TV License

Afurosan

Hi Everyone,

I don't know if this is the right home for this query but I'm sure the mods will move it to the right place.


I answered the door as I recently moved back home temporarily because of Covid. A TV licence Inspector asked for my parents by name and I advised they were not at home, he asked for my name and asked if I was over 18. I gave him my name and said yes, as I am over 18. I delivered the message to my parents.

Today, I received a notice of legal proceedings today. I called the to make a complaint and I was told that basically anyone that said the were occupying the house was liable to pay and this is legal.

How is it possible that you can be held responsible for someone else's bills? Why send the notice of legal action to me when you already know who occupies the home?

BronsonTB

Afurosan wrote: »

Hi Everyone,

I don't know if this is the right home for this query but I'm sure the mods will move it to the right place.


I answered the door as I recently moved back home temporarily because of Covid. A TV licence Inspector asked for my parents by name and I advised they were not at home, he asked for my name and asked if I was over 18. I gave him my name and said yes, as I am over 18. I delivered the message to my parents.

Today, I received a notice of legal proceedings today. I called the to make a complaint and I was told that basically anyone that said the were occupying the house was liable to pay and this is legal.

How is it possible that you can be held responsible for someone else's bills? Why send the notice of legal action to me when you already know who occupies the home?

Yes that can happen. It's unusual not to be given a chance to pay it first. But sounds like it was a last resort....Get your folks to pay it asap.

Samuel T. Cogley

They need a name and you gave them yours... dont do that :pac: you're an occupier so you're liable.

Afurosan

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

They need a name and you gave them yours... dont do that :pac: you're an occupier so you're liable.

That's a new lesson I've learnt. I didn't even think twice about giving my name. I didn't think I'd ever be held responsible for someone's bills 🀷ðŸ¾*♀️

ELM327

Don't ever give your name to anyone knocking at your door.
You are not required to give your name to these "inspectors". The only person who is entitled to demand your name is a member of AGS or similar with jurisdiction to make the demand.

By giving your name, you consented to the bill.

Ray Palmer

Afurosan wrote: »

That's a new lesson I've learnt. I didn't even think twice about giving my name. I didn't think I'd ever be held responsible for someone's bills 🀷ðŸ¾*♀️

I would be more annoyed with my parents for not paying their bills and leaving you liable.

You are an adult in a household where there is a bill due where all adults in the house are responsible for bills. It is your bill! Not in full but still yours, you are not a child.

antodeco

There's definitely an increase in number of letters/inspectors. I'm assuming because they know alot more will be home.

It's annoying you have to pay for the full amount at first. I'd say alot of people would rather pay a monthly charge rather than the full amount.

28064212

antodeco wrote: »

It's annoying you have to pay for the full amount at first. I'd say alot of people would rather pay a monthly charge rather than the full amount.

You can already do that: https://www.tvlicence.ie/home/direct-debit.html

ELM327 wrote: »

By giving your name, you consented to the bill.

What kind of freeman-of-the-land nonsense is this? The OP and their parents owe for a TV licence regardless of whether an inspector called or not, and regardless of whether a name was given or not. There is no magic contract invoked when you admit your name

Afurosan

Ray Palmer wrote: »

I would be more annoyed with my parents for not paying their bills and leaving you liable.

You are an adult in a household where there is a bill due where all adults in the house are responsible for bills. It is your bill! Not in full but still yours, you are not a child.

I am annoyed at them. I have no choice but to pay seeing as my name is attached but all the same, if they owed electricity or gas, my name wouldn't be on a notice so why should it be on the summons on the license? I'm even more worried that when I move out again, my name may then be attach to this if it occurs again.

elperello

Afurosan wrote: »

I am annoyed at them. I have no choice but to pay seeing as my name is attached but all the same, if they owed electricity or gas, my name wouldn't be on a notice so why should it be on the summons on the license? I'm even more worried that when I move out again, my name may then be attach to this if it occurs again.

You will have the option of transferring to your new address.

Dempo1

Hang on a moment, Didn't the OP say the inspector ask for his parents by name? Why would the licensing authority be writing to the child of the named householder, albeit being over 18?

Surely if the authority had the name of the actual householder, should they not be summonsed, I think the inspector has overstretched here but given some bizzare tactics I've heard of recently, I'm not at all surprised.

ELM327

28064212 wrote: »

You can already do that: https://www.tvlicence.ie/home/direct-debit.htmlWhat kind of freeman-of-the-land nonsense is this? The OP and their parents owe for a TV licence regardless of whether an inspector called or not, and regardless of whether a name was given or not. There is no magic contract invoked when you admit your name

It's not freeman of the land nonsense, it's practicality.
They can't send a bill or summons to "the occupant". So unless they get your name or the name of an occupant, they have no recourse to pursue a legal demand.


Simple really, although I'm sure you knew that.

Meeoow

Did they see a TV? If not, just say you don't have a TV.

Dempo1

ELM327 wrote: »

It's not freeman of the land nonsense, it's practicality.
They can't send a bill or summons to "the occupant". So unless they get your name or the name of an occupant, they have no recourse to pursue a legal demand.


Simple really, although I'm sure you knew that.

Agreed completely, if an statutory body can't be bothered to get a correct name then license payment or not, they need to resolve it. Summoning the wrong person is worth a trip to the district court to defend, it's a ludicrous decision and born out of laziness and incompetence.

Afurosan

Dempo1 wrote: »

Hang on a moment, Didn't the OP say the inspector ask for his parents by name? Why would the licensing authority be writing to the child of the named householder, albeit being over 18?

Surely if the authority had the name of the actual householder, should they not be summonsed, I think the inspector has overstretched here but given some bizzare tactics I've heard of recently, I'm not at all surprised.

I'm a "she" . Regardless, this IS my main point. The issue I have is that my name is attached to it. I have no issues with paying a bill, including TV licence. I moved back home about 4 month ago and honestly, I didn't know they don't have a TV licence. I think it's their responsibility to have one, if needed and if I'm asked to contribute, I wouldn't say "no".

Once you're name is on the licence, it will be attached to every renewal going forward.

I would actually take the risk and go to the court on this one. The inspector knew the name of the occupants.

In the meantime get your parents to buy the licence in their name.

28064212

ELM327 wrote: »

It's not freeman of the land nonsense, it's practicality.
They can't send a bill or summons to "the occupant". So unless they get your name or the name of an occupant, they have no recourse to pursue a legal demand.

They can send a "bill" (actually a notice of the legal requirement to have a licence) addressed to the occupier, they do it all the time. You're correct that they can't issue a summons to the occupier, but that is not at all the same thing as this rubbish "By giving your name, you consented to the bill".

Dempo1 wrote: »

Agreed completely, if an statutory body can't be bothered to get a correct name then license payment or not, they need to resolve it. Summoning the wrong person is worth a trip to the district court to defend, it's a ludicrous decision and born out of laziness and incompetence.

Afurosan wrote: »

I think it's their responsibility to have one

They didn't summon the wrong person. Any and all of the occupiers are responsible for the premises having a valid TV Licence. It's up to the occupiers to sort out how it's paid, but any one of them can receive a summons.

What's missing from this story is the response of the parents when the OP went and said "Hey we need a licence or I'm going to court"

Mrs OBumble

Afurosan wrote: »

I'm a "she" . Regardless, this IS my main point. The issue I have is that my name is attached to it. I have no issues with paying a bill, including TV licence. I moved back home about 4 month ago and honestly, I didn't know they don't have a TV licence. I think it's their responsibility to have one, if needed and if I'm asked to contribute, I wouldn't say "no".

Is there a TV in the house?

If there is, then being an adult who lives there means you are as responsible as any other resident is to pay the license.

Afurosan

28064212 wrote: »

What's missing from this story is the response of the parents when the OP went and said "Hey we need a licence or I'm going to court"

I don't really think what my parents said is relevant. It will be paid for but it doesn't change the fact that I feel notice of legal proceedings being brought against me is not appropriate. If taxes can be collected properly, they can manage to send TV licence notices to the right people.

28064212

Afurosan wrote: »

I don't really think what my parents said is relevant. It will be paid for but it doesn't change the fact that I feel notice of legal proceedings being brought against me is not appropriate. If taxes can be collected properly, they can manage to send TV licence notices to the right people.

Are you an occupier? Are you an adult? Then it was sent to the right person (or at least, one of the right people)

davindub

Afurosan wrote: »

I don't really think what my parents said is relevant. It will be paid for but it doesn't change the fact that I feel notice of legal proceedings being brought against me is not appropriate. If taxes can be collected properly, they can manage to send TV licence notices to the right people.

Offense of possession of a TV without a license requires proof that the person was in possession, keeps or uses the tv hence the summons to yourself when the inspector called and you were in possession.

Many arguments against this of course but district court judges are not sympathetic to them in any way.

TheChizler

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Once you're name is on the licence, it will be attached to every renewal going forward.

Only if nobody else gives their name, anyway the OP won't be liable for it once they move out, same as if your name was on it you wouldn't be.

TheChizler

TheChizler wrote: »

Only if nobody else gives their name, anyway the OP won't be liable for it once they move out, same as if your name was on it you wouldn't be.

It'll still come through the parents' letterbox every year with the OPs name attached to the renewal notice, and probably give them an excuse to ignore it.

I'd get them to buy the licence in their name and bring it with me to court on the day and explain what happened, that the OP only moved back in temporarily four months ago and its the family home that belongs to their parents, and they have now purchased the licence.

At renewal I'd make sure they signed up for Direct Debit for the next year. I wouldn't buy it my own name, in the OP's shoes. If I was still fined in court on the day after explaining, I'd make the parents pay that too.

Afurosan

[Deleted User] wrote: »

It'll still come through the parents' letterbox every year with the OPs name attached to the renewal notice, and probably give them an excuse to ignore it.

I'd get them to buy the licence in their name and bring it with me to court on the day and explain what happened, that the OP only moved back in temporarily four months ago and its the family home that belongs to their parents, and they have now purchased the licence.

At renewal I'd make sure they signed up for Direct Debit for the next year. I wouldn't buy it my own name, in the OP's shoes. If I was still fined in court on the day after explaining, I'd make the parents pay that too.

Thanks! That's exactly what I did.

Graces7

Afurosan wrote: »

I don't really think what my parents said is relevant. It will be paid for but it doesn't change the fact that I feel notice of legal proceedings being brought against me is not appropriate. If taxes can be collected properly, they can manage to send TV licence notices to the right people.

I think you are expecting too much of them! I had a situation with the licence people at one house. I had no TV and lived alone; they told me that the "threat" of court is just to make you pay. ESB are the same. A nasty threatening letter. I told them off once and said they could give someone a heart attack ." Oh it's just a letter we send out.."

Oh they apparently mistook my internet satellite dish as a TV one.

They don't care who pays as long as someone does?

mousblaster17

Haha I love threads about TV licenses. Inspector called to my door one summer's evening a few years back. He showed me an an post badge and said 'Hi we're just in the area updating our records and we see this house was vacant the last few months. Are you the occupier?".. "yes I am" I said. He then put pen to paper on this clipboard (they normally carry a clipboard if that helps you to spot them easier) and said "great. can I just get your name please?". Then the penny dropped and I said said "No, I can't give you my name sorry. I'm closing the door now." And I started closing the door and he retorted with "Why not? I can come back with the gardai!". I closed the door. Few weeks later a letter arrived to say "An inspector called to the premises and received no cooperation.. tv was observed on the premises... yada yada" and that they can come around and take the TV / threaten me with court etc. In the end I reluctantly paid up. But when I did, I asked for my name not to be put on the license and the license was made out to 'The occupier'.

Don't mind what anyone tells you about closing the door / not giving your name etc. It's rubbish. If they see a TV on the premises, you'll have to pay up. They've heard all the excuses!

Normal One

mousblaster17 wrote: »

If they see a TV on the premises, you'll have to pay up. They've heard all the excuses!

"Oh that was just one of those cardboard display ones that I stole from a furniture shop, your honour - prove me wrong"

beachhead

TV licences are regularly addressed to "the occupier".Whoever opens the letter pays.If,paid in person at a PO the clerk will accept "the occupier" as the payee.

Graces7

mousblaster17 wrote: »

Haha I love threads about TV licenses. Inspector called to my door one summer's evening a few years back. He showed me an an post badge and said 'Hi we're just in the area updating our records and we see this house was vacant the last few months. Are you the occupier?".. "yes I am" I said. He then put pen to paper on this clipboard (they normally carry a clipboard if that helps you to spot them easier) and said "great. can I just get your name please?". Then the penny dropped and I said said "No, I can't give you my name sorry. I'm closing the door now." And I started closing the door and he retorted with "Why not? I can come back with the gardai!". I closed the door. Few weeks later a letter arrived to say "An inspector called to the premises and received no cooperation.. tv was observed on the premises... yada yada" and that they can come around and take the TV / threaten me with court etc. In the end I reluctantly paid up. But when I did, I asked for my name not to be put on the license and the license was made out to 'The occupier'. "

Well fair enough if you had a TV and no licence. I am exempt from TV licence anyways. I did call them on that occasion and tricked them into telling me that "someone" had called them and reported me for my satellite dish. This was atop a remote mountain at the end of a dirt track and I knew who had done it!

They never bothered me again.

Claw Hammer

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

They need a name and you gave them yours... dont do that :pac: you're an occupier so you're liable.

The OP is not an occupier, he is a licensee. His parents are the occupiers, he is simply a visitor.

28064212

Claw Hammer wrote: »

The OP is not an occupier, he is a licensee. His parents are the occupiers, he is simply a visitor.

Licensee and occupier are not mutually exclusive terms. In fact almost all licensees are occupiers. Also, the OP does not mention anything about being a licensee. Pretty much the only thing we know about them is that they live there ("I recently moved back home"), and that makes them an occupier, and therefore liable

Claw Hammer

28064212 wrote: »

Licensee and occupier are not mutually exclusive terms. In fact almost all licensees are occupiers. Also, the OP does not mention anything about being a licensee. Pretty much the only thing we know about them is that they live there ("I recently moved back home"), and that makes them an occupier, and therefore liable

A person in the situation of the o/p is not an occupier. He has no interest in the possession of the premises. The licence is to keep and have possession of a tv at the premises.
The o/p no more keeps and has possession of a tv than a guest in a hotel has of the tv in their bedroom.

28064212

Claw Hammer wrote: »

A person in the situation of the o/p is not an occupier. He has no interest in the possession of the premises. The licence is to keep and have possession of a tv at the premises.
The o/p no more keeps and has possession of a tv than a guest in a hotel has of the tv in their bedroom.

Broadcasting Act:

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.

Are you seriously suggesting that someone who's primary residence is this premises is not an occupier?