This post was originally written on the I Hate The Jeremy Vine Show blog, who have kindly agreed to us republishing it here:
We discuss today what happens when you don't buy a TV licence.
I am deliberately going to avoid the "is it a fee or a tax?" question, and whether the licence fee is justifiable, etc.
My research may be missing some elements, and so there are a lot of questions here. You will need to do some research into this topic.
The official and much-publicised line on not having a licence is that the TV Licensing Authority (aka TV Licensing, TVL, Capita) will take you to court and prosecute, but they have to do a lot of work to achieve this, and I wonder just at what point the case is filed under "too difficult" and conveniently forgotten.
Retailers of equipment that are capable of receiving television broadcasts are required BY LAW to provide TVL with personal information in the form of your name and address. However, there is no law that says that anybody paying with cash is required to give a correct address, and they cannot be traced through credit card details. Addresses with no TV licence are targeted and investigated by TVL, but how often do they actually do this?
TVL enforces the BBC's statutory obligation to ensure that every address where a television licence is required is correctly licensed, but its agents have no special rights and, like any other member of the public, rely on an implied right of access to reach the front door. The occupants of a visited property may deny an agent entry to the premises without cause and are under no obligation to answer any questions or enter into any conversation. If an agent has evidence that television is being watched or recorded illegally but is denied entry by the occupants so that (s)he cannot verify the suspicion without trespassing, then TV Licensing may apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, but the use of such warrants is rare. The BBC states that a search warrant would never be applied for solely on the basis of non-cooperation with TV Licensing and that in the event of being denied access to unlicensed property will use detection equipment rather than a search warrant. The assumption by TVL is always "guilty until proved innocent" and in 2008 the BBC Trust launched an enquiry in to intimidating behaviour by TVL.
We discuss today what happens when you don't buy a TV licence.
I am deliberately going to avoid the "is it a fee or a tax?" question, and whether the licence fee is justifiable, etc.
My research may be missing some elements, and so there are a lot of questions here. You will need to do some research into this topic.
The official and much-publicised line on not having a licence is that the TV Licensing Authority (aka TV Licensing, TVL, Capita) will take you to court and prosecute, but they have to do a lot of work to achieve this, and I wonder just at what point the case is filed under "too difficult" and conveniently forgotten.
Retailers of equipment that are capable of receiving television broadcasts are required BY LAW to provide TVL with personal information in the form of your name and address. However, there is no law that says that anybody paying with cash is required to give a correct address, and they cannot be traced through credit card details. Addresses with no TV licence are targeted and investigated by TVL, but how often do they actually do this?
TVL enforces the BBC's statutory obligation to ensure that every address where a television licence is required is correctly licensed, but its agents have no special rights and, like any other member of the public, rely on an implied right of access to reach the front door. The occupants of a visited property may deny an agent entry to the premises without cause and are under no obligation to answer any questions or enter into any conversation. If an agent has evidence that television is being watched or recorded illegally but is denied entry by the occupants so that (s)he cannot verify the suspicion without trespassing, then TV Licensing may apply to a magistrate for a search warrant, but the use of such warrants is rare. The BBC states that a search warrant would never be applied for solely on the basis of non-cooperation with TV Licensing and that in the event of being denied access to unlicensed property will use detection equipment rather than a search warrant. The assumption by TVL is always "guilty until proved innocent" and in 2008 the BBC Trust launched an enquiry in to intimidating behaviour by TVL.
According to Wikipedia (yes, I know) the law allows a fine of up to £1,000 be imposed on those successfully prosecuted and this figure is frequently publicised by TV Licensing to maximise deterrence. In reality, magistrates rarely impose the maximum fines allowed to them by law. During the year 2005-6, the average fine including costs was approximately £153, so only slightly more than the cost of a licence.
Moving further down the process... let's assume that TVL reckon that you have a working television in your home and one day there is a knock on the door. You open the door and the man from TVL introduces himself. Now, if you were to engage in conversation with him and/or invite him in to your home then they have succeeded in their task and they would attempt to sell you a licence and they may try a prosecution if you refused. However, what happens if you tell him to get off your property and close the door in his face? At that point he becomes no more important and has no more authority than a double-glazing salesman or peddler of religious virtues. If he leaves quietly then fair enough, but another visit will probably occur. If he does not leave and bangs on the door, shouts through the letterbox, etc., then he is then guilty of aggravated trespass. From what I can find a person is guilty of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on another's land and carries out any act with the intention of disrupting a lawful activity being carried out on or adjacent to that land. That, to me, describes the banging on the door situation exactly.
So, what happens next? The research I have done suggests: Not Much.
The visits may continue, but by not responding to such visits there is not a lot TVL can do. Warning (almost threatening) letters will also be sent, but they can be ignored.
There is a suggestion that only watching TV broadcasts that are not live (by using iPlayer on a computer, for example) does not require the viewer to hold a TV licence. The same is also said for broadcasts that originate wholly from a non-UK broadcaster and received by means of non-Sky satellite equipment. Has anybody tested this on court? If so, what was the outcome? [TV Licensing Blog Comment: This last sentence is incorrect. A television licence is required to watch/record live broadcast TV signals regardless of where in the world they originate]
I would LOVE to know what the conclusion to all this is, especially as I have read of people who have not bought a licence for 10 years or more.
If you go with this I promise I will listen. However, it will need you to:
- put your "BBC is sacrosanct" attitude to one side.
- do some research.
- report the truth.
- back it up with real facts.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php
Moving further down the process... let's assume that TVL reckon that you have a working television in your home and one day there is a knock on the door. You open the door and the man from TVL introduces himself. Now, if you were to engage in conversation with him and/or invite him in to your home then they have succeeded in their task and they would attempt to sell you a licence and they may try a prosecution if you refused. However, what happens if you tell him to get off your property and close the door in his face? At that point he becomes no more important and has no more authority than a double-glazing salesman or peddler of religious virtues. If he leaves quietly then fair enough, but another visit will probably occur. If he does not leave and bangs on the door, shouts through the letterbox, etc., then he is then guilty of aggravated trespass. From what I can find a person is guilty of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on another's land and carries out any act with the intention of disrupting a lawful activity being carried out on or adjacent to that land. That, to me, describes the banging on the door situation exactly.
So, what happens next? The research I have done suggests: Not Much.
The visits may continue, but by not responding to such visits there is not a lot TVL can do. Warning (almost threatening) letters will also be sent, but they can be ignored.
There is a suggestion that only watching TV broadcasts that are not live (by using iPlayer on a computer, for example) does not require the viewer to hold a TV licence. The same is also said for broadcasts that originate wholly from a non-UK broadcaster and received by means of non-Sky satellite equipment. Has anybody tested this on court? If so, what was the outcome? [TV Licensing Blog Comment: This last sentence is incorrect. A television licence is required to watch/record live broadcast TV signals regardless of where in the world they originate]
I would LOVE to know what the conclusion to all this is, especially as I have read of people who have not bought a licence for 10 years or more.
If you go with this I promise I will listen. However, it will need you to:
- put your "BBC is sacrosanct" attitude to one side.
- do some research.
- report the truth.
- back it up with real facts.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Television_licensing_in_the_United_Kingdom
http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php
9 comments:
What happens when you do have a licence?
You receive a letter saying that you don't have a licence and are threatened with legal action...and ultimately imprisonment.
What did I do when I got this letter?
Blackmailed the bastards and forced them to pay up.
I think you've mentioned something like that previously Lee.
Can you tell us anymore about how you got the better of them? Avoid using the word blackmail because we don't want to stoop to their criminal level.
This may be of interest as I used to be plagued with these aggressive letters from TV Licensing, despite not having a TV. I had written to them on a number of occasions, objecting to the assumption of guilt that these letters convey. On one occasion, I sent them a demand for illustration fees, explaining that, as a freelance illustrator, my income depends on the copyright license fees from companies using any of my images. I stated that my records show that I have not received any payments from TV Licensing and would, therefore, be sending an "enforcement agent" to look through all of their corporate literature to ensure that none of my images have been used. I actually got a reply, assuring me that none of my images are being used and that it is not their policy or practice to use copyright images without authorisation. It went on to explain that, under no circumstances, would an "enforcement agent" acting on my behalf would be admitted to the premises.
However, I continued to get the "threatening letters". Finally I sent them an analysis of the wording on the letters: At no point does the letter inform the recipient of his or her rights. Nowhere does it clearly state the circumstances under which a license is not required. Nowhere does it acknowledge the possibility that the reason for nor purchasing a license may be that the recipient does not own a TV. The only reason for not being licensed that the letter acknowledges is that the recipient may have recently moved and forgotten to renew the license. The only advice offered is to pay or expect a £1000 fine. Nowhere does it state the limitations of the "enforcement officer's" powers.
Because the contents of the letter are exclusively either demanding money or issuing threats, it is effectively attempted extortion.
I have now drawn the TV Licensing company's attention to this factor and the TV Licensing company have now been informed that I do not own a TV. Any further letters from them of this nature will be regarded as an attempt to extort money from me under threat and the police will be notified and appropriate legal action will be demanded under existing law.
That was about four years ago and I have never heard from them since.
There are a lot more issues relating to my various conflicts with this criminal organisation. Contact me if you are interested.
Technically, the TV Licensing Authority have no more authority to search my premises for evidence that I am not watching TV without a license than I have to search their premises for evidence that they are not using any of my images without my authority. The onus would be on me to prove that they ARE. The same is true in reverse. The onus is on the TV Licensing Authority to prove that you ARE receiving broadcasts without a license.
No other company would be permitted to send bills to random addresses on the off-chance that the recipient might actually OWE he amount demanded. Certainly, they would not be able to issue threats of fines and legal action without good reason to believe that the recipient owes the money. There is a reason why they would not be allowed to do this: IT IS ILLEGAL.
There is no specific legal power that enables them to do this but, traditionally, the way in which they conduct their business is ignored by both the government and the police. They continue on the strength of the public's assumption that they have the powers and legal immunity to do this and the government and police traditionally turning a blind eye to the law.
I don't object to the principle of paying for the services the BBC provides through a licensing system but I do object to the methods of policing and demanding payments.
Retailers of equipment that are capable of receiving television broadcasts are required BY LAW to provide TVL with personal information in the form of your name and address. However, there is no law that says that anybody paying with cash is required to give a correct address, and they cannot be traced through credit card details.
I think the assumption that they cannot use credit card details may be wrong.
I recently(August 2012)purchased a DVD PLAYER from Dixons via the internet.
I chose to have the item delivered to my son's home (he has a licence)as having missed several parcels through being out at work and his wife being at home during the day seemed a good idea.
I only watch dvd's and refuse to pay the TV TAX. However, two weeks on I have received a threatening letter from Bristol with my home address on it.
The only way BBC licencing could have known my address is through my credit card details!
Albert.
I draw your attention again [since it seems relevant to a specific question asked in the text] to a comment from the Telegraph on the consequences of citing non-use of live broadcasts to excuse the absence of a licence. Trawling for 'block' convictions of 50 at a time, not to mention Magistrates Training Courses endorsed by the BBC, leave very little room for optimism in my opinion:
"IT'S A LOVELY IDEA - BUT IT JUST ISN'T POSSIBLE!!
What's that you say? You don't have a TV? Ah but you have broadband right? So therefore you MUST be watching News 24 online! What's that you say? You don't watch News 24? Well you watch iplayer don't you? What's that you say? You don't watch live TV on iplayer? Ah, but iplayer now has live TV - so if you use iplayer you MUST be using it to watch live TV! What's that you say? You have no broadband or PC? But you have a mobile phone don't you? So you MUST be using it to watch live TV. TAKE HIM DOWN ----TO THE CELLS UNTIL THE FEE IS PAID.
Here's the deal. The law says that you don't need a licence if you do not watch TV as it is being broadcast. That is to give the false impression that you have some sort of choice. The law COULD just say "if you don't have a TV you don't pay". But then the licence fee could be avoided easily. Half the country would get rid of their TVs and just get their news from websites like the DT. So the law in couched in terms of doing something (receiving TV as it is being broadcast) rather than having a TV. Now what happens in practice? If you have any sort of device whatsoever - even a pay-as-you-go mobile phone - the law will ASSUME that you are using it to watch TV as it is being broadcast. So we have a bogus impression that we live in a free country - but in practice EVERYBODY HAS TO PAY the licence fee. This raises 3 or 4 billion for the BBC which is the state socialist propaganda department and the propaganda wing of the the Labour Party. But regardless of your opinions, you are forced to fund the socialist propaganda. No choice. There could even be an encrypted service for BBC TV, but no, that would give you a choice. Much easier to put iplayer on every platform and then the socialist judges in the socialist courts will just ASSUME you are watching live TV."
11 November 2012 23:24
So all said and done they have not rights what so ever and the chances of getting a big fine is slim. I'm on ESA and unable to work and paying for a t.v licence is impossible for me as cost of food ect comes first
I'm afraid there is a lot misinformation in the comments section of this blog. It easy to check the legal situation here:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/technology--devices-and-online-top8/
With today’s technology, you can watch TV on more devices than ever, whenever it suits you best. This means a TV Licence doesn’t just cover you to watch TV at home on a TV set. You can also watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV, through all of these devices:
Computers, including laptops and tablets
Mobile phones
Games consoles
Digital boxes, e.g. Freeview, Sky, Virgin, BT Vision
DVD/VHS/Blu-ray recorders.
As long as the address where you live is licensed, you’re also covered to watch TV outside your home using any device powered solely by its own internal batteries. This includes your mobile phone, laptop and tablet.
Exception: If you only watch catch-up services online, then you don’t need a licence. For example, you don’t need one to use BBC iPlayer, or ITV player, to catch up on programmes after they have been shown on TV
Thanks for your comment Dave.
I note you question the accuracy of comments instead of our articles. We are very clear about the legalities of the TV licence, and I do not imagine you will find any inaccurate legal advice in any of our articles. Our commentators may not have such an appreciation of the law, but we still value their contributions. That's why we publish virtually all the comments submitted here.
Anyone who wants to check the law surrounding the TV licence can visit the appropriate statutes on the Parliament website. The current primary legislation on the matter is the Communications Act 2003.
TV Licensing is a BBC "puppet show" tasked with making as much money as possible. Their website is written with that goal in mind, just like all their legally baseless reminder letters are.
Post a Comment