Licensees - TV licence

Pookla

If I'm renting a room in an owner occupied house, who is responsible for getting a TV licence?

If there is an inspection, do I have to give my name even though I'm only there for 3-4 nights per week and not as an actual tenant?

Ha Long Bay

Pookla wrote: »

If I'm renting a room in an owner occupied house, who is responsible for getting a TV licence?

If there is an inspection, do I have to give my name even though I'm only there for 3-4 nights per week and not as an actual tenant?

It's your landlord who is responsible for having a valid TV license not yours.

coylemj

Pookla wrote: »

If I'm renting a room in an owner occupied house, who is responsible for getting a TV licence?

How does it make a difference if the landlord lives in the house or not?

Pookla wrote: »

If there is an inspection, do I have to give my name even though I'm only there for 3-4 nights per week and not as an actual tenant?

You're renting part of a house and living in it, that makes you a tenant.

Pookla

coylemj wrote: »

How does it make a difference if the landlord lives in the house or not?

You're renting part of a house and living in it, that makes you a tenant.

I read (I think it was PRTB) that because the owner lives in the house, I am not a proper tenant as I don't have the rights afforded to a tenant as I have entered into a licensee arrangement (I stay with the permission of the owner but could be asked to leave without a notice period etc.).

I'm not sure if it makes a difference or not in terms of the TV licence?

anewme

You dont have to give your name to the Inspector.

Ha Long Bay

coylemj wrote: »

How does it make a difference if the landlord lives in the house or not?



You're renting part of a house and living in it, that makes you a tenant.

The OP is a licensee and not a tenant as it would come under the rent a room scheme. Its up to the property owner to provide the TV license.

coylemj

john4321 wrote: »

The OP is a licensee and not a tenant as it would come under the rent a room scheme. Its up to the property owner to provide the TV license.

The rent a room scheme is all about taxation, it may or may not be relevant in the context of a TV licence.

Pookla wrote: »

I read (I think it was PRTB) that because the owner lives in the house, I am not a proper tenant as I don't have the rights afforded to a tenant as I have entered into a licensee arrangement (I stay with the permission of the owner but could be asked to leave without a notice period etc.).

I'm not sure if it makes a difference or not in terms of the TV licence?

Again, that may or may not affect the requirement to get a TV licence. If you register to vote, you may find out sooner rather than later.

Pookla

coylemj wrote: »

Again, that may or may not affect the requirement to get a TV licence.

But that was my initial question?

anewme

Pookla wrote: »

But that was my initial question?

Just dont give your name. Tell him to come back when the owner is there. Dont give the owners name either.

Pookla

anewme wrote: »

Just dont give your name. Tell him to come back when the owner is there. Dont give the owners name either.

Thank you.

Jeff2

anewme wrote: »

You dont have to give your name to the Inspector.

This. Just close the door.

End of.

coylemj

Pookla wrote: »

But that was my initial question?

I think we would all agree that the various residents of an apartment block have to have their own separate TV licences.

You are renting part of a house and you have exclusive use of that space. Technically, that means you are living in a separate 'household' from your landlord. Which would suggest to me that you are required to have a TV licence.

But the FAQ section of the TV Licence website has zero guidance on the matter. I wouldn't worry about it.

Ha Long Bay

coylemj wrote: »

I think we would all agree that the various residents of an apartment block have to have their own separate TV licences.

You are renting part of a house and you have exclusive use of that space. Technically, that means you are living in a separate 'household' from your landlord. Which would suggest to me that you are required to have a TV licence.

But the FAQ section of the TV Licence website has zero guidance on the matter. I wouldn't worry about it.

They are living as a guest under a license agreement in the landlords house. One license per household is required. Why do you think they would have to provide a TV license for their bedroom?

splinter65

coylemj wrote: »

How does it make a difference if the landlord lives in the house or not?



You're renting part of a house and living in it, that makes you a tenant.

If the landlord lives there then he’s not a tenant he’s a licensee, a paying guest and has none of the rights, or obligations of a tenant. For example, the landlord can ask him to leave the house by, say tomorrow evening, with no consequences.

splinter65

coylemj wrote: »

I think we would all agree that the various residents of an apartment block have to have their own separate TV licences.

You are renting part of a house and you have exclusive use of that space. Technically, that means you are living in a separate 'household' from your landlord. Which would suggest to me that you are required to have a TV licence.

But the FAQ section of the TV Licence website has zero guidance on the matter. I wouldn't worry about it.

None of this is correct.

coylemj

splinter65 wrote: »

If the landlord lives there then he’s not a tenant he’s a licensee, a paying guest and has none of the rights, or obligations of a tenant. For example, the landlord can ask him to leave the house by, say tomorrow evening, with no consequences.

That may be how the PRTB sees it but it doesn't mean he has not established a separate household from the landlord. And requires a TV Licence. What I'm saying is that his tenancy rights (or lack of) and whether the landlord is paying tax on the rental or not should not affect the obligation to have a TV licence.

Say I own an apartment block which consists of 12 apartments. I live in No.1 and have 11 tenants living in the other apartments. Do they need a TV licence?

Pookla

coylemj wrote: »

That may be how the PRTB sees it but it doesn't mean he has not established a separate household from the landlord. And requires a TV Licence. What I'm saying is that his tenancy rights (or lack of) and whether the landlord is paying tax on the rental or not should not affect the obligation to have a TV licence.

Say I own an apartment block which consists of 12 apartments. I live in No.1 and have 11 tenants living in the other apartments. Do they need a TV licence?

I live in the same house as the owner. No part of the building is separated by locked doors - none of it is self contained.

I think this has gotten a little off topic with regard to this issue.

You clearly don't understand licensee agreements so please stop replying as you clearly cannot accurately speak about my situation.

un5byh7sqpd2x0

coylemj wrote: »

I think we would all agree that the various residents of an apartment block have to have their own separate TV licences.

You are renting part of a house and you have exclusive use of that space. Technically, that means you are living in a separate 'household' from your landlord. Which would suggest to me that you are required to have a TV licence.

Utter nonsense

splinter65

coylemj wrote: »

That may be how the PRTB sees it but it doesn't mean he has not established a separate household from the landlord. And requires a TV Licence.

Say I own an apartment block which consists of 12 apartments. I live in No.1 and have 11 tenants living in the other apartments. Do they need a TV licence?

That’s not the same thing at all. In that case every apartment is a separate address with a separate front door separate electricity supply etc
In the OPs case he is a paying guest in the landlords home. Like any other guest he can answer the door to the TV inspector and say that he is only a guest, decline to give his name and close the door again.
Here’s some info about being a licensee.
https://www.threshold.ie/advice/seeking-private-rented-accommodation/sharing-with-your-landlordrenting-from-a-tenant/

Pookla

splinter65 wrote: »

In the OPs case he is a paying guest in the landlords home. Like any other guest he can answer the door to the TV inspector and say that he is only a guest, decline to give his name and close the door again.
Here’s some info about being a licensee.
https://www.threshold.ie/advice/seeking-private-rented-accommodation/sharing-with-your-landlordrenting-from-a-tenant/

Thank you.

Being a licensee is a big change for me so it's good to get extra advice. Previously when I was a tenant, I just sorted all the bills myself but I don't have those responsibilities now but also wasn't sure where all the boundaries are.

Irishphotodesk

OP.... Do you own a TV ?

If you own the TV and the home owner doesn't have a TV it's possible you may be liable.

My understanding is that if there is a TV on the premises a licence must be paid for, as you are a licencee and not the home owner, it would (as I understand it) mean that if you are in possession of a TV, the premises will require a licence and the owner may request you pay if you have the only TV in the property.

From a legal perspective I understand the home owner/occupier to be liable but it could also mean that he/she may ask you to pay or leave the premises.(assuming your TV is the only one on the property).

STB.

Pookla wrote: »

Thank you.

Being a licensee is a big change for me so it's good to get extra advice. Previously when I was a tenant, I just sorted all the bills myself but I don't have those responsibilities now but also wasn't sure where all the boundaries are.

Hang on a second. Regardless of whether you are a "licensee" or not, if you are the only one with a TV device in the house, then it is you who has made the situational requirement to have a TV licence.

Just because its a shared house with the landlord, doesn't make him liable. That liability is now yours and as you say if you don't agree with that then you can always be told to leave.

dubrov

coylemj wrote:

You are renting part of a house and you have exclusive use of that space. Technically, that means you are living in a separate 'household' from your landlord. Which would suggest to me that you are required to have a TV licence.

This makes no sense. They only have exclusive use of their room. That makes them a licensee.

To answer the OPs question, they do not need to give their name irrespective of whether they are the other, tenant or licensee

Pookla

Irishphotodesk wrote: »

OP.... Do you own a TV ?

If you own the TV and the home owner doesn't have a TV it's possible you may be liable.

My understanding is that if there is a TV on the premises a licence must be paid for, as you are a licencee and not the home owner, it would (as I understand it) mean that if you are in possession of a TV, the premises will require a licence and the owner may request you pay if you have the only TV in the property.

From a legal perspective I understand the home owner/occupier to be liable but it could also mean that he/she may ask you to pay or leave the premises.(assuming your TV is the only one on the property).

STB. wrote: »

Hang on a second. Regardless of whether you are a "licensee" or not, if you are the only one with a TV device in the house, then it is you who has made the situational requirement to have a TV licence.

Just because its a shared house with the landlord, doesn't make him liable. That liability is now yours and as you say if you don't agree with that then you can always be told to leave.

No, I don't own a TV.

I have previously paid for all bills (including TV licence) when I was a tenant - I did own the TV in question at the time. I don't have this anymore.

The only TV I'm aware of is the one in the living room which was there before I moved in (landlord could have one in his room but I don't know) so I'm asking about that one.

dubrov

In fairness, it is a similar question to who pays utility bills like electricity.
In some arrangements, the owner occupier covers all this and factors it into rent.
In others, the bills are split.

If you don't use the TV, you shouldn't pay anything.
If you do, I think it should align with the agreement on the other utility bills.

Pookla

All bills are included in rent for me.

Just was paranoid that I could end up in a situation if an inspector came to the door, and I couldn’t produce a licence for a device that’s under the same roof as me.

I’m familiar with most of what being a licensee entails but wasn’t certain where I stood about the licence on the TV as I know that once one is in a house, there must be a licence but this is not my house even though I stay here very frequently.

I don’t use the TV as it happens (but when that was also true as a tenant, I knew I still needed a license).

The act doesn’t make for very clear reading.

splinter65

Pookla wrote: »

All bills are included in rent for me.

Just was paranoid that I could end up in a situation if an inspector came to the door, and I couldn’t produce a licence for a device that’s under the same roof as me.

I’m familiar with most of what being a licensee entails but wasn’t certain where I stood about the licence on the TV as I know that once one is in a house, there must be a licence but this is not my house even though I stay here very frequently.

I don’t use the TV as it happens (but when that was also true as a tenant, I knew I still needed a license).

The act doesn’t make for very clear reading.

The owner of the house would have included the tv licence fee in the rent he’s charging you as well as all the other bills. Please don’t worry any more about it. Very few people understand the nitty gritty of being a licensee but that doesn’t stop people from offering well meaning but pointless incorrect advice!

coylemj

splinter65 wrote: »

Very few people understand the nitty gritty of being a licensee but that doesn’t stop people from offering well meaning but pointless incorrect advice!

Well now, aren't you the lucky one - being one of the (self-styled) 'very few' in the know?. There is nothing on the TV licence website which covers this or pretty much any other situation.

If the OP was the only person in the house with a TV, would he need a TV licence?

If not, would the landlord be liable to prosecution if he had no TV but a 'licensee' living upstairs (with no TV licence) did?

GM228

coylemj wrote: »

You are renting part of a house and you have exclusive use of that space. Technically, that means you are living in a separate 'household' from your landlord. Which would suggest to me that you are required to have a TV licence.

Whilst many may disagree with what you are saying (it is correct however as others pointed out the OP is a licensee, not a tenant), you may be on to something here in relation to a licence, though the term you are looking for is a separate "dwelling" as opposed to household. The courts have recognised that even a room can be a dwelling on it's own if you enjoy exclusive use of it or live and sleep in it.

Such a situation has never been tested in court in relation to a TV licence, but the fact you need a licence for any dwelling does raise this as a valid point.

In any case the question of who is responsible for a TV licence will ultimately in any case come down to who has possession and more importantly control of the TV.

Marcusm

john4321 wrote: »

The OP is a licensee and not a tenant as it would come under the rent a room scheme. Its up to the property owner to provide the TV license.

In law, any occupier of a property who is possession of relevant equipment can be prosecuted if the relevant licence is not in place. In practice, I agree it is more likely that a prosecution would be taken against an owner occupied than a lodger.

GM228

Marcusm wrote: »

In law, any occupier of a property who is possession of relevant equipment can be prosecuted if the relevant licence is not in place. In practice, I agree it is more likely that a prosecution would be taken against an owner occupied than a lodger.

Not necessarily, if for example you claim you have no knowledge of the TV, or have no control of it then the prosecutor must prove otherwise which is fairly difficult for them to do especially in a licensee context. Possession is based on control.

Marcusm

GM228 wrote: »

Not necessarily, if for example you claim you have no knowledge of the TV, or have no control of it then the prosecutor must prove otherwise which is fairly difficult for them to do especially in a licensee context. Possession is based on control.

It would be hard to establish that the occupier has possession if (s)he was unaware of its existence! I did not say occupier simpliciter but qualified by “possession”. Irrespective, I could never see An Post orisecuting except against the resident landlord.

lawred2

coylemj wrote: »

I think we would all agree that the various residents of an apartment block have to have their own separate TV licences.

You are renting part of a house and you have exclusive use of that space. Technically, that means you are living in a separate 'household' from your landlord. Which would suggest to me that you are required to have a TV licence.

But the FAQ section of the TV Licence website has zero guidance on the matter. I wouldn't worry about it.

He's a lodger. He is no way in a separate household.

There is zero corollary to residents in apartment blocks. None.