TV Licence - ALL TV licence discussion/queries in this thread.

styo · 26-11-2020 6:35pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Seems to be the simplest solution is to add a specific amount to the LPT.
Those who would not ordinarily pay a TV Licence Fee could easily be excluded by application.

The fee should be named to reflect its purpose ...... to maintain a public broadcasting infrastructure and service for this country that does not depend on anyone not under our government's control.

well that's a political question because what you are suggesting is that citizens who own property should be forced to pay not merely for "infrastructure" to make possible national broadcasting but for a specific service or services that broadcast.

I actually think the present arrangement is perfectly good, with a few tweaks.

Anyone who presently consumes TV has a television set that is capable of receipt of broadcasts. They pay the license fee and get value for the collective service provided one presumes. People like me who don't consume TV, simply have to avoid having TV sets with tuners. Increasingly that is not a hard thing to do. Digital Signage displays, which contain better quality components and last longer than TV are increasingly priced close enough to a TV set to make the difference covered by a years license fee saving or two. Now 4k/UHD is here, I don't think we're going to see 8k for quite some time, so a display purchased today should last a very long time.

I think that works fine. I see no reason why I should be forced to pay for TV services that I have taken steps not to consume. I don't see TV broadcasting as a national good. I've no problem paying for hospitals roads the police, schools and libraries. I do have a problem paying for the wall to wall crap that RTE and others produce. RTE do provide a small proportion of what would be called public interest broadcasting, but tbh its a very small component of their output.

I would pay a charge for broadcast infrastructure perhaps, but that would be a very small charge compared to 160 presently charged. I am already paying for the national broadband scheme as is every other citizen, so that strikes me as enough.

The tweak I would make would be to include the use of the rte player and any other software player that provides access to broadcast content licensable.It is not ethical to avoid the TV license and yet still consume that which the license is designed to pay for. That's theft in my book.

that would not be hard - the player could require license registration for display of channels and a registration/pin combination could be issued with a tv license exactly as is issued for motor tax etc. These would be inputted into he player at a registration point once the users seek to consume broadcast channels rather than archived on demand content. It would be rather simple to restrict the use of a code to a single parallel play or relatively minimal set of playing. This kind of thing is routinely done by music streaming services such as tidal.

In my view freeeview should have had exactly the same requirement. That it was not I think points to the prevailing myth that RTE and others would like to continue, that TV consumption is an absolute majority activity and that all should pay for it. That those of us who don't are cavemen as the rabbit famously suggested. In fact the reverse is the case. TV is dying. Even venerable institutions like the BBC are very concerned at the accelerating switch off, and that the vast majority would be better served by government subsidised broadband than access to RTE. my 2c.

A further tweak that I would add is to make a connected cable to viewing configuration licensable, not merely a component in the chain. So for example, a great many people have a TV set in the home but it is unconnected to cable or an arial. That should not require a license. If a house has a dish or antenna, or an internal arial or TV set capable of receipt of broadcast signals without attachments, that should be licensable. But a screen that happens to have a cable input should not require licensing in and of itself. The present arrangement whereby most people pay the TV license is maintained by the de facto annual taxation of the purchase of an LED panel, whether it is connected to broadcasts or not. I recall the tv license authority campaign that tried to suggest that watching a box set required a license. that was deeply dishonest - it did not. buying a tv with an onboard broadcast signal input, used or not, is what the license fee is attached to.

In summary. I don't want TV services, and do not want to pay for them thanks. I think there are enough of you that do to pay for it yourselves. And good luck to you, but don't expect me to join in.

Johnboy1951 · 26-11-2020 7:02pm

Just because you choose not to watch a service that is provided nationaly, does not mean that others with similar equipment to yours act in the same manner.

The licence fee is not solely to permit viewing of programmes.

styo · 26-11-2020 7:06pm

That implies an opt-out for people who choose not to consume it. The real implication of the proposed mandatory broadcasting charge in Ireland is that the government knows a large number of people would not voluntarily pay for the ad-riddled low quality content they produce.

hole in one.

styo · 26-11-2020 7:09pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Just because you choose not to watch a service that is provided nationaly, does not mean that others with similar equipment to yours act in the same manner.

The licence fee is not solely to permit viewing of programmes.

Your first point is of course true. But changes nothing. The question remains, why should I pay for that consumption?

The second point is I think technically true (the license fee is specifically for the keeping of certain equipment on your premises whether you use it or not) but in spirit entirely wrong - the license fee is used to fund RTE and certain other channel/content providers. In so far as people who have TV sets in the home to play PS4 games or watch box sets for example, are required to pay a TV license, this payment is in effect to subsidise the consumption of viewing by others of RTE and similarly funded organisations. It thus is a fair question to ask, is the enforced payment/tax funding a public good, is it proportionate to the need, and are there better ways to spend taxes than this? I'd rather they took 160 a year from me to keep libraries open for kids after school for example.

It would be an interesting exercise to list the content delivered weekly by RTE that fits a public interest standard. And to ask does that require an organisation such as RTE that runs a number of channels, often by buying in content available far more cheaply to the viewing public via alternative services.

This is a value for money question but is also a deeper question. Where is the public interest? Is it in maintaining a broadcast organisation or is it in maintaining the generation of public interest content? In the internet age, its a very weak case to make to suggest that "infrastructure" is what we are paying for.

Sam Russell · 26-11-2020 7:33pm

The TV licence predates RTE.

The Household charge/Broadcast charge would be used to fund various cultural activities', which should include art galleries, free cultural events, orchestras, opera and ballet companies, museums, and even the zoo, plus Irish language support, as well as TV and radio services.

The fact that you do not subscribe to these ideas or support these activities is not an argument not to pay for them. To support such things out of general taxation would be short sighted, because in time of recession, they get cut and in times of plenty, they are in the gift of village pump-ism favoured by many ministers. Perhaps one should question why we have museums and the National Gallery.

Collecting the charge is best done from likely consumers, rather than LPT payers because they include landlords rather than householders. Electricity bills fits the requirement.

The TV licence is a relatively small charge when Sky subscribers pay a similar sum per month that is the annual charge for the licence. The Saturday Irish Times every week costs a similar sum.

Similar objections are made against Motor Tax, water charges, in charges, etc. Most people object to taxes, charges, levies, etc. Especially when they are first introduced.

Now if water charges were introduced as a Waste Water & Sewerage Charges perhaps there would have been fewer objection. Particularly the swimmers of Dublin Bay having to put up with nasty smells, and brown dirty water.

styo · 26-11-2020 7:39pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The TV licence predates RTE.

The Household charge/Broadcast charge would be used to fund various cultural activities', which should include art galleries, free cultural events, orchestras, opera and ballet companies, museums, and even the zoo, plus Irish language support, as well as TV and radio services.

The fact that you do not subscribe to these ideas or support these activities is not an argument not to pay for them. To support such things out of general taxation would be short sighted, because in time of recession, they get cut and in times of plenty, they are in the gift of village pump-ism favoured by many ministers. Perhaps one should question why we have museums and the National Gallery.

Collecting the charge is best done from likely consumers, rather than LPT payers because they include landlords rather than householders. Electricity bills fits the requirement.

The TV licence is a relatively small charge when Sky subscribers pay a similar sum per month that is the annual charge for the licence. The Saturday Irish Times every week costs a similar sum.

Similar objections are made against Motor Tax, water charges, in charges, etc. Most people object to taxes, charges, levies, etc. Especially when they are first introduced.

Now if water charges were introduced as a Waste Water & Sewerage Charges perhaps there would have been fewer objection. Particularly the swimmers of Dublin Bay having to put up with nasty smells, and brown dirty water.

Please list the percentage of the license fee that goes to these causes?

The idea of trying to use museums to defend reruns of love island is frankly ludicrous.

Sam Russell · 26-11-2020 7:56pm

styo wrote: »

Please list the percentage of the license fee that goes to these causes?

The idea of trying to use museums to defend reruns of love island is frankly ludicrous.

Love Island does not appear on RTE, and anyway would not be considered cultural, and reruns would hardly qualify as entertainment.

If broadcast TV is failing vs on demand streaming, then funding should be used for a broader range of activities.

styo · 26-11-2020 7:59pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Love Island does not appear on RTE, and anyway would not be considered cultural, and reruns would hardly qualify as entertainment.

If broadcast TV is failing vs on demand streaming, then funding should be used for a broader range of activities.

I'll answer the question for you so.

RTE get almost all of the cash (86%) less . Not a museum in sight, according to RTE.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0802/1066686-licence-fee-breakdown/

You merely beg the question, what activities? There is no answer to that question that is not political.

Sam Russell · 26-11-2020 9:09pm

styo wrote: »

I'll answer the question for you so.

RTE get almost all of the cash (86%) less . Not a museum in sight, according to RTE.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2019/0802/1066686-licence-fee-breakdown/

You merely beg the question, what activities? There is no answer to that question that is not political.

Yes it is political.

I am suggesting moving culture out of the grasp of politicians. Having such matters left to the politicians means the local interests of ministers trump the general requirements driven by less parochial matters.

ps200306 · 26-11-2020 9:46pm

Johnboy1951 wrote: »

Seems the simplest solution would be to add a specific amount to the LPT.
Those who would not ordinarily pay a TV Licence Fee could easily be excluded by application.

The fee should be named to reflect its purpose ...... to maintain a public broadcasting infrastructure and service for this country that does not depend on anyone not under our government's control.

I don't think we should talk about solutions until we know what problem we are trying to solve. What is the purpose of a public broadcasting infrastructure? If it's for public emergency alerts, the government already has my mobile phone number and can send a text. If it's to broadcast RTE's current content, no thanks. I haven't watched it in years, in fact I can't even receive it, though up till now I've still been paying for it. Soon, even the extraordinary measure of eschewing a television set altogether will not be enough. Ironically, that announcement is what has spurred me to action. It's the last chance to give two fingers to RTE broadcasting, even though it's going to cost me money to do so.

Sam Russell wrote: »

The Household charge/Broadcast charge would be used to fund various cultural activities', which should include art galleries, free cultural events, orchestras, opera and ballet companies, museums, and even the zoo, plus Irish language support, as well as TV and radio services.

The fact that you do not subscribe to these ideas or support these activities is not an argument not to pay for them. To support such things out of general taxation would be short sighted, because in time of recession, they get cut and in times of plenty, they are in the gift of village pump-ism favoured by many ministers. Perhaps one should question why we have museums and the National Gallery.

So is it to pay for broadcasting infrastructure or to pay for the zoo? We need to get our story straight. Politicians will happily add to your dolly mixture of worthy causes, because they will never tire of offering us goodies paid for with our own money. I happen to agree with many of the items on your list, however they're not what the license fee pays for. It does pay for orchestras, which I support, but the overwhelming amount goes on crap TV which I count as a public evil that we would actually be better off without. I also pay an individual "pay per view" every time I go to see a publicly funded orchestra so I'm paying on the double. It must also be said that the choice available is pretty dire.

Sam Russell wrote: »

The TV licence is a relatively small charge when Sky subscribers pay a similar sum per month that is the annual charge for the licence. The Saturday Irish Times every week costs a similar sum.

There's no such thing as a small charge for something you don't use. I don't subscribe to Sky or the Irish Times either, so the value of those things to people who choose to pay for them is completely irrelevant.

Sam Russell wrote: »

Similar objections are made against Motor Tax, water charges, in charges, etc. Most people object to taxes, charges, levies, etc. Especially when they are first introduced.

Interesting you should mention water charges. That's an example of something that was already paid for out of general taxation. The people who were out on the streets protesting about water charges were the ones who weren't paying much in general taxes. You could make an argument either way -- that people should pay equally for the individual services they use, or that those who earn more should pay a greater share of the cost of vital infrastructure. But if you're going to argue for adding broadcasting to general taxation, then you need to make the case for how it is "vital infrastructure". And currently you would also need to make the case for how reruns of Eastenders laced with advertising is part of that.

styo wrote: »

I see no reason why I should be forced to pay for TV services that I have taken steps not to consume. I don't see TV broadcasting as a national good. I've no problem paying for hospitals roads the police, schools and libraries. I do have a problem paying for the wall to wall crap that RTE and others produce. RTE do provide a small proportion of what would be called public interest broadcasting, but tbh its a very small component of their output.

That's the nub of it. If anyone can convince me that reruns of Eastenders is a public good, I'll happily pay for it.

styo wrote: »

The tweak I would make would be to include the use of the rte player and any other software player that provides access to broadcast content licensable.It is not ethical to avoid the TV license and yet still consume that which the license is designed to pay for. That's theft in my book.

Totally agree. You are effectively talking about making RTE a fully commercial organisation able to stand on its own two feet.

styo wrote: »

TV is dying. Even venerable institutions like the BBC are very concerned at the accelerating switch off, and that the vast majority would be better served by government subsidised broadband than access to RTE... In summary. I don't want TV services, and do not want to pay for them thanks. I think there are enough of you that do to pay for it yourselves. And good luck to you, but don't expect me to join in.

Exactly. Once upon a time I used to watch TV for the educational content available. Can't remember any of them being on RTE. But the BBC had the Open University content which was great. That eventually disappeared, leaving us with programmes like Horizon, which then got progressively dumbed down until it was no longer worth watching. I voted with my wallet. I paid through the nose to do an Open University degree, and other online education. Nowadays I'm also able to get an astonishing amount of high quality educational content through youtube. I simply have no interest or use for traditional TV. Don't like it, don't watch it, don't want to pay for it.

Sam Russell · 26-11-2020 10:08pm

The Gov has decided that museums should be free. That is a political decision. They have not made the same decision about the zoo. The zoo currently have no funds to feed the animals due to being shut down by Covid. RTE is underfunded.

This is all subject to Gov decisions. The money has to come from somewhere.

ps200306 · 27-11-2020 1:36am

Sam Russell wrote: »

RTE is underfunded

By what measure?

Sam Russell wrote: »

The money has to come from somewhere.

Why? Have you considered that they could spend less by not having their fingers in so many pies?

Capt'n Midnight · 06-12-2020 5:39pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

The TV licence predates RTE.

Notes

Licenses to receive broadcasts predate the state.

Unlike the water charges it doesn't cost more to supply extra people.

ps200306 · 07-12-2020 12:31am

Bob24 wrote: »

On price, monitors are pretty much always more expensive than similarly sized TVs, I don’t think you can get around that. But given the savings on the licence it is irrelevant as long as you know you will keep it for some time. Each year you can deduce 160 euros from the price of the monitor vs having a TV, so within a year (or max 2 years) you usually break even and then it becomes cheaper each year.

Size is a bit of a problem though: if you want to go above 43in they are usually for professional use (with that size it is usually for public display rather than individual use on a desk), and can get rather pricy. I can see this one on Amazon though: https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B07CRMGL..._icSGFbAG04C1M

ps200306 wrote: »

I've taken the plunge! Was looking at monitors like Bob24's link (and its smaller 48-inch sibling) but then found this: https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/B085TS9C7T (it also has an even larger 65-inch sibling). It's basically an Android Smart TV sans tuner. The "KAGIS" designation means "keine GIS". GIS is the Austrian TV licensing system, very similar to our own, where the ability to receive broadcast signals with a tuner requires you to buy a license for an eye-watering €320 -- twice the price of the Irish one!!!

Anyway, I'm satisfied that this falls outside the purview of the Irish Broadcasting Act. Couldn't find a manual online, but there's a youtube unboxing review in German. I suspect it's one of the earlier 4K displays but I'm willing to give it a punt. Arrives next Friday.

Bob24 wrote: »

Nice find! I had never came across one of these. I assume it will be a no brainer and just work as expected, but keep us posted if there is any surprise.

Hopefully this type of device won’t become too mainstream though, or governments will start to take notice and will want to legislate around it to keep forcing us to pay for poor public TV we don’t watch ...

I promised an update on this Android TV monitor. It arrived inside four days. Have had it over a week now. Bit of a crazy size for my small living room, but I'll live with it. It was also a bit pricey but given I was also faced with replacing a PC with one able to do HD / 4k and a new HDMI audio splitter capable of 4k @ 60 Hz, it worked out pretty similar to other non-smart monitors. It's also handy to have everything in a single device -- much less cable mess. The display quality is awesome by my standards, higher resolution and much more vibrant colours than my previous LG TV.

It's pretty much everything I expected. Very easy to use and it's got a remote control you can speak to, as well as various controller apps installable on your phone. I've watched Youtube and Amazon Prime. I have Surfshark VPN and in principle could watch BBC iPlayer, however the non-stop buffering makes it fairly unwatchable even though I have a high speed cable connection. No real loss, given I am ditching my TV license I feel "cleaner" not even watching another country's catch-up TV. I have radio and web for news, which is pretty much the only thing I turned the TV on for anyway. My favourite Youtube "programmes" like PBS Space Time look great. If you avoid the mountains of dross, Youtube really can be a great educational resource.

Now I just have to get the various TVs and set-top boxes out of the house before the end of January when the license expires, then sit back and wait for the license inspector.

Bob24 · 07-12-2020 10:07am

ps200306 wrote: »

Now I just have to get the various TVs and set-top boxes out of the house before the end of January when the license expires, then sit back and wait for the license inspector.

Cheers for the feedback. I might consider one at some point to replace my monitor!

If I was you I’d be extra careful if you let a licence inspector have sight of it. I.e. something like informing them that you want to keep an audio/video recording of the inspection and clearly stating the model number and the fact that it doesn’t have a tuner when both you and the inspector are on the record (to have evidence in case you come accros someone who decides that if it looks like a TV it must be a one and flags on his report that you need to pay the licence).

ps200306 · 07-12-2020 10:44am

Bob24 wrote: »

If I was you I’d be extra careful if you let a licence inspector have sight of it. I.e. something like informing them that you want to keep a recording of the inspection and clearly stating the model number and the fact that it doesn’t have a tuner when both you and the inspector are on the record, to have evidence in case you come accros an someone who decides that if it looks like a TV it must be a TV.

Exactly my thoughts! Have kept a photo of the packaging which clearly labels it as a Chiq Monitor, and the back panel showing no tuner inputs. (Chiq is the brand name of Sichuan Changhong Electric Co). Also a copy of the Amazon blurb which shows it specifically avoiding the license requirement (in Austria

).

ps200306 · 15-01-2021 4:31pm

Got my TV license renewal notice. I'm about to preemptively send a statutory declaration form to tell them I no longer have a TV, to save them the trouble of asking for it. Anyone know if they'll accept a scanned signed form by email?

styo · 15-01-2021 5:34pm

ps200306 wrote: »

Got my TV license renewal notice. I'm about to preemptively send a statutory declaration form to tell them I no longer have a TV, to save them the trouble of asking for it. Anyone know if they'll accept a scanned signed form by email?

They will need the physical letter for legal purposes. The simplest thing to do is just send the letter in the post and email them to tell them that you have done so. They are very nice - I did this myself.

Obviously you would not want to do this is you have a TV. Misrepresentation is a serious enough offence I believe. But provided you don't have a TV that's what to do, and tbh it's unlikely that they are going to turn up at the moment. They do reserve the right to come check however.

styo · 15-01-2021 5:38pm

Bob24 wrote: »

Cheers for the feedback. I might consider one at some point to replace my monitor!

If I was you I’d be extra careful if you let a licence inspector have sight of it. I.e. something like informing them that you want to keep an audio/video recording of the inspection and clearly stating the model number and the fact that it doesn’t have a tuner when both you and the inspector are on the record (to have evidence in case you come accros someone who decides that if it looks like a TV it must be a one and flags on his report that you need to pay the licence).

Personally I think that is entirely overkill. If your screen is not a TV, and that brand isn't, then they are not going to bother you. It's pointless as it is a matter of law and not interpretation - the law is quite clear - if you have any equipment capable of receiving a broadcast, it must be licensed. That brand is a monitor - IU have one myself - its great.

styo · 15-01-2021 5:41pm

ps200306 wrote: »

I promised an update on this Android TV monitor. It arrived inside four days. Have had it over a week now. Bit of a crazy size for my small living room, but I'll live with it. It was also a bit pricey but given I was also faced with replacing a PC with one able to do HD / 4k and a new HDMI audio splitter capable of 4k @ 60 Hz, it worked out pretty similar to other non-smart monitors. It's also handy to have everything in a single device -- much less cable mess. The display quality is awesome by my standards, higher resolution and much more vibrant colours than my previous LG TV.

It's pretty much everything I expected. Very easy to use and it's got a remote control you can speak to, as well as various controller apps installable on your phone. I've watched Youtube and Amazon Prime. I have Surfshark VPN and in principle could watch BBC iPlayer, however the non-stop buffering makes it fairly unwatchable even though I have a high speed cable connection. No real loss, given I am ditching my TV license I feel "cleaner" not even watching another country's catch-up TV. I have radio and web for news, which is pretty much the only thing I turned the TV on for anyway. My favourite Youtube "programmes" like PBS Space Time look great. If you avoid the mountains of dross, Youtube really can be a great educational resource.

Now I just have to get the various TVs and set-top boxes out of the house before the end of January when the license expires, then sit back and wait for the license inspector.

It's a great TV. Don't forget to make the statutory declaration that you no longer have a TV set. It's painless and easy. The TV license people are very friendly. I think people get very anxious about them but they are just people doing a job. They are not the enemy.

styo · 15-01-2021 5:44pm

Sam Russell wrote: »

Yes it is political.

I am suggesting moving culture out of the grasp of politicians. Having such matters left to the politicians means the local interests of ministers trump the general requirements driven by less parochial matters.

politicians control the license fee and thereby control RTE and all recipients. To suggest otherwise is naive.

Bob24 · 15-01-2021 8:58pm

styo wrote: »

Personally I think that is entirely overkill. If your screen is not a TV, and that brand isn't, then they are not going to bother you. It's pointless as it is a matter of law and not interpretation - the law is quite clear - if you have any equipment capable of receiving a broadcast, it must be licensed. That brand is a monitor - IU have one myself - its great.

You are assuming all inspectors are well aware of those device, do care about this, and are doing their job properly.

Risky assumption IMO (not saying they are all bad apples, but there are some).

I’ve heard multiple stories of inspectors ticking the TV box as soon as they see something which vaguely looks like a TV. You can usually sort things afterwords, but it will involve paperwork and be easier of you have proofs of what you are saying. I personally had one trying to play tricks on me.

ps200306 · 18-01-2021 5:34pm

styo wrote: »

They will need the physical letter for legal purposes. The simplest thing to do is just send the letter in the post and email them to tell them that you have done so.

I don't know if something has changed since Covid, but I asked them and they don't need the physical letter. Here it is from the horse's mouth (minus the horse's name):

Hi <ps200306>,

You can download a form from the website www.tvlicence.ie and send it back via email.

Kind regards
<tv license person>

Bob24 wrote: »

I’ve heard multiple stories of inspectors ticking the TV box as soon as they see something which vaguely looks like a TV. You can usually sort things afterwords, but it will involve paperwork and be easier of you have proofs of what you are saying. I personally had one trying to play tricks on me.

Yeah, I'm more comfortable making sure my ass is covered. The manual sits right under the monitor, along with my own photos of the back panel showing a lack of tuner inputs. Easier to send the license inspector away happy than have to turn up in court with exactly the same evidence.

By way of an update, have had the Chiq monitor for two months now and still totally in love with it. Should have jettisoned the TV sooner. I have BBC iPlayer working great, which is a bit naughty, but I only ever watch the occasional news bulletin. The Netflix, Amazon Prime and Youtube apps all work great, and it also works as a cast destination from laptop or phone. My one tiny gripe is that I couldn't get CEC control working to control the volume of an LG surround amplifier, so stuck with a separate remote for that.

vtecdec · 29-01-2021 2:52pm

We moved out of our home last June to look after my parents during the Covid pandemic. House is currently vacant and will be for another 6-8 months. I took the TV with me when we moved out and thus No TV in the house at the moment, however still have RTE/Saorview Aerial and Sky dish on the chimney, which to a visiting TV license inspector could assume there is a TV on the premises.

TV License expired last September 2020, and getting all the reminders in the post to renew the license.
Should I just ignore these reminders since the house is vacant, or do I need to contact TV licensing authority and inform them that the house is now vacant.

Also, on a side note, are TV License Inspectors entitled to come into your home to check if you have a TV or not.

Johnboy1951 · 29-01-2021 3:58pm

vtecdec wrote: »

We moved out of our home last June to look after my parents during the Covid pandemic. House is currently vacant and will be for another 6-8 months. I took the TV with me when we moved out and thus No TV in the house at the moment, however still have RTE/Saorview Aerial and Sky dish on the chimney, which to a visiting TV license inspector could assume there is a TV on the premises.

TV License expired last September 2020, and getting all the reminders in the post to renew the license.
Should I just ignore these reminders since the house is vacant, or do I need to contact TV licensing authority and inform them that the house is now vacant.

Also, on a side note, are TV License Inspectors entitled to come into your home to check if you have a TV or not.

Write to them to let them know there is no TV present presently.

No they are not allowed enter the home without an invite or having a 'permitted person' accompany them.

The presence of a dish and aerial is not proof of the presence of a TV or other equipment capable of receiving broadcasts.

VonLuck · 21-05-2021 5:43pm

Can anyone tell me if you have a Smart TV, but do not have Saorview or any aerial/satellite dish connected to it, would you still be liable for the licence fee?

dulpit · 21-05-2021 5:48pm

VonLuck wrote: »

Can anyone tell me if you have a Smart TV, but do not have Saorview or any aerial/satellite dish connected to it, would you still be liable for the licence fee?

Yes, you will. It has a tuner, so you're liable, regardless of whether or not you actually use it.

VonLuck · 21-05-2021 6:58pm

dulpit wrote: »

Yes, you will. It has a tuner, so you're liable, regardless of whether or not you actually use it.

Just wasn't sure by the phrasing when they say a device that is capable of receiving a signal, or whatever the exact wording is. I figure anything is capable of being a TV if you buy enough accessories!

elperello · 21-05-2021 7:02pm

VonLuck wrote: »

Just wasn't sure by the phrasing when they say a device that is capable of receiving a signal, or whatever the exact wording is. I figure anything is capable of being a TV if you buy enough accessories!

A monitor doesn't require a licence so might be a better option for you.

VonLuck · 21-05-2021 7:15pm

elperello wrote: »

A monitor doesn't require a licence so might be a better option for you.

Ship has already sailed unfortunately. Have a couple of TV's in my home and it wouldn't make sense to get rid of them on a technicality like having a TV tuner in my opinion.

1hnr79jr65 · 03-06-2021 12:13pm

dulpit wrote: »

Yes, you will. It has a tuner, so you're liable, regardless of whether or not you actually use it.

Just wondering if this is still the case as according to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/section/140/enacted/en/html “ television set ” means 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.

I don't have a TV, only a computer monitor and they again wanting to know why no licence in the home. There is an ariel on roof and satelite dish back of house but cables are cut.

elperello · 03-06-2021 1:12pm

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

Just wondering if this is still the case as according to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/section/140/enacted/en/html “ television set ” means 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.

I don't have a TV, only a computer monitor and they again wanting to know why no licence in the home. There is an ariel on roof and satelite dish back of house but cables are cut.

If you only have a monitor it alone cannot receive a signal from the aerial or dish.

You need to explain this and maybe give them the technical spec and a pic of the monitor.

Johnboy1951 · 03-06-2021 1:29pm

Sour Lemonz wrote: »

Just wondering if this is still the case as according to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2009/act/18/section/140/enacted/en/html “ television set ” means 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.

I don't have a TV, only a computer monitor and they again wanting to know why no licence in the home. There is an ariel on roof and satelite dish back of house but cables are cut.

Simply make a written statement that there is no TV or any combination of devices capable of receiving broadcast services in your home, thus you are not required to have a 'TV Licence'.

ps200306 · 03-06-2021 4:25pm

You can download a statutory declaration form here: https://www.tvlicence.ie/home/tv-licence-forms.html

If you want to save the hassle of snail mail you can print it, fill it in, and scan it. Then email it to your local TV records office. You can find email addresses here: https://www.tvlicence.ie/home/records-office.html

For Dublin it's "Dublin.TVlicence@anpost.ie". Keep a copy of the declaration yourself. After that, if anyone asks just tell them you have no TV set and you've made a statutory declaration.

Capajoma · 20-09-2021 12:18pm

Received a letter to occupier stating they would be taking legal proceedings against me unless i purchased a license fee. They don't have my name.Can they do this? Any advice?

dulpit · 20-09-2021 1:25pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/117914628#Comment_117914628

Do you have a TV?

conor2469 · 21-10-2021 12:36pm

Hey all, I am in a bit of a quandary regarding the TV licence, and was wondering if I could get some advice.

To start off, I do not have a TV. I haven't owned one for years. I have a wide screen monitor in the sitting room, which I use to play computer games and stream media to via my laptops. I have been living in this house for over a year now.

Approximately 4 weeks ago, the TV inspector called to my place while I was at work. My girlfriend answered the door. She doesn't actually live with me but stays the odd night etc. He asked her for her name which she provided. He then informed her there was no TV licence and that it needs sorting out, and that he would call back in 2 to 4 weeks. I get home and she tells me this. I figure I would wait until he came back and explain the situation regarding no TV and using a monitor to view media from the net. He never came back in the end.

Monday just gone, I get a letter from the TV licence services, with my girlfriends name on it. It is the notice of legal proceedings letter they send out, giving you until the deadline to pay. It also states that the inspector found me in possession of a television set. I assume he saw the monitor through the window, although it would've been hard to see through the blinds. The stated deadline is looming.

I emailed the TV licence services for my area. I explained that I have no TV and that I have a widescreen monitor, which is not capable of receiving a TV signal by any means. I also informed them that the letter was sent to the wrong person as my girlfriend is not a resident. I included a signed statutory declaration with the email. They responded by saying that they cannot accept the statutory declaration as proceedings are already underway. They say that the inspector saw a TV and that it would be up to a judge to decide if a reinspection is necessary. They dismissed the fact that my girlfriend was not a resident entirely, stating "It doesn’t matter who purchases the licence for the house because as soon as the payment comes through the legal action stops."

So as it currently stands, they are siding with their inspector's findings and they are insisting I pay, otherwise they will carry on with proceedings against my girlfriend.

Where exactly do I stand here? My girlfriend is not keen on being held to ransom and wants me to pay so she doesn't have to deal with a court appearance etc. If it was me I would go and plead my case, but she wants nothing to do with it.

Normally what would be their next step if I was to refuse to pay at this stage? A summons?

Apologies for the essay, any insight would be much appreciated.

elperello · 21-10-2021 1:45pm

You should escalate this immediately.

No summons has been issued so there is still time to get it sorted.

There is no legal requirement for a person who does not live in the house to purchase a licence so if they do issue a summons it will most likely be in your name now that they have it.

There is no legal requirement for someone in possession of a monitor with no receiver to purchase a licence. Contact them again and supply the details of the monitor ie. make ,model . Attach a photo of the monitor.

If they persist and issue a summons consult a solicitor and make sure you are represented in court.

13-12-2021 8:40am

What happens if they send a letter to 'The Occupier' and still no TV licence is purchased and then one day the door is opened to an inspector?

Do you get a few days to purchase a licence or are you fined at that point?

Bear in mind if the door is closed in the face of the inspector he does not have your name and you could just head over to the post office once he leaves.

selassie · 08-08-2022 9:58am

What if a housemate tells them you have a TV, but you don't you have a monitor that has no TV Tuner? I've emailed them declaring I've no TV but they have the house on record saying it has a TV

Edit: I've emailed them a pic of the telly and manual and he's forwarded it on to a higher up so we'll see how it goes.

monster1 · 19-08-2022 8:33am

I received a letter of legal proceedings today, saying licence has to be paid ten days from date on letter, which was the 10th, 9 days ago!

There is no TV here at all. So they didn't find me in possession of a TV, which is annoying.

Do I just fill out the declaration form and email it?

I have a computer monitor, no tuner whatsoever, and definitely not visible unless they came into my bedroom.

eeepaulo · 11-10-2022 10:04pm

Does someone with an old CRT TV not capable of get saorview, and a sat box to uk freesat need a tv licence?

elperello · 11-10-2022 10:29pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732284#Comment_119732284

Yes because the tv in conjunction with other equipment is capable of receiving broadcast.

eeepaulo · 11-10-2022 10:37pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732390#Comment_119732390

thanks, that's what i thought i was reading over the last few pages of this thread, just to confirm, it can't receive any irish channel, but its just the fact that it can receive any broadcast?

FishOnABike · 11-10-2022 10:53pm

just to confirm, it can't receive any irish channel, but its just the fact that it can receive any broadcast?

It is irrelevant, the old analogue CRT on its own has a tuner so on its own would require a TV license. It is capable of receiving and displaying a broadcast, that there is no analogue broadcast to receive is neither here nor there.

elperello · 11-10-2022 11:10pm

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732481#Comment_119732481

Sorry I forgot about that little anomaly in the legislation.

Tough to think you could be in trouble for having one without a licence.

StevenToast · 11-10-2022 11:19pm

I object to Ryan Tubridy being paid 500k a year.

Why should I pay the TV Licence?

dulpit · 12-10-2022 7:31am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119732576#Comment_119732576

Because its the law?

StevenToast · 12-10-2022 8:44am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733018#Comment_119733018

Its not the law to pay Ryan Tubridy 500k

dulpit · 12-10-2022 10:01am

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/119733155#Comment_119733155

It's the law to pay the TV licence. Public service broadcasting is vital, and without the TV licence we'd be a much poorer society. You might say you don't watch RTÉ, but I'd be astounded if you could find anyone who doesn't use some RTÉ service (radio/TV/online) at some point. Plus the whole idea is that it means that RTÉ can produce content that might not be commercially viable. Look at the likes of the soccer last night - you could argue that the commercial viability of covering women's soccer wasn't there, but the TV licence allowed for that.

Yes Tubridy gets paid a lot, but in the grand scheme of things whether he gets paid that or not doesn't actually affect the TV licence charge...

TV Licence - ALL TV licence discussion/queries in this thread.

Comments