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
Comments
-
gerard2210 wrote: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.
Ok so you dont get a summons straight away? Just a letter saying we know you're there and you had better get one fairly sharpish. Makes you wonder how they succeed in prosecuting anyone.0 -
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.
You prove it the way many people prove things in criminal things every day in court up and down the country, by giving sworn evidence. I ive in the house i am a lodger, i never watch TV because I dont like TV and I am on Boards every day. If a person can not give that evidence then they used the TV and have to pay the fine.0 -
gerard2210 wrote: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.
if I was in a house share and if it was me I'd wouldn't inform on anyone anyways the inspector gets paid to do that job. if I genuinely didn't watch TV or never went near it and I don't own it and if I got the threatening letter id email them back stating that fact . It's up to them to prove who owns it while I hate paying for a license I do pay it and would expect others to chip in if everyone used it in a house share situation . It's not worth the hassle with inspectors calling around .
My 2 mate s live in separate apartments in the one building both never paid it. One day some clown let the inspector into the building and he would stand out side the doors waiting for people to come out . He caught my mate and told him he knew he had a TV in the house as he had checked that he sky etc . I laughed when I heard this as I knew my mate has sky but it's billed to his home place . It worked though.
My other mate walks out the door and the inspector tries to engage with him and my mate ignores him completely and has never had any summonses0 -
You don't have to own it or use it. It doesn't even have to be working, just repairable. The law states that once you're in possession of a TV in this state, you are obliged to have a TV licence.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?0 -
jimmycrackcorm wrote: »They check names against lists of UPC and sky subscribers.
They don't, Pat Rabbitte and Alex White both suggested this but UPC and Sky refused unless they were forced to by a legislation change.
When Alex White proposed the legislative changes Fine Gael rejected it in 2015.jimmycrackcorm wrote: »It also used to be that tv retailers had to supply details of purchasers.
That was a provision which could have been allowed for under ministerial regulation under S7 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926 (the provision is no longer there following amendment), no such ministerial regulation was ever made AFAIK. In the UK however that is the case.0 -
Advertisement
-
I love Sean nos wrote: »It doesn't even have to be working, just repairable.
That is a common misconception which CI seems to have put out there.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.
It must be "capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services". If it is broken it isn't capable of doing such, there is no legal basis for such a statement by CI.I love Sean nos wrote: »The law states that once you're in possession of a TV in this state, you are obliged to have a TV licence.
The law actually states once your in possession of a TV in this state which is capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services, you are obliged to have a TV licence. The "capable" part is key to that.0 -
No. Read the legislation more carefully. If your the occupier of a premises, you have a liablity if you "keep" or "possess" or "use" a television set on the premises. The word "own' doesn't appear anywhere, so ownership is irrelevant and receipts or the inability to produce them make no difference at all. In the absence of some very unusual facts, everyone who occupies a premises is keeping or possessing any television set that may be on the premises, whether or not they also use it.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.0 -
Hi all. My husband and I live with my dad. My dad owns and watches the TV, we pay him rent inclusive of bills. My husband got a summons today for nonpayment of TV license, we were confused at first about why it was his name on it rather than my dads, but the husband vaguely remembers giving his name to someone at the door last year who could have been a TV License inspector (he didn't let him in but he could easily have seen the TV through the window). We were unaware that the TV License hadn't been paid, we honestly never gave it a thought as my dad does usually have one.
We know of course that judges have heard it all before and we don't want to go in full of excuses, but if we pay for a license now and bring a copy on the day would we avoid a fine? There's no phone number on the summons to call and ask. Thanks
If your dad is an OAP he might be entitled to a free television licence.0 -
Peregrinus wrote:No. Read the legislation more carefully. If your the occupier of a premises, you have a liablity if you "keep" or "possess" or "use" a television set on the premises. The word "own' doesn't appear anywhere, so ownership is irrelevant and receipts or the inability to produce them make no difference at all. In the absence of some very unusual facts, everyone who occupies a premises is keeping or possessing any television set that may be on the premises, whether or not they also use it.
How's that going to stand up in court? I'm in a house with a tv I don't use owned by someone else, therefore I'm liable for the licence fee for it? Wouldn't surprise me actually in this country. Best in the world when it comes to getting in your pockets.0 -
Because you keep it in your house. If you don't want to pay a licence fee, don't keep a television in your house. It's not rocket science, dbagman.How's that going to stand up in court? I'm in a house with a tv I don't use owned by someone else, therefore I'm liable for the licence fee for it?0 -
Advertisement
-
Peregrinus wrote:Because you keep it in your house. If you don't want to pay a licence fee, don't keep a television in your house. It's not rocket science, dbagman.
It's not mine nor do I use it. Therefore not being kept by me. Not rocket science either. I'm not about to put someone else's property out in the rain to appease the rte fat cats.0 -
It's not mine nor do I use it. Therefore not being kept by me. Not rocket science either. I'm not about to put someone else's property out in the rain to appease the rte fat cats.
My reading of the law you can not be convicted once the Court accepts your evidence under oath
A person who keeps, has in his or her possession or uses a television se
You do not keep, you do not have it in your possession and finally you do not use. It's not complex.0 -
Really Interested wrote:You do not keep, you do not have it in your possession and finally you do not use. It's not complex.
That's all I was trying to say. I'm speaking hypothetically here as this situation doesn't currently apply to me anymore but has been my circumstance for many a year gone by. Was just curious as to the actual legalities of it as I'm sure it's going on in abundance in rental share houses across the country. And I'd imagine given the current rental market this particular scenario is all the more common again.0 -
That's all I was trying to say. I'm speaking hypothetically here as this situation doesn't currently apply to me anymore but has been my circumstance for many a year gone by. Was just curious as to the actual legalities of it as I'm sure it's going on in abundance in rental share houses across the country. And I'd imagine given the current rental market this particular scenario is all the more common again.
Again it depends on the facts of the house share. If a person finds themselves in such a situation they should first find out if there is a TV is there a licence. If there is not then they should see do they have control of the removal of the TV. If they can not remove the TV assume it's another tenants then as long as they don't use it I would think they are fine.0 -
And why would a court accept such a Bart Simpson defence?Really Interested wrote: »My reading of the law you can not be convicted once the Court accepts your evidence under oath
Tell the court who does own the TV. Once they stand up and admit it, you'd be off the hook.It's not mine nor do I use it. Therefore not being kept by me. Not rocket science either. I'm not about to put someone else's property out in the rain to appease the rte fat cats.0 -
I love Sean nos wrote: »And why would a court accept such a Bart Simpson defence?
It's not that the court would be accepting the defence, rather the prosecution would need to rebut it.Peregrinus wrote: »In the absence of some very unusual facts, everyone who occupies a premises is keeping or possessing any television set that may be on the premises, whether or not they also use it.
Whilst An Post will try to prosecute (or at least threaten to) anyone in the house, the fact of the matter is this isn't true.
Any person in the house can't be prosecuted as "keep" or "have in possession" does not apply unless they actually control the TV - either personally or by someone else, there must be actual or constructive possession.
They can't have actual possession of the TV unless they personally exercise physical control over it, and they can't have constructive possession of the TV unless it is in the actual possession of another person in the home (and over whom they have control of) so that it would be available to them if and when they wanted it.
A person can be said to be in possession of the contents of their own dwelling-house, but only if they are aware of what it contains, problem is the prosecution would need to establish that a TV was present more than on the say one occassion that the accused and the inspector were present as they would need to rebut the accuseds defence of not knowing the TV was there or who put it there if such a defence is raised.
It's a defence which needs to be rebutted and a position which was held by the High Court in 1966 which many seem to be unaware of.0 -
-
I love Sean nos wrote: »So An Post aren't really after whomever has the TV, it's the person who has the remote.
Having a TV and not having the control also eqautes control.0 -
I love Sean nos wrote: »And why would a court accept such a Bart Simpson defence?
Tell the court who does own the TV. Once they stand up and admit it, you'd be off the hook.
The same way courts accept spoken evidence in every criminal and civil court, by giving the evidence under oath! It's not a difficult concept. The person gets into the box swears or affirms says I rent a room in a house, I do not have a tv in my room and I do not use the TV in the house. The prosecutor will cross. Of course if the person owns the house or rents the whole house and there is a TV then a problem.0 -
The spoken evidence has to be credible. Saying that there's a TV in your house, but it's not yours, you've never used it, you don't know anything about it, never even looked at it and even if you did, no one saw you do it is not going to work.Really Interested wrote: »The same way courts accept spoken evidence in every criminal and civil court, by giving the evidence under oath!
Just pay for the licence or get rid of the TV. It's that binary.0 -
Advertisement
-
I love Sean nos wrote: »The spoken evidence has to be credible. Saying that there's a TV in your house, but it's not yours, you've never used it, you don't know anything about it, never even looked at it and even if you did, no one saw you do it is not going to work.
Just pay for the licence or get rid of the TV. It's that binary.
I did answer a question posed by a person talking about a lodger situation and I went on to say of the person owned the house that would be a difficulty.
As my full answer not quoted by you said "The person gets into the box swears or affirms says I rent a room in a house, I do not have a tv in my room and I do not use the TV in the house."
In my earlier answer I had said "I ive in the house i am a lodger"0 -
I love Sean nos wrote: »The spoken evidence has to be credible. Saying that there's a TV in your house, but it's not yours, you've never used it, you don't know anything about it, never even looked at it and even if you did, no one saw you do it is not going to work.
Just pay for the licence or get rid of the TV. It's that binary.
If you say just that then the prosecution must prove otherwise which is difficult for them to do. It does work.
Most successful prosecutions result due to an admission of having a TV either in court or when stopped by the inspector (the inspector gives evidence of such). When someone never admits to it and denies any knowledge it's a different ball game, the prosecution must prove you had one and if you deny knowledge of it or who owns it the prosecution must rebut that defence. If they can't rebut then the standard of proof required for the offence has not been met and so no conviction.0 -
I'm not sure I agree. "Keep" doesn't mean "control". It means "keep".. . . Whilst An Post will try to prosecute (or at least threaten to) anyone in the house, the fact of the matter is this isn't true.
Any person in the house can't be prosecuted as "keep" or "have in possession" does not apply unless they actually control the TV - either personally or by someone else, there must be actual or constructive possession.
They can't have actual possession of the TV unless they personally exercise physical control over it, and they can't have constructive possession of the TV unless it is in the actual possession of another person in the home (and over whom they have control of) so that it would be available to them if and when they wanted it.
A person can be said to be in possession of the contents of their own dwelling-house, but only if they are aware of what it contains, problem is the prosecution would need to establish that a TV was present more than on the say one occassion that the accused and the inspector were present as they would need to rebut the accuseds defence of not knowing the TV was there or who put it there if such a defence is raised.
It's a defence which needs to be rebutted and a position which was held by the High Court in 1966 which many seem to be unaware of.
If you're the occupier of the house, whether as owner or as tenant or as one of a number of tenants, and there's something in the house which you do not remove, it seems to me that you "keeping" that thing - "keep" in the sense of "not get rid of". If you're one of several tenants, you are jointly keeping it, and any or all of you can be charged under the TV licence legislation.
If you're just a licensee, I think you could say that you're not "keeping" anything simply by virtue of its being in the house. In that case you could only be charged if you do something more to actively "keep" the television, or if you "possess" or "use" the television. Possession would involve either ownership or control of the television, or both, and use would involve, well, using it.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »I'm not sure I agree. "Keep" doesn't mean "control". It means "keep".
This has already been settled by the High Court in relation to the term "keep or have in his possession". The court basically concluded that keep or possession meant having control.Peregrinus wrote: »If you're the occupier of the house, whether as owner or as tenant or as one of a number of tenants, and there's something in the house which you do not remove, it seems to me that you "keeping" that thing - "keep" in the sense of "not get rid of". If you're one of several tenants, you are jointly keeping it, and any or all of you can be charged under the TV licence legislation.
If you're just a licensee, I think you could say that you're not "keeping" anything simply by virtue of its being in the house. In that case you could only be charged if you do something more to actively "keep" the television, or if you "possess" or "use" the television. Possession would involve either ownership or control of the television, or both, and use would involve, well, using it.
Again this was dealt with and it was established that if someone denies knowledge of a TV set even in their own home, then the state must prove basically that the accused was aware of the TV and that it was in the house other than the time the inspector called.
I'll dig out the case, but it seems to be one case which goes amiss even in the legal profession or those TV licence resistance type groups.0 -
The case is Minister for Posts and Telegraphs vs Campbell [1966] I.R. 69, a consultative case:-In my opinion a person cannot, in the context of a criminal case, be properly said to keep or have possession of an article unless he has control of it either personally or by someone else
This has since been approved by the High Court in cases such as DPP vs Gallagher [2007] 2 IR 246 and more recently in the Court of Criminal Appeal in DPP vs Delvin [2012] IECCA 70. As you can see Davitt. P declared keep or possession to involve control. This case has since been referred to and cited in cases concerning the definition of possession, but it was specifically a case regarding none other than a TV licence. It was based on the old Wireless Telegraphy Act 1926, but that act had the exact same "keep or have in his possession" provision as the Broadcasting Act 2009.
Davitt also stated:-He cannot be said to have actual possession of it unless he personally can exercise physical control over it; and he cannot be said to have constructive possession of it unless it is in the actual possession of some other person over whom he has control so that it would be available to him if and when he wanted it. Normally speaking, a person can properly be said to be in possession of the contents of his own dwelling-house, but only if he is aware of what it contains. He cannot properly be said to be in control or possession of something of whose existence and presence he has no knowledge.Assuming, for the sake only of the argument, that the evidence established that the cottage was the defendant's dwelling-house, there is in this case no evidence as to how the television set came to be there, how long it was there, or whether the defendant was ever at any time aware of its presence or existence. There is therefore no evidence that it was ever actually in his control or possession. There is no evidence as to who was the woman who was present in the house on the occasion of Mr. Brown's visit, or as to what was her relation, if any, to the defendant. There is nothing to indicate that he had any control over her actions. There are therefore no grounds for concluding that he had constructive possession of the television set. As far as the evidence goes, the set may have been placed in the cottage without his knowledge or consent.
That last part in bold is a big get out of jail card for people, and has been used successfully in drugs cases where drugs have been found in a persons car and they denied all knowledge of knowing they were there. This is in line with the People (Attorney General) vs Nugent and Byrne [1964] 98 ILTR 139 case or the Northern Ireland R. vs Whelan C.C.A. [1972] N.I. 153 case where basically there is no evidence that an accused was, or should have been aware of what was in their property and no evidence of any facts or circumstances from which such knowledge could be inferred.
Imagine what the licence resistance groups would be suggesting if they knew about that case. To be honest I'm actually very surprised this case has not come up in relation to TV licences, possibly because most people who are brought to court admit to the inspector that they have a TV and then attempt "all the excuses", or they held an expired licence for example. Once they admit having a TV the inspector gives evidence of such and they could no longer rely on a defence as per Campbell, as Davitt P stated:-
.In the great majority of prosecutions for keeping or having in one's possession an unlicensed wireless apparatus the prosecution has in the past given evidence of admission of liability by the person prosecuted in an interview between him and a Post Office official. Such evidence has been sometimes supplemented by evidence that, previously, the person prosecuted was the holder of an expired licence in respect of the same apparatus. In the present case there had not been any such interview or admission nor had it been proved that the defendant had been the holder of any expired licence in respect of this apparatus. Mr. Dixon said that in so far as the complainant was here relying on a certificate of valuation this case marked a new departure. It was a test case, he said, and, for that reason, the complainant would welcome a consultative case stated.0 -
OK. But the conventional placement for a television set is in a highly visible place, for obvious reasons. If the television set is kept in one person's bedroom, say, then other could argue that they didn't know about it. But if it's in the living room, not so much.
As regards "control", that may need a bit of unpicking. If the set is in fact available for everyone's use, and the remote control is left out so that anyone in the house can turn it on when they want to, is that a sufficient degree of "control" to make them liable, even if in fact they never do turn it on? Or does "control" mean "exclusive control", such that Alice can turn the television on or off, or change channels, but Bob, Carol and Dave cannot, either because Alice forbids it and they would never dream of disobeying her, or because Alice keeps the remote control about her person at all times, day and night?
As I see it, Campbell is authority for the proposition that the mere presence of a television on premises isn't evidence that the occupier of the premises keeps or possesses the television. As we've already noted there's a procedure in s.147 of the 2009 Act which can be used to create a presumption of keeping or possessing, and I can't help but suspect that that may be designed to get around the evidentiary problems created by Campbell.
Campbell doesn't address the question of what would be evidence of keeping or possessing. Assuming s. 147 applies, it's up to the defendant to show that he didn't "keep" or "possess" the television. That raises the question of what exactly what degree of control "keeping" a television set requires, and I don't know that Campbell has anything to say about that.0 -
Peregrinus wrote: »OK. But the conventional placement for a television set is in a highly visible place, for obvious reasons. If the television set is kept in one person's bedroom, say, then other could argue that they didn't know about it. But if it's in the living room, not so much.
That may be so, but evidence would still need to be produced of such which may be a problem, knowing and producing evidence to the required standard are two different things, unless of course the inspector views it more than once and gives evidence of such.Peregrinus wrote: »As regards "control", that may need a bit of unpicking. If the set is in fact available for everyone's use, and the remote control is left out so that anyone in the house can turn it on when they want to, is that a sufficient degree of "control" to make them liable, even if in fact they never do turn it on? Or does "control" mean "exclusive control", such that Alice can turn the television on or off, or change channels, but Bob, Carol and Dave cannot, either because Alice forbids it and they would never dream of disobeying her, or because Alice keeps the remote control about her person at all times, day and night?
As per Campbell - "unless he has control", a bit like the "is" and "may" which you mentioned in the passport thread. Has would suggest is in control as opposed to may have control. I think if further tested it would be exclusive or literal control.Peregrinus wrote: »As I see it, Campbell is authority for the proposition that the mere presence of a television on premises isn't evidence that the occupier of the premises keeps or possesses the television.
That would be the case if an inspector only viewed it the once, but if they gave evidence that they viewed it several times it would be reasonable to establish that the occupier was aware of the contents of their home.Peregrinus wrote: »As we've already noted there's a procedure in s.147 of the 2009 Act which can be used to create a presumption of keeping or possessing, and I can't help but suspect that that may be designed to get around the evidentiary problems created by Campbell.
That presumption only arises if a declaration is given to the occupier and they fail to fill it out:-147 (4) Where a person fails or neglects, within 28 days of service, to duly complete the form of declaration accompanied or annexed to a notice given or sent to him, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that he or she keeps or has possession of a television set at the premises or specified place to which the notice relates and a television licence is not in force in relation to the premises or specified place authorising the keeping or having possession of a television set at the premises or specified place.
S147 (4) does not provide for an evidential burden of proof on the accused as it does not require them to prove it, just to displace the presumption - as such they only need to state in evidence that they don't have a TV and the prosecution would need to rebut it.
Now if it said unless the contrary is "proved" that would be different, as such S147 would not get around Campbell. However I believe S151 (2) was to try get around Campbell:-151 (2) In a prosecution for an offence under section 148 in which it is shown that a television set was in a particular premises or specified place on a particular day, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is shown by the defendant, that on that day the television set was in the possession of the person who was then the occupier of the premises or specified place.
But again just like S147 it does not provide for an evidential burden of proof on the accused as it does not require them to prove it, just to displace the presumption, as such it does not require a realistic way around Campbell.
If someone raises the defence of having no possession the prosecution would have to rebut to the standard of Campbell. Any reverse burden specifically requires the use of "proved", "proof" etc as opposed to shown or otherwise.Peregrinus wrote: »Campbell doesn't address the question of what would be evidence of keeping or possessing. Assuming s. 147 applies, it's up to the defendant to show that he didn't "keep" or "possess" the television. That raises the question of what exactly what degree of control "keeping" a television set requires, and I don't know that Campbell has anything to say about that.
From Campbell:-there is in this case no evidence as to how the television set came to be there, how long it was there, or whether the defendant was ever at any time aware of its presence or existence
I think the above addresses what would be evidence of keeping or possession, i.e anything which shows it was there more than once, that the accused purchases it or that the accused was aware of it, the first point (that it was there on more than one occassion) should prove knowledge.Normally speaking, a person can properly be said to be in possession of the contents of his own dwelling-house, but only if he is aware of what it contains0 -
This post has been deleted.0
-
Fred Swanson wrote: »No there is no offence committed if you fail to complete one of those declarations?
Correct, there is no offence for failing to complete one, but there is an offence for giving false or misleading information in it.0 -
Advertisement
-
Hi,
Don't know I should start a new thread. (Apols to mods if I should)
I'm in a similar position to the OP, We moved home in April, We had a license in the old house in my Partners name, On the day after we moved in the TV license inspector arrived at the Door and ASKED my name as there was no one registered at this address for TV license. I Laughed at him and closed the Door. He returned a few weeks later and ask Are you Mr. X? to which I stupidly replied YES! he then asked If I had tv license, and I confirmed that we hadn't as we had only just moved in. Cut a long story short I got a summons to appear in Oct. I had intended to request a Gary Doyle order which requires An Post to provide me with the evidence against me, however having read several conflicting opinions as to the validity or chances of success of this tactic I'm really confused. It seems to be mainly "Freeman" types that are pushing this tactic and I dont exactly trust their "Legaleese" Any advice would be welcomed0
Advertisement