?

FFS - He has no power to visit!
If he calls to your door tell him that you wish to withdraw any implied right he thinks he has to come onto your property - tell him to leave or you will use reasonable force to remove him! He is not a "f*ckers" - he is a joe soap just like any other caller to your door. They call to any door that they don't have a record of as being in possession of a current valid TV licence. It is not rocket science!He has no right to "see that there is no TV". He can go to court and get a warrant but that will only happen after some prolonged carry on!

You can't remove an implied right because it dosn't apply, the inspector has a lawful right and you can't use "reasonal force" to remove a trespasser either unless criminal trespass applies and you are doing so to protect yourself or your property.

Read the Broadcasting Act and you will see the inspector has got the right to check for a TV, and by the way the issuing of the warrant if required is actually a simple quick process.

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

ADDS: Assuming the set doesn't have a detachable mains cable you could also consider cutting the plug off in order to render it incapable of receiving broadcasts (and therefore perfectly legal) replacing it with a new plug if you later change your mind is a fairly simple/cheap DIY project.

Do you really think that would work and satisfy an inspector/court?

The capability of the TV working can be dependent on the use of something else in conjunction wth it, namely the plug - something which is already covered in the Act.

Stasi 2.0

The legal definition is

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;

If the cable is cut and no bare wires exposed the apparatus is not capable of anything.

GM228 wrote: »

Read the Broadcasting Act and you will see the inspector has got the right to check for a TV, and by the way the issuing of the warrant if required is actually a simple quick process.

Nevertheless without a warrant one is not obliged to speak to them, answer any questions, open the door to them or keep it open.

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

The legal definition is

If the cable is cut and no bare wires exposed the apparatus is not capable of anything.

"whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it", the capability of the TV is dependent on the use of a plug (and electricity), the fact that a plug is actually fitted or not is irrelevant, next you will say it's perfectly legal to have an unlicenced TV in a house with no electricity.

I was at a sitting of the District Court several years ago where some smart arse used that very excuse and provided photos to prove it, they left the court with a €300 fine!

It's amazing what lenghts people will go to to try and circumvent the law, and even more amazing the amount of people who are convinced they are correct and can beat the system.

Dr Crayfish

Seriously no one has a clue what they can and can't do according to this thread. Conflicting reports everywhere.

Stasi 2.0

Even with a dozen plugs a TV in the state I've described is incapable of anything

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Seriously no one has a clue what they can and can't do according to this thread. Conflicting reports everywhere.

That's why one shouldn't take legal advice given for free by strangers on the internet.

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

Even with a dozen plugs a TV in the state I've described is incapable of anything

The legislation and the courts would disagree with you.

Sillybillyx

Tv licence resistance Ireland, it's a Facebook group join it and will assure you you will never pay a TVs licence again, I stopped paying it years ago go have a read there you'll understand it better, even had a court appearance and won

Digital Solitude

GM228 wrote: »

The legislation and the courts would disagree with you.

What if I put my foot through it? Right there and then, infront of the inspector