Guest_northshore_* Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I should have added a tv and dvd players, but they're not used to watch live broadcasts. Have a friend with a massive sony crt in his front room, visible from outside, who still doesn't pay for a tv licence - post-inspection. Because it's not used to watch tv. It's that straightforward. I'm falling into the popular people's front against licensing trap, but really nobody should be intimidated by misinterpreting where the legal obligation falls for just about the most regressive tax out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovelyhead Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I also have both a sky dish and aerial on the side of my home. I had a visit from the license inspector and I told her that I didn't need a license because I only watch catch up TV and don't watch live TV. She said that was fine and took me off the threatening letters list for 2 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erat_forte Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 I'm in the 'install or use' camp and CCC is a heretic. Mend your ways or feel the wrath of Capita. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 ^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 This has been covered by others; ccc/northshore are correct. You can have any cables connected you like, if you don't watch you don't need a license. This is a straightforward matter of fact. The language is ambiguous (deliberately so, perhaps) but the meaning is clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 9, 2015 Share Posted January 9, 2015 Thanks ^ Now I await a grovelling apology for calling me a troll Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 On a completely different note, I would like to post my appreciation for the BBC "Good Food" webpage. My yorkshire puddings today were superb. In fact, I don't think I've ever had a bad recipe from there. If their broadcast content was as good as their cooking page I'd sign up in a heartbeat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Thanks ^ Now I await a grovelling apology for calling me a troll No apology due. We do not know the contents of the letter Mr Bukovsky sent. TV licencing cannot deduce that equipment is not installed simply by it not being used. Implicitly Mr Bukovsky stated none was installed. Or maybe TV licencing jumped to conclusions. The TV licencing letter refers to installation requiring a licence not once, but three times in the letter. 'Installed or used' etc. QED. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Look at the prior letter on this page: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Questions%20and%20answers.htm You are talking pish. Perhaps you have a vested interest in being a FUD merchant. QED? LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Look at the prior letter on this page: http://www.bbctvlicence.com/Questions%20and%20answers.htm That is not an authoritative website, despite it's title. Neverless i quote from it: " (1) A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part. plus some irrelevant stuff - installation here refers to installation for the reception of Broadcast transmissions. You are talking pish. Perhaps you have a vested interest in being a FUD merchant. QED? LOL. No VI. No pish. I have produced an Idiot's guide so that you can understand that, sensible or reasonable or not, the law does not simply refer to reception, but also installation. The Law. Not some 'Curtomer Relations Manager's interpretation of TV Licencing policy. See below. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 Beginner's Guide to TV Licencing with Regard to Installation If 'installation' for broadcast reception was not relevant in regards to TV licencing requirements, then... The law wouldn't f***ing mention installation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Knimbies who say No Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 My ignore list grows again. Good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 My ignore list grows again. Good day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
libspero Posted January 10, 2015 Share Posted January 10, 2015 I also thought you needed to make sure your TV couldn't pick up a signal if you didn't have a license. Ours is deliberately de-tuned with no arial nearby for exactly that reason. I don't watch TV so there's no reason not to do it anyway. I'm now confused by the information up thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I also thought you needed to make sure your TV couldn't pick up a signal if you didn't have a license. Ours is deliberately de-tuned with no arial nearby for exactly that reason. I don't watch TV so there's no reason not to do it anyway. I'm now confused by the information up thread. When the law was drafted, the authorities anticipated that they might have difficulty catching people watching TV. The set might be warm when they forced entry, but an licence evader might simply turn off the TV when a raid inspection started. So they thought "if a TV is plugged in and tuned, the person is, in all probablility, using it to watch TV. So let's ensure the legislation also covers mere installation" And lo, it came to pass. And as your TV is detuned and has no aerial, it is not installed. You are safe. on the other hand, people who do not understand phrases like "A television receiver must not be installed ... unless the installation ... of the receiver is authorised by a licence"... well, they are on their own. I did my best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SNACR Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 There's your mistake right there, it's not a good idea to read those forums because they are full of paranoid fantasists. If you are legally license free it's not necessary to go to war with Capita/the BBC, just ignore them. Nothing will ever get escalated, you won't have search warrants taken out against you etc. Yes, haven't paid for years never had any hassle, even the letters seem to have dried up now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Hovis Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Yes, haven't paid for years never had any hassle, even the letters seem to have dried up now. That's a shame. I quite like receiving the letters in the same way that I enjoyed playing along with a "boiler room" scam. You get to see how the con works, with the clever language and psychological warfare. In both cases I knew from the start that they were a con - I wasn't going to buy those worthless shares, I'm not paying for a licence I don't require - so I get to watch how they each play their cons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orsino Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 That's a shame. I quite like receiving the letters in the same way that I enjoyed playing along with a "boiler room" scam. You get to see how the con works, with the clever language and psychological warfare. In both cases I knew from the start that they were a con - I wasn't going to buy those worthless shares, I'm not paying for a licence I don't require - so I get to watch how they each play their cons. I know what you mean. I recently received what must be the 4th or 5th cycle of letters advising me that they had no choice but to proceeded to 'the final stage of the investigation'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Hapoy renting - your not still sticking to your guns are you ?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
happy_renting Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 Hapoy renting - your not still sticking to your guns are you ?! Of course. ****** sake it says in black and white on your own link - you need a license to install AND use it. AND use it. AND use it. AND use it. It's not rocket science Wrong. The Act in the link says (1) A television receiver must not be installed or used Installed OR used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 11, 2015 Share Posted January 11, 2015 I don't even know what to say. If you want to think you are right for whatever reason that's fine. Don't really see the point myself but - heyho - we are all different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccc Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Either the people behind the licensing, who organise court orders following visits that result in people being charged with an offence - are wrong. And they show this in official replies to queries and in their FAQ's for the public ......... Or happy renting is correct with his interpretation of the law. Now I appreciate organisations can be useless and make mistakes - however I find it incredulous to accept the licensing bods legal teams have got this so wrong for so long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LiveinHope Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 The letter showed that because he hadn't watched the TV since 2001 then it cannot have been installed in the period under question. Basically, are they talking of 'installed' as a state of being or as an action? I don't think TVL understand 'English' To me, what they write is either ambiguous or contradictory All of which I find astonishing as I would have thought this would be 'sewn up' so that there could be no question about interpretation.. Unless they want confusion, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thecrashingisles Posted January 12, 2015 Share Posted January 12, 2015 Either the people behind the licensing, who organise court orders following visits that result in people being charged with an offence - are wrong. And they show this in official replies to queries and in their FAQ's for the public ......... Or happy renting is correct with his interpretation of the law. Now I appreciate organisations can be useless and make mistakes - however I find it incredulous to accept the licensing bods legal teams have got this so wrong for so long. I'm sure you're correct about the way the law is being enforced but the act does clearly refer to installation - http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4 Perhaps they've failed to secure prosecutions in the past when people have argued the toss on the definition of installation so now they don't bother? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.