TV Licence Thread Megamerge

Yllut

An Post checks nothing. I renewed my TV licence the year before last and for the following year I got letters threatening me with Court action unless I got a new licence. :eek::eek:

coylemj

If she didn't have a licence in May then she'll have to answer the case and go to court. It would certainly be good when pleading mitigation that she bought the licence in September, well before the summons arrived but if there was no licence in force in May then she has a case to answer.

If she was entitled to have the case thrown out because she eventually bought a licence then nobody would bother buying a TV licence until the inspector came knocking on the door.

yosser hughes

I thought if the inspector called and discovered you had no licence,then they warned you first and instructed you to get a licence straight away. What happened in your case?
I'd say you do have a case to answer if you were unreasonable in the delay in getting one.

born2bwild

They are shower of f*****g thieves. Now they want 65 euros' blood money as a 'loss of revenue' payment in order to prevent the case going to court. It's scarcely relevant but I don't even watch RTE - my wife's a foreigner and watches TV from her own country via satellite. I am so sick of this country. It just keeps on taking and gives me nothing in return. 65 euros???? I paid for their stupid licence. Theft. Plain and simple theft. It's a completely arbitrary figure and it's so f*****g unfair. They're bleeding me dry; everywhere I turn another tax appears and this property-bubble - mortgage is going to drag me under. I am so angry.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

not even wrong

If you got busted in May and didn't buy a license until 5 months later in September then it's fair enough for them to ask you to pay for that 5-month interval during which you still didn't have a license.

In fact 5 months of TV license comes out at slightly over 65 euros so if anything you're getting a good deal.

Paulw

born2bwild wrote: »

Now they want 65 euros' blood money as a 'loss of revenue' payment in order to prevent the case going to court.

Simple choice then. Either pay the €65 or take it to court and argue your point there.

Of course, going to court means you need time off work, possibly a solicitor, and you may not win and then have a much larger fine imposed.

That's a no-brainer to me.

Like it or not, it's the law.

born2bwild

Paulw wrote: »

Simple choice then. Either pay the €65 or take it to court and argue your point there.

Of course, going to court means you need time off work, possibly a solicitor, and you may not win and then have a much larger fine imposed.

That's a no-brainer to me.

Like it or not, it's the law.

Yeah, the law in the service of a bankrupt and amoral state. Just saying 'that's the law' is not the same as saying 'that's right'. It was once the law to say 'you're a woman; you can't vote' 'you're black; get to the back of the bus'.

Now it's the law to say: 'you lent billions out to fools who can't pay you back? No problem, I know a few million idiots who'll spend decades paying you instead...hey presto! New laws!'

My next door neighbour got the same letter by registered post this morning. An Post is obviously turning the screw in order to get as much revenue as ruthlessly as possible. It's another tax, plain and simple...and there's plenty more of those coming down the road. But hey, it's the law.

My Arse to this state and its laws; as far as I can see it has zero, less than zero legitimacy.

born2bwild

not even wrong wrote: »

If you got busted in May and didn't buy a license until 5 months later in September then it's fair enough for them to ask you to pay for that 5-month interval during which you still didn't have a license.

In fact 5 months of TV license comes out at slightly over 65 euros so if anything you're getting a good deal.

What's 'fair enough'? There's nothing fair about paying for this stupid licence in the first place. What am I paying them for? So Pat Kenny and Tubridy can draw 6-figure salaries for talking ****e on TV programmes that I would never, in a million years watch?
And I didn't get 'busted'. Last time I checked we weren't living in America. Yeah it cones out as 66 euros and a few cents.

ebbsy

Fax a copy of your licence to the records section and ask them nicely to strike it out.

Worked for me.

Mr McBoatface

Not wanting to offend you but I think you need to get over it.

The TV licences is a requirement in this state regardless of whether you watch RTE or not. It is a tax of sorts and you have to pay it if you own a TV, set top box or PC that can receive a TV signal from an aerial, satellite or cable.

The Bank bailouts etc have nothing to do with the TV license. It's time to take personal responsibility for your actions and stop blaming others.

born2bwild

jobyrne30 wrote: »

Not wanting to offend you but I think you need to get over it.

The TV licences is a requirement in this state regardless of whether you watch RTE or not. It is a tax of sorts and you have to pay it if you own a TV, set top box or PC that can receive a TV signal from an aerial, satellite or cable.

The Bank bailouts etc have nothing to do with the TV license. It's time to take personal responsibility for your actions and stop blaming others.

Sorry but the extent to which this state is violating its social contract with its citizens is outrageous. It takes many forms: the bank bailout, increases in tax on labour, reductions in social welfare, carbon tax, the taxes coming down the line on water and on property. You watch for it: state organisations are cranking up their drive for revenue and the people who are paying are ordinary people like me and you. Just as the cops will be looking for more road traffic fines, the post office is trying to squeeze as much as it can out of us.

Take responsibility for my actions? What does that mean? Just shut up and put up with the situation as it's manifesting itself?

coylemj

OP, enough of this wishy-washy waffle, come straight out and tell us what you really think.

yosser hughes

If you don't want to pay Tubridy's wages then getrid of your telly.That's what I did.I don't miss it.Having a telly is NOT a human right.
If you don't want to pay a licence then don'thave a telly.Simple.

Mr McBoatface

born2bwild wrote: »

Take responsibility for my actions? What does that mean? Just shut up and put up with the situation as it's manifesting itself?

In this case from May to September you/you're wife didn't have a licence due to your own error. That is your fault and now you'll get a fine, it's the way of the world.

As for the other stuff I don't disagree with you but It simply has nothing to do with the non-payment of a TV licence and fines issued as a results.

born2bwild

coylemj wrote: »

OP, enough of this wishy-washy waffle, come straight out and tell us what you really think.

What I think is this: because of the 65 euros that an Post has stolen from me I think we should organise an armed insurrection to take control of the state.

Paulw

born2bwild wrote: »

What I think is this: because of the 65 euros that an Post has stolen from me I think we should organise an armed insurrection to take control of the state.

Now there's a logical way to solve your issue of €65 over a TV license.

I'd hate to see your solution to our national debt.

slimjimmc

born2bwild wrote: »

They are shower of f*****g thieves. Now they want 65 euros' blood money as a 'loss of revenue' payment in order to prevent the case going to court. It's scarcely relevant but I don't even watch RTE - my wife's a foreigner and watches TV from her own country via satellite. I am so sick of this country. It just keeps on taking and gives me nothing in return. 65 euros???? I paid for their stupid licence. Theft. Plain and simple theft. It's a completely arbitrary figure and it's so f*****g unfair. They're bleeding me dry; everywhere I turn another tax appears and this property-bubble - mortgage is going to drag me under. I am so angry.:mad::mad::mad::mad:

The majority of European states have a TV licence and many of them are far more expensive than here (Austria's is double our's). Regardless of nationality both you and your wife should have known a licence was needed (it's not hard to find out) and that under the law all occupants of the house, not only the TV owner, are responsible for ensuring the TV is licensed.

Waiting another 4-5 months after receiving a warning is taking the p155 and there's a good chance the judge will see this as an attempt to evade payment.

born2bwild

Yeah Slimjim, the judge may see it that way but my point has been just this: that the judiciary and their hoardes of unthinking wannabes are in the service of an illegitimate and bankrupt state.

How dare they ask you and me for bills of any kind when they have brought us to ruin?

Repeating again and again that I should know better; that I'm getting what I deserve; that it's a no brainer; that Austria has rules for this and that, is saying nothing more than a certain status quo obtains.

Really?

My point is that it is wrong. WRONG.

If you want to defend the status quo; fine. But if it were all overthrown tomorrrow what would you have to say for yourself?

born2bwild

Paulw wrote: »

Now there's a logical way to solve your issue of €65 over a TV license.

I'd hate to see your solution to our national debt.

No Paul, you'd love my solution to our national debt. As a part of it Messi and Iniesta would come and play for Sporting Fingal.

FreudianSlippers

born2bwild wrote: »

Sorry but the extent to which this state is violating its social contract with its citizens is outrageous. It takes many forms: the bank bailout, increases in tax on labour, reductions in social welfare, carbon tax, the taxes coming down the line on water and on property. You watch for it: state organisations are cranking up their drive for revenue and the people who are paying are ordinary people like me and you. Just as the cops will be looking for more road traffic fines, the post office is trying to squeeze as much as it can out of us.

Take responsibility for my actions? What does that mean? Just shut up and put up with the situation as it's manifesting itself?

Keep it on topic. If you want to discuss your unhappiness with the current system we have an excellent Politics forum.
If you want to moan about perfectly legitimate taxes and policies, we have an excellent After Hours forum for that type of posting.

FreudianSlippers

born2bwild wrote: »

Yeah Slimjim, the judge may see it that way but my point has been just this: that the judiciary and their hoardes of unthinking wannabes are in the service of an illegitimate and bankrupt state.

How dare they ask you and me for bills of any kind when they have brought us to ruin?

Repeating again and again that I should know better; that I'm getting what I deserve; that it's a no brainer; that Austria has rules for this and that, is saying nothing more than a certain status quo obtains.

Really?

My point is that it is wrong. WRONG.

If you want to defend the status quo; fine. But if it were all overthrown tomorrrow what would you have to say for yourself?

I don't think the Legal Discussion forum is where you want to be spouting this kind of nonsense about illegitimate states and status quo, etc.

Either you have a question about the TV Licence or your posts belong in the Ranting & Raving forum.

Last warning or else I'm going to start considering your posts as trolling.

kerrylad1

what is wrong with people who worry about these sort of summons,the judge is dealing with scummy drug dealer's,mugger's,assults and so on,all week,do ye really think he's gona come down hard on ye.less face it.times have changed,people have lost jobs and are broke,if you show you have tryed to pay this tv licence fee,or are willing to do your best,showing ur finicial constraints,dont worry,the judge will sniff the bluffers out and show understanding to those less fortunate.trust me.i speak from exerperience.

usernamegoes

My reading of the Broadcasting Act, 2009 as it relates to the powers to search for a TV seems to purport to give the State's agents too much power.

s146(3)-

An officer of an issuing agent may enter at any reasonable
time any premises or specified place for the purposes of ascertaining
whether there is a television set there and a television licence is for
the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place
authorising the keeping of a television set at the premises or specified place.

Surely this is ultra vires the power of the legislature to give agents of the State the power to enter and search any premises or specified place, there is no mention of warrant or even reasonable suspicion that a law has been broken.

Also for those that seem concerned about if there laptops are TVs the 2009 Act defines a TV as:

[A]ny 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;

Read in company of:

“broadcast” means the transmission, relaying or distribution by electronic communications network of communications, sounds, signs,
visual images or signals, intended for direct reception by the general
public whether such communications, sounds, signs, visual images or
signals are actually received or not

Would seem to me to say that unless you laptop has a way of receiving and display broadcast sent generally to the public rather than sounds, signs,
visual images or signals requested and sent only to you then it would not be a TV.

dolihalix

I have a question. I'm after receiving a summons for the 28th of this month even though I've never had a tv in the apartment since I've moved in and told the same to the inspector who paid us a visit last year. On top of that, they have misspelled my name badly. I don't see a reason to get a day off and lose the wages because an inspector cannot distinguish the difference between yes, we do and no, we don't. I guess my question is, how do I go about it? Will I try and sort it out with An Post and get them to come in for an inspection and strike the summons out or will I simply ignore it and claim I'm not the person they're looking for. I don't want any uniforms sniffing around my apartment looking for something or someone that doesn't even exist. Thanks

slimjimmc

Asking An Post to inspect your apartment will only prove you don't have a TV now, I seriously doubt they would accept it as proof that you didn't have a TV when the inspector knocked on your door last year. I'll be expecting An Post to produce some documented evidence (e.g. inspector's notes, photos, etc) you had an unlicenced TV at the time of inspection.

Jesus Wept

dolihalix wrote: »

I have a question. I'm after receiving a summons for the 28th of this month even though I've never had a tv in the apartment since I've moved in and told the same to the inspector who paid us a visit last year. On top of that, they have misspelled my name badly. I don't see a reason to get a day off and lose the wages because an inspector cannot distinguish the difference between yes, we do and no, we don't. I guess my question is, how do I go about it? Will I try and sort it out with An Post and get them to come in for an inspection and strike the summons out or will I simply ignore it and claim I'm not the person they're looking for. I don't want any uniforms sniffing around my apartment looking for something or someone that doesn't even exist. Thanks

Trying to claim you are not the person because they have mangled your name (as stupid as they are to do so) won't go down well.

dolihalix

I'm after ringing An Post, wonderful stuff they have going on. The inspector put down a file saying that I have a TV set at home and he's ready to go to the court with that. On top of that they said a couple of letter were sent out which I've never received. Funny thing is that I did tell him I didn't have one, he didn't even ask me to go in and check(btw on the phone they said inspectors don't go into the houses) , he just wrote down the opposite of what I've said and is ready do testify. Apparently, I've no other way than taking a day off, which is gonna cost me almost as much as the darn licence and take my chances against an inspector. It's his word against mine. Surely there are thousand's of cases where the judge goes with the man rather than an inspector when it's a matter of his word against mine. I mean, I'm almost better off paying for the licence and saving myself a day at the court. Which is exactly what they're counting on. Just out of curiosity, when I do go and explain everything, is there any way of asking for a compensation?

/edit
The-rigger, I spoke to a couple of solicitors in my building and just as I thought they said technically the summons is not addressed to me. Obviously I don't want to go down that route, but that's what they've said.

Our man in Havana

when I do go and explain everything, is there any way of asking for a compensation?

LOL! Not a chance in hell. Defendants don't get their costs in criminal cases even if acquitted.

someday2010

Hypothetically suppose that a friend of mine told me a letter addressed to the occupier arrived from An Post re a statutory declaration to say that they dont have a TV on the premises & to reply in 28 days

But s.147 of the broadcasting act 2009 states that it must be delivered personally or by registered post but it sent by normal post. So does this then mean the letter has no legal standing and also that they wont be inspected until the 28 days has elapsed.

147.— (1) An officer of an issuing agent may, if and whenever he or she thinks proper so to do, cause a special notice in writing (accompanied by or having annexed to it a form of declaration) to be given personally to, or be served by registered post on, any person requiring that person, within 28 days after the service of the notice on him or her—

DK man

Any update - similar situation myself - was planning on just getting on with my life trying to run a home and pay my bills aswell as those foisted on me by bankers and corrupt politicians....:mad: