TV License

[Saracen]

To be honest, in a Westcot debt collection style of manner, I believe it's STRONGLY implied as opposed to threatening, tbh the BBC aren't stupid enough to incriminate themelves.

Damn. Thought I might be on to something there.

It's what I don't like about them, though. You open the letter, read it and think "Oh poop". But if you read it CAREFULLY it doesn't say quite what it seems to say. Trouble is, not everybody reads these things carefully, or by the time they do, they've already been given a nasty scare. And by definition, those least able to read carefully are likely to be least able to handle extra pressure and stress.

It's a tactic that sucks. The Licencing people seem to justify it by pointing out that 20% of people claiming to not watch TV are lying to them. Great. Go after that 20%. But stop treating the other 80% like criminals in the process.

[Sinizter]

Maybe you should write to them and tell them that you will charge them for the time and effort it takes to read their drivel each time they send it to you.

£10 for each letter they send to you, if you already have a license. By the end of the year you should have your money plus some extra back.

[Saracen]

Maybe you should write to them and tell them that you will charge them for the time and effort it takes to read their drivel each time they send it to you.

£10 for each letter they send to you, if you already have a license. By the end of the year you should have your money plus some extra back.

Good idea.

Try it. Let us know how you get on.

[capt_cornflake]

Ignoring whether or not we should pay the license fee for a minute, half of the problems people have with TV licensing occur because the whole operation was contracted out, to Capita if I remember correctly.
They hardly have a history of great service (see CRB checks etc.), and I'm sure I remember reading that their contract gives them a percentage of the revenue they bring in (ringing any alarm bells yet?).

Given that it's hardly surprising they are getting so agressive - it pays them to do so.

Complete and utter noncense.. I think in the 1st year of uni (in student flat) we never paid for the license.

Then you were lucky. They didn't used to be too bothered about students, but in the last couple of years they have clamped down severely. And technically even if you are in a shared house, if the rooms have individual locks, then each room needs it's own license.
All of which makes easy money, as for most students, it's hardly high on the list of priorities.

[Saracen]

.... And technically even if you are in a shared house, if the rooms have individual locks, then each room needs it's own license.

All of which makes easy money, as for most students, it's hardly high on the list of priorities.

Erm, no. It's about the legal nature of the tenancy agreement, not locked doors. Locks on doors might be suggestive of the nature of the agreement, but it's the agreement that rules, not the locks. Basically, if it's a shared house with common tenancy, one licence will do, even if you put a lock on your door. If each student has his own tenancy agreement, he needs a licence if the TV is in his private rooms. A TV in common areas where there's a private element to each tenancy still needs to have a licence covering it.

[chicken]

Well I just found out one of my points was wrong, I can't remember where I found it last time but I think I trust the Citizen's Advice Bureau more than anyone on this.

Basically you need a licence just for having access to TV receiving equipment in your home, it doesn't have to be on, and if you're the unlucky person to answer the door to the Licencing Officer then you take the rap.

http://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/win...nications_bill

But on the plus side it does appear that they can only charge you in excess of the licence if you refuse to pay, so if you paid up when caught I guess it wouldn't be any different?

[Saracen]

Well I just found out one of my points was wrong, I can't remember where I found it last time but I think I trust the Citizen's Advice Bureau more than anyone on this.

Basically you need a licence just for having access to TV receiving equipment in your home, it doesn't have to be on, and if you're the unlucky person to answer the door to the Licencing Officer then you take the rap.

If that's what they said, and exact wording is very important, then they're wrong. Do as I did .... write and ask TV Licencing, and they'll tell you that's wrong. Or, for that matter, refer to the Citizen's Advice website, where they say

Everyone who uses (or installs with the intention to use) a television set, video recorder or computer which is capable of receiving authorised broadcast programmes (that is, the BBC, ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5, cable or satellite television), needs a television licence. A television licence is not needed if the TV set cannot receive TV programmes and is used only for close circuit monitoring, for watching pre-recorded videos or DVDs, or as a computer monitor – see under heading You don't use your television set or other device to watch or record broadcast programmes. You do need a licence to watch TV on a mobile phone or other battery-operated device.

The distinction is between mere possession, and 'using, or installing with intent to use'. If a set is detuned and no aerial connection is present, is it "installed with intent to use"?

As an example, there was a court case a few years ago of someone that had a TV in the corner, with a cover over it and a potted plant on top. An inspector visited and asked if there was a TV, and was told yes, but it's not been used for years.

"Does it work" He said.

"Dunno" was the answer.

"Turn it on and check" he said. The owner did, and was promptly prosecuted. The court quite rightly threw it out and chastised the licensing people, because there was no evidence of intent to use for a purpose that required licencing.

But in any event, using a set for non-TV purposes doesn't require a licence and nor does mere possession. If that's what Citizen's Advice said, then believe me or not as you wish, but they're wrong. But I rather suspect it was one of these terminology things.

Possession does not require a licence. Using (to receive broadcast TV) does. Installing with intent to use also does, and that's a somewhat more nebulous thing to define. Somewhere I have a letter from TV licencing explaining all this, and from previous threads on this matter, so do many other people.

[chicken]

Well that's what I originally had been informed, but then I found this on the CAB site (where my link pointed):

However, in effect, the Wireless Telegraphy Act imposes a tax on television possession; the offences apply whether or not you actually use your television as a consumer of BBC or of other providers’ services; the Act simply states that you need a licence for any equipment capable of receiving television signals. You do not actually have to be watching television to require a licence; the mere fact that you have a television set - however rudimentary - in your home that can, if switched on, receive television signals, means that you need a licence; and if you don't pay the Licence Fee you can be prosecuted under criminal law.

On the mobile front, I investigated this a while ago for work and found that you don't need a separate licence for battery-operated devices as they come under your home licence. If you don't have a home licence then you do need one for it though... probably (this is the more complicated twist)... But you don't need ANY licence if what you receive on your mobile is not in time with, or very close to the current live terrestrial broadcast. Now how's that for confusing?

I wrote to verify this but got no reply.

[gabriel]

cool i use my tv a computer monitor! something at least!

[lost eden]

On the mobile front, I investigated this a while ago for work and found that you don't need a separate licence for battery-operated devices as they come under your home licence.

As a matter of fact, as a full-time student, I believe that I was once told (from a reputable source) that I can use a battery powered receiver under my parents' home licence, even whilst I'm away at university. Not that I plan on trying this out, but my friend who uses his 17" laptop with a USB-powered receiver can simply unplug the power when the inspector comes! Of course the inspector won't believe this is really in the small-print that he enforces.

[stephent3]

Being a fifth year student and being in halls at the beginning and now at the end of my degree I have noticed a significant change in the tactics.

First year, random people were given letters, and I heard stories that this person in the next block got done and fined; mysteriously that person was never named, and being from hall where everyone knew everyone I figured it was a vicious rumor spread by the faculty.

Come fifth year, blanket letters every few weeks, 'Official Warning'. Yet nothing, and again I hear that someone upstairs got done for not having a license but still no name for the victim.

My JCR fees pay for the TVs in the TV rooms so I figure it should pay for mine in my room.

A house is different; I my three years outside of halls I bought a license everytime.

So what to do?

Heres a good thing to do; ask all your mates whether or not they know someone who got busted for not having a TV license in halls by name.

Each block probably has one aerial serving 50 rooms, thers no way they can detect it down to a single room unless they turn up outside your door and hear Deal or No Deal in the background.

[Saracen]

Well that's what I originally had been informed, but then I found this on the CAB site (where my link pointed):

However, in effect, the Wireless Telegraphy Act imposes a tax on television possession; the offences apply whether or not you actually use your television as a consumer of BBC or of other providers’ services; the Act simply states that you need a licence for any equipment capable of receiving television signals. You do not actually have to be watching television to require a licence; the mere fact that you have a television set - however rudimentary - in your home that can, if switched on, receive television signals, means that you need a licence; and if you don't pay the Licence Fee you can be prosecuted under criminal law.

Well, let's take a look at that.

Firstly, it's an interpretation. That's clear from the "in effect" bit.

Then, it says that you don't need to be actually watching the set. True enough, because just receiving is enough to need a licence. You don't even need a TV set, because "television receiving apparatus" has been fairly widely interpreted over the years, and certainly includes a video recorder. So, recording a signal certainly needs a licence, even if you can't watch it because there isn't a TV present.

Legislation doesn't actually give an absolute definition of what "television" means. Definitions have certainly been added to, but essentially, it's whatever the Secretary of State says it is, and that changes (expands) regularly. It has had to, to take account of satellite, cable and most recently, Internet. In fact, the original WTA didn't refer to TV at all. It referred to "wireless telegraphy" apparatus - not entirely surprising when you think it was 1949.

But anyway, moving on, the Act says you need a licence to "instal or use". What, precisely, counts as "install" and what counts as "use"? You'll often see "capable of" referred to, as in the quote you gave, but what precisely does that mean?

When legislation uses phrases like that, it opens up grounds for challenge, and grounds for courts to apply their judgement. If a set is sitting on your lounge floor, connected to a DVD player and a games console, has it been "installed" as a TV receiver? Can it, as it sits there, receive a TV signal? Well, if it has no aerial attached and is not tuned then, right now, no, it can't.

Is it "capable" of receiving? Yes, if you attach an aerial and tune it. But, as it sits there, no, it isn't.

An important precedent was set in 1987, by some Law Lords no less. It's Rudd v Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and it relates to exactly what was meant in the (amended) 1949 WTA Act by "use". The case itself was about pirate radio, but here's what their Lordships had to say about "use" ....

There may well be circumstances in which, for example, a television set may be available for use in a person's house yet he may have no intention to use it so may not licence it. Thus he may be about to go away from home when the licence expires, and not intend to renew the licence until he returns home. It is difficult to see in such circumstances why he should be convicted of an offence under section 11 on the ground only that the set was available for use and unlicenced. Furthermore, there are other sections in the Act in which the word "use" appears, which indicate that the word is used in it's ordinary sense when creating offences under the Act (.... two examples follow ...) In my opinion, both these provisions, having regard to their context, employ the word "uses" in it's ordinary sense and not in the sense of meaning "has available for use". I can see no reason for concluding the word "use" as employed in relation to the offence created by Section 1(1) should be understood in any different sense. Indeed, to construe the word "use" or "uses" in any of these sections as having the broad meaning "has available for use" would be in conflict with the principle that words in a statute creating a criminal offence should, if ambiguous, be given a narrow rather than a broad construction.

...


I recognise that this conclusion may create problems for the enforcing authorities in so far as it means they cannot simply on the fact that the relevant apparatus was available for use. They will, I fear, have to go further, and will if necessary have to persuade the court to draw the inference that the apparatus in question was used by the defendant during the relevant period. But I trust and believe that if, for example, a television set in working order is found in the sitting room of the house occupied by the defendant it will not be difficult for a court to draw the necessary inference in the absence of some credible explanation by the defendant to the effect that it was not being used.

It is that decision that sets the framework for the current state of affairs. Which is :-

1) Despite a series of Wireless Telegraphy Acts and a host of other legislation that have amended them in some greater or smaller regard, ranging from the 1998 Copyright Act to the 2003 Communications Act and a host of SIs, some definitions are still, in terms of statutory definition, decidedly vague.

2) It clearly establishes the principle that mere possession, presence, of a set is NOT enough to require a licence.

3) It also establishes that in the absence of a credible explanation, a court is not only entitled but likely to draw the inference that the set was in use and therefore a licence required.

So as I said several posts back, intent is critical.

There's no guaranteed, clear, cut and dried definition in statute of exactly when you do and don't need a licence. It's largely down to interpretation of terms like "use" and "install", and the the effects of what inference a court will draw.

But, while the effect of the above is to transfer the burden of establishing that you weren't "using" the set in the sense in which a licence would be required, it does clearly establish the "credible explanation" point. So, if you have an alternative use (DVDs, console, close-circuit TV, etc) and the set is detuned and without aerial connection, that has been accepted by the Licencing people as clear evidence that you weren't using or intending to use (in the licence-needed sense), and they will (or certainly have in the past) confirm that for you if you write and ask.



Phew!

[capt_cornflake]

Erm, no. It's about the legal nature of the tenancy agreement, not locked doors. Locks on doors might be suggestive of the nature of the agreement, but it's the agreement that rules, not the locks. Basically, if it's a shared house with common tenancy, one licence will do, even if you put a lock on your door. If each student has his own tenancy agreement, he needs a licence if the TV is in his private rooms. A TV in common areas where there's a private element to each tenancy still needs to have a licence covering it.

Sorry, yes you're right. The time in the past when it came up I was living in a house with separate agreements.

As a matter of fact, as a full-time student, I believe that I was once told (from a reputable source) that I can use a battery powered receiver under my parents' home licence, even whilst I'm away at university. Not that I plan on trying this out, but my friend who uses his 17" laptop with a USB-powered receiver can simply unplug the power when the inspector comes! Of course the inspector won't believe this is really in the small-print that he enforces.

While I think you are correct in that you don't need a separate license for battery powered receivers (intended to cover things like caravan TVs and handheld devices), this only applies if it is a self contained and battery-powered device.
A USB powered device does not come under this, and so would require a license.