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 Summons - Can we pay now to avoid fine?

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #33
    snowflaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭snowflaker


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    If you are buying for the first time in your name, it has no specific start date, except the day they recorded you without having a licence


  • Options
    #34
    uck51js9zml2yt
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,268 ✭✭✭✭uck51js9zml2yt


    It gets backdated to the beginning of the current month.
    Had to buy one recently after my mother died(she had it free).
    Why can't you just buy it in your fathers name and show in court that a TV license was bought by the owner of the house. You neither own the house or TV.


  • Options
    #35
    dbagman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭dbagman


    So in effect what iv taken from this thread is all you have to do is not give your name to the licence inspector and there's jack they can do to you regarding not having a licence.


  • Options
    #36
    snowflaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭snowflaker


    Joey Delicious Sprinter wrote: »
    It gets backdated to the beginning of the current month.
    Had to buy one recently after my mother died(she had it free).
    Why can't you just buy it in your fathers name and show in court that a TV license was bought by the owner of the house. You neither own the house or TV.

    If it was in his dad's name, they may be liable back to when he last had a tv licence!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    snowflaker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭snowflaker


    dbagman wrote: »
    So in effect what iv taken from this thread is all you have to do is not give your name to the licence inspector and there's jack they can do to you regarding not having a licence.

    they can get your name


  • Options
    #38
    dbagman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭dbagman


    snowflaker wrote:
    they can get your name


    How?


  • Options
    #39
    questionmark?
    Registered Users Posts: 3,074 ✭✭✭questionmark?


    I love Sean nos wrote: »
    dev100 wrote: »
    pay it but beware they may make you back date since it was last paid either that or put it in your name.
    They do backdate it. I looked it up before and it says something like if there was a licence at the address in the past six months, they backdate it. The name on the previous licence doesn't matter.

    I've tested this. I have a TV licence. Buy it every year. But I never buy it on time. Last year I received a total of 8 reminders before I said **** it and paid up. One previous year I used the wife's name and it backdated regardless.

    This raises a question for me. If for example, the OP's TV licence expired in March 2017 and the inspector called in May 2017. OP buys a licence now and it's backdated to start from March 2017. Surely now he has a robust defence in that he had a valid licence at the time the inspector called. It says so right on the front of the licence.

    Hold on that doesn't make sense if it's a new name.
    What if you just moved into a rented apartment and the last tenant had not renewed the licence so your expected to cover the time for someone else?
    What if you had a licence but the TV broke but only got a new TV five months later so buy a licence. Again your paying for a time you were not required to hold a licence?


  • Options
    #40
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #41
    gerard2210
    Registered Users Posts: 547 ✭✭✭gerard2210


    snowflaker wrote:
    they can get your name

    dbagman wrote:
    How?


    Ask a neighbour, label on your bin.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #43
    Yourself isit
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,257 ✭✭✭Yourself isit


    dbagman wrote: »
    So in effect what iv taken from this thread is all you have to do is not give your name to the licence inspector and there's jack they can do to you regarding not having a licence.

    They would have just summoned the father.


  • Options
    #44
    Fred Swanson
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,730 ✭✭✭✭Fred Swanson


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #45
    I love Sean nos
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭I love Sean nos


    Fred Swanson wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Yes. I've never received a "corrected" one as you described. But again, I've always renewed online, never at a post counter.

    So if it's backdated to before the inspector visited, then there's no case to answer in court I would have thought and no arrears to pay.


  • Options
    #46
    dbagman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭dbagman


    gerard2210 wrote:
    Ask a neighbour, label on your bin.

    Fred Swanson wrote:
    Ask the postman, lookup the electoral register, check the bins. Very easy for them to get a name.


    Iv always lived in shared rental accommodation. There's always at least 1 out of the 3 or 4 in the house that won't pay it hence I end up going without as I refuse to be the one that pays for it. Bills are all in different names. Post is all in different names. Pretty sure there's no name on the bins. Iv never really known neighbours on a first and second name basis. In all the years and different addresses iv had it's never once been an issue. Just curious how they do catch people without them actually being told a name.


  • Options
    #47
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    rawn wrote: »
    Thanks I will do that.

    Just spoke to my dad about it, he said he's been getting letters but hasn't opened them, he doesn't remember if he threw them out or not but I'm looking for them now, chances are there's a few warnings in there! I'm guessing when he didn't pay up they showed up and my supposedly smart husband gave his name so they probably assumed my dad moved out and are chasing him for it now. Fml. We'll call them tomorrow and see if we can just pay up and avoid the court altogether. My husband is doing a summer internship and I don't like the idea of him having to ask for a day off to go to court! Thanks everyone :)

    What age is dad?


  • Options
    #48
    brian_t
    Registered Users Posts: 6,674 ✭✭✭brian_t


    Really Interested wrote: »
    What age is dad?
    rawn wrote: »
    He's mid 50s.!
    .


  • Options
    #49
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,331 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    dbagman wrote: »
    Iv always lived in shared rental accommodation. There's always at least 1 out of the 3 or 4 in the house that won't pay it hence I end up going without as I refuse to be the one that pays for it. Bills are all in different names. Post is all in different names. Pretty sure there's no name on the bins. Iv never really known neighbours on a first and second name basis. In all the years and different addresses iv had it's never once been an issue. Just curious how they do catch people without them actually being told a name.
    They're the post office. They deliver the post. They know who lives there.


  • Options
    #50
    endacl
    Registered Users Posts: 22,275 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    coylemj wrote: »
    That's 100% wrong, you cannot negotiate your way out of a District Court summons by discussing it with the agency taking the prosecution in advance of the court hearing.

    What you're suggesting is the same as asking a Garda what he will take to 'settle' a drink driving summons.

    You can indeed. I'm aware of two individual instances where an 'oh my god I cant believe I've been so stupid' phone call and the purchase of a license resulted in the action being dropped.


  • Options
    #51
    dbagman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭dbagman


    Peregrinus wrote:
    They're the post office. They deliver the post. They know who lives there.


    Hardly when as iv said there's multiple names getting letters delivered. Past and present tenants. They could have their pick of 8 or so names.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    tracey turnblad
    Registered Users Posts: 657 ✭✭✭tracey turnblad


    I'd buy a licence under your dads name using direct debit. Turn up in court and show the licence explain the situation about your dad and I'm sure the judge will dismiss it.


  • Options
    #53
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,331 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    dbagman wrote: »
    Hardly when as iv said there's multiple names getting letters delivered. Past and present tenants. They could have their pick of 8 or so names.
    If they've issued a summons to a past occupier of the premises you live in, you can simply ignore it; it's not addressed to you.

    If they have issued a summons to you, and you currently occupy the premises, I think it's irrelevant that there are also other occupiers of the premises. Under the legislation, everyone in occupation at the premises is presumed to "possess" (NB not "own") any television set on the premises, unless the contrary is shown, so if there is no licence for the set then any one of them (or all of them) can be prosecuted.

    Being who they are, An Post can generally identify at least one current occupier of any premises with reasonable reliability. It's then up to him - if this is the defence that he wants to run - to show that he did not "posses" the TV set on the premises. (E.g. "This is a houseshare. The TV set belongs to one of the other people in the house, it stays in his room, and the rest of us don't get to use or see it.")


  • Options
    #54
    dbagman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭dbagman


    Peregrinus wrote:
    If they've issued a summons to a past occupier of the premises you live in, you can simply ignore it; it's not addressed to you.

    Peregrinus wrote:
    If they have issued a summons to you, and you currently occupy the premises, I think it's irrelevant that there are also other occupiers of the premises. Under the legislation, everyone in occupation at the premises is presumed to "possess" (NB not "own") any television set on the premises, unless the contrary is shown, so if there is no licence for the set then any one of them (or all of them) can be prosecuted.

    Peregrinus wrote:
    Being who they are, An Post can generally identify at least one current occupier of any premises with reasonable reliability. It's then up to him - if this is the defence that he wants to run - to show that he did not "posses" the TV set on the premises. (E.g. "This is a houseshare. The TV set belongs to one of the other people in the house, it stays in his room, and the rest of us don't get to use or see it.")

    That's fair enough. Just I'm interested in how they'd go about it is all. Personally I'd buy it purely for the piece of mind, and have done in past when all occupants were willing to pay their share. Wonder how'd they make it stick in the case of a house share. Surely blame can't be laid on a sole occupant.


  • Options
    #55
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users Posts: 26,331 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    dbagman wrote: »
    That's fair enough. Just I'm interested in how they'd go about it is all. Personally I'd buy it purely for the piece of mind, and have done in past when all occupants were willing to pay their share. Wonder how'd they make it stick in the case of a house share. Surely blame can't be laid on a sole occupant.
    Every occupier of the house commits an offence if, together, they possess a television set. An Post can prosecute one, some or all of them. Since the object of the prosecution is simply to get them to buy a licence, generally the easiest is to prosecute one of them - the first identified, or one of them chosen at random.


  • Options
    #56
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    dbagman wrote: »
    That's fair enough. Just I'm interested in how they'd go about it is all. Personally I'd buy it purely for the piece of mind, and have done in past when all occupants were willing to pay their share. Wonder how'd they make it stick in the case of a house share. Surely blame can't be laid on a sole occupant.


    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/section/148/enacted/en/html#sec148

    148.— A person who keeps, has in his or her possession or uses a television set in contravention of section 142 commits an offence and is liable on summary conviction—

    The very use of a unlicensed TV can lead to a summons, especially if the Inspector given the name by the person when he calls.

    http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/section/151/enacted/en/html#sec151

    (5) In this section “ occupier ” in relation to premises, means a person who as owner, tenant or otherwise is in occupation, whether solely, jointly or severally, of the premises.


  • Options
    #57
    dbagman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭dbagman


    Really Interested wrote:
    148.— A person who keeps, has in his or her possession or uses a television set in contravention of


    But again, in a house share, who's to say who owns the tv or who uses it. Iv moved into houses and theres a tv there. Be it part of the furniture when you move in or owned by one of the occupants. How can an post prove who uses it or owns it? And what if I genuinely don't own the t.v. and it's my name they get? Its an extremely flawed system.


  • Options
    #58
    gerard2210
    Registered Users Posts: 547 ✭✭✭gerard2210


    dbagman wrote:
    But again, in a house share, who's to say who owns the tv or who uses it. Iv moved into houses and theres a tv there. Be it part of the furniture when you move in or owned by one of the occupants. How can an post prove who uses it or owns it? And what if I genuinely don't own the t.v. and it's my name they get? Its an extremely flawed system.


    When an post get your name you'll be sent several letters informing you that there isn't a license at your address.
    You can then get your house mates to cough up and buy a license, or inform an post who actually owns the t.v., or move out before it gets to summons stage.


  • Options
    #59
    Really Interested
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,554 ✭✭✭Really Interested


    dbagman wrote: »
    But again, in a house share, who's to say who owns the tv or who uses it. Iv moved into houses and theres a tv there. Be it part of the furniture when you move in or owned by one of the occupants. How can an post prove who uses it or owns it? And what if I genuinely don't own the t.v. and it's my name they get? Its an extremely flawed system.


    Then you go to court, you say under oath that you do not own the TV, you did not use the TV and you then get cross examined. If the Court accepts your evidence then the case is not proved, you are found not guilty, and if you have had a solicitor your solicitor seeks your costs of defending the matter, as An Post do not have a protection against costs as the AGS and the DPP do.


  • Options
    #60
    jimmycrackcorm
    Registered Users Posts: 14,336 ✭✭✭✭jimmycrackcorm


    I love Sean nos wrote:
    I've tested this. I have a TV licence. Buy it every year. But I never buy it on time. Last year I received a total of 8 reminders before I said **** it and paid up. One previous year I used the wife's name and it backdated regardless.


    They check names against lists of UPC and sky subscribers. It also used to be that tv retailers had to supply details of purchasers.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    dbagman
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,216 ✭✭✭dbagman


    Really Interested wrote:
    Then you go to court, you say under oath that you do not own the TV, you did not use the TV and you then get cross examined. If the Court accepts your evidence then the case is not proved, you are found not guilty, and if you have had a solicitor your solicitor seeks your costs of defending the matter, as An Post do not have a protection against costs as the AGS and the DPP do.


    Full of holes really. How do I prove I don't own it? "Sorry your honour I DON'T have the receipt". And what classes as use of it? You walk into the sitting room and its on and you happen to glance at it does that mean you use it? I know im nit picking here but im just trying ascertain how they can actually pin this on someone. It will ultimately come Down to how good or bad a day the judge is having. Which is a shocking attempt at carrying out justice. The whole system needs reviewing. And given what it funds rotten to the core really.


Advertisement