TV Licenses

[Elmo]

right i didnt read the whole of the first post, mainly because it didnt make any sense to me, but i gathered it was a query about having a TV license in halls etc.

Basically you're MEANT to have a TVL for every TV in the house, hence why if you buy a TV under your name, but someone else in the house already has a TVL you still get sent letters telling you you need one too.

Secondly, you need a TVL for ANYTHING that recieves TV signals, be it a TV or a tv card in ur pc. No they can't burst into your home without a permit, but even if you had one TVL between the lot of you it's better than nothing surely? and what's £125 between 7-10? not a hell of alot.

[Stoo]

As Rave mentioned, the only way around this is the portable equipment thing.

If you have a pci tvtuner, and it's plugged into a big enough aerial, it can, and will be detected. (a couple of my flatmates in y1 at uni got busted for that, I already had a license so I was okay )

As mentioned above, the actual law is that you're supposed to have a license for every seperate residence with non portable equipment capable of receiving tv broadcasts. Most halls have each room as a seperate residence (there was something about having locking doors iirc), hence the greedy sods try to get each person in a flat. The best thing to do I found was to have a tv in the communal area with a shared tv license, they will pretty much leave you alone then.

[Kezzer]

I thought you only needed one TVL for every TV which is in a lockable room? Like in my new flat, the only door you can lock is the bathroom, which has no TV in it so we only need one TVL for the whole flat even though we have 3 TV's in it

[Mike Fishcake]

I wish they'd just show adverts.. I don't mind those...

I totally, totally disagree with that. Some days I'm of the mindset that I'd quite happily pay *more* to people like Sky if they stopped showing adverts. OK, it would cost more initially, but think of all the money people would save when they've not been pestered to buy stuff that they don't actually need because some famous person on their TV says they should own/rent/consolidate it.

Yes, I'm aware this argument has several holes, but I think the lack of advertising on the BBC is the one thing that makes it stand out from all the other channels where the programmes have to justify themselves to the advertisers' target markets before the bosses even consider making them.

[5lab]

its to do with tennancy agreements, not actual locks - i mean you can put a lock on the door in a shared place (i've lived somewhere with a shared tennancy agreement but locks on the doors) and its still only a single licence. its one licence per accomodation, not one per tv.

[Atomic]

I thought you only needed one TVL for every TV which is in a lockable room?

Only if it is rented accomidation. If you dont rent it is 1 licence for the whole house.

[irishjoe]

I say privatise the BBC. They have a monopoly and this should be cut out. For me who never watches the BBC apart from football, I feel I am not getting value for money for my TVL.

Now if some company brought out a device that you plugged into your TV that stopped you getting the BBC channels, it would be on top of my shopping list. I think ITV or Channel 4 should make one...

<RANT>
Instead of increasing the quality of the shows, they have increased the number of channels! How is that making it better? It can appeal to a greater range of viewers but if you want choice, you get sky.
</RANT>

[Jiff Lemon]

Well, I don't have a TV license - However, I also DON'T watch TV.

Wrote to the Licensing agency to advise them that yes, I have a TV, however, it's only used for watching my rather expansive DVD collection (cos there's naff all on any TV channel worth watching).

What happens? Yup, you STILL get snotty letters telling you that you could be being visited soon, there's a £1000 fine, blah blah Blah.

Frankly I want a bloody inspector round; I'd love to see him get a signal on my telly given that there's NO aerial, not way of recieving signal in MK apart from via NTL cable, which is also disconnected.

[irishjoe]

We had one round after receiving a letter saying "We are coming to get you" or something along those lines.
He was a snotty git and we wiped the smile of his face by producing a receipt for a TVL which was bought about 3 months previous.

I do that too. Use computer as a media center and watch dvds from it. The tv arial doesn't get used apart from footy once or twice a month...

[5lab]

Well, I don't have a TV license - However, I also DON'T watch TV.

Wrote to the Licensing agency to advise them that yes, I have a TV, however, it's only used for watching my rather expansive DVD collection (cos there's naff all on any TV channel worth watching).

What happens? Yup, you STILL get snotty letters telling you that you could be being visited soon, there's a £1000 fine, blah blah Blah.

Frankly I want a bloody inspector round; I'd love to see him get a signal on my telly given that there's NO aerial, not way of recieving signal in MK apart from via NTL cable, which is also disconnected.

you still have to have a licence afaik - you own a device capable of recieving tv signals..you could bypass this by maybe having a plasma (or similar) without a tuner box..

[Rave]

No, he doesn't need a licence. To get a fine, TV Licensing need to prove that you actually have been watching TV without a licence. If his TV isn't tuned into any channels, doesn;t have an aerial connected, and never has, then there's simply no way that they're ever going to be able to prove that.

Unfortunately for you Jiff, it's impossible to get more than a year's grace even if you do convince them that you don't watch TV- their systems are simply designed to hassle people every year. All you can really do is get some enjoyment from writing them extraordinarily rude and snotty letters in reply, because there's no way they're going to stop sending you letters in the long run.

[Saracen]

One thing that annoys me so much with the TV Licensing system is they keep on sending those TV Licence reminders.

Head of household has a TVL in their name, I buy a TV from a shop. TV Licensing sends me a letter requesting me to pay the TVL.. can't they check that someone else in the household has one on their computers?

It would save them so much £ in paper and admin costs, maybe the TVL fees would go down!

Because where there are multiple people at the same address, there may be a need for each TV owner to have a licence. Bear in mind that a given address may include a number of people sharing that address that are not necessarily either related, or living as a 'household'. And if they aren't a family unit, or 'household', then whether they need one licence per TV owner or one per adress is likely to depend on thr legal nature of their tenancy agreement .... and the Licensing people can't tell about that from their database. So, they send out reminders to everybody that MIGHT need a licence. It's up to you to determine if you do need one or not.

[Saracen]

No, he doesn't need a licence. To get a fine, TV Licensing need to prove that you actually have been watching TV without a licence.

Err, no. They need to prove someone has been receiving, not watching. That's why the standard precaution for those not using a TV as a TV is to remove antenna AND detune the stations. With just antenna removal, you could well be receiving the transmission, but so degraded as to make it unwatchable. But so far as the law is corcerned, it doesn't matter whether a picture is watchable or not, or if you actually do watch it - the crunch point is when the apparatus receives. For instance, a tuned video recorder receiving a signal, even with no TV attached and where the recorder section didn't work would still, technically, require a licence.

[TheAnimus]

hows the lovelife going??

Took a nose dive a fortnight ago.

just because i can walk into a shop and grab a bottle of vodka and run off, doesnt mean i will, even if the odds are on my side.

I'm saying we should pay because we value the service, not because its moral wrong to steel.

and i totally disagree with the fact that it is worthwhile to pay for a licence, the only thing i watch is Eastenders! before you say thats a selfish way to look at it, well think about how much is on the BBC channels and how much of it is repeated, to death. now tell me if you think your hard earned 120 quid should go to pay some people who justify it by saying they have no adverts...

As futile as it might be to try and educate someone who watches eastenders whislt not even under durest... The reason you fund the BBC with no adverts is to it dosen't have to go chasing raitings, it dosen't have to censor the news because its biggest sponser has been putting nuts in its nut free chocolate bars. Its independant.

The problem is new labour have tried to strip the BBC of its independance, some of the iraq coverage was just plain properganda, the oap tv license bribe, BBC has to go chasing raitings to prove its worthwhile.... etc.

Its quite intresting how few people are saying "i don't mind paying my £120, i get quality programing, and unbiased informative news" myself i find channel4 news to provide a more complete broadsheet style coverage in TV news. Last things i watched on BBC were Messiah and Top Gear.

[trog]

As futile as it might be to try and educate someone who watches eastenders whislt not even under durest...

i knew that would come up and bite me in the arse! i guess i just can't understand why they have the right to charge us when they repeat so much of their tv shows, in primetime! it got to the point where i stopped watching the simpsons because i was sick and tired of watching the same few episodes.
as narrow minded/mis-educated as you may think i am i just don't think it's fair that the money goes to a tv channel who messes around with tv shows (remember the x-files? buffy? malcolm in the middle? 24 to name but a few) when they are supposed to be catering for their viewers.
by the way if this sounds like i take it personally it's just how i always sound (ask Tiggerai! )

[tiggerai]

I concur... gets a bee in her bonnet frequently....