Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

TV Licence Thread Megamerge

Options
1234568»

Comments

  • Options
    #212
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,310 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    I wonder how this new Household Broadcasting Charge (got to love how those fcuking Lbour Communists can think up new taxes) will affect Landlords?

    Looks like if the Tax is on the household, then tenants won't be paying that either.

    How anyone could have voted for Labour is beyond me. Time to reap what you sow you left wing loonies.

    Isn't it ironic that the new taxes intorduced by Labour/FG are hitting the poorest the hardest - water charges, propertyt taxes, motor tax etc. Shove that in your Marxist pipes and smoke it.


  • Options
    #213
    surf board
    Registered Users Posts: 174 ✭✭surf board


    Family member got a letter a few days ago stating final notice for legal proceedings and a summons issued!?

    It was addressed to some completely random foreign name. The address was correct though. She doesn't have a tv license though.

    I told her to buy one now but that they prob couldn't do anything as they never spoke to an inspector in person and the name is someone else. They are the owners and apartment had no previous occupiers. Am I wrong in saying this?


  • Options
    #214
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    It was addressed to some completely random foreign name.
    Not her problem. Send the letter back marked "Not at this address".


  • Options
    #215
    nessie911
    Registered Users Posts: 135 ✭✭nessie911


    My friend got a summons to appear in court over not paying his tv licence. He has been on back to education, and was un-able to pay his tv licence, he didn't realise that it could be paid in instalments, until now.

    Has anyone been in this situation before? What can he expect when he goes to court. If he pays the tv licence now, can he get out of going to court. I am not looking for Legal advise, I am just looking to see if anyone has been in this situation before, and would be able to guide him.

    Thanks for any guidance, or past experiences.


  • Options
    #216
    RangeR
    Registered Users Posts: 7,265 ✭✭✭RangeR


    nessie911 wrote: »
    My friend got a summons to appear in court over not paying his tv licence. He has been on back to education, and was un-able to pay his tv licence, he didn't realise that it could be paid in instalments, until now.

    Has anyone been in this situation before? What can he expect when he goes to court. If he pays the tv licence now, can he get out of going to court. I am not looking for Legal advise, I am just looking to see if anyone has been in this situation before, and would be able to guide him.

    Thanks for any guidance, or past experiences.

    I'm not in the legal profession and I'm not going to offer advice. However, if it was me in that situation, it wouldn't do me any harm to show that I am willing to pay but only found out now about installments. I'd start the installments this week/month and keep them regular. I would keep receipts or other form of proof of payment and bring that along to the court. I'd probably let my solicitor know of my intentions too so they can bring it forward to the judge.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #217
    psychward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭psychward


    nessie911 wrote: »
    My friend got a summons to appear in court over not paying his tv licence. He has been on back to education, and was un-able to pay his tv licence, he didn't realise that it could be paid in instalments, until now.

    Has anyone been in this situation before? What can he expect when he goes to court. If he pays the tv licence now, can he get out of going to court. I am not looking for Legal advise, I am just looking to see if anyone has been in this situation before, and would be able to guide him.

    Thanks for any guidance, or past experiences.

    Did anyone in authority actually gain access to his home and see a TV with their own eyes ?


  • Options
    #218
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    psychward wrote: »
    Did anyone in authority actually gain access to his home and see a TV with their own eyes ?

    Even if they didn't they will lie and say they saw it in through a chink in the curtains.
    They pull this trick all the time.


  • Options
    #219
    psychward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭psychward


    mikom wrote: »
    Even if they didn't they will lie and say they saw it in through a chink in the curtains.
    They pull this trick all the time.

    So the word of a TV licence inspector is worth more in court than the word of a law abiding citizen with no criminal record ?


  • Options
    #220
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    psychward wrote: »
    So the word of a TV licence inspector is worth more in court than the word of a law abiding citizen with no criminal record ?

    Often the TV licence inspector that shows up in court is not even the one that visited your house.
    I have heard of a few cases which have been struck out where the defendant was able to prove as much.


  • Options
    #221
    psychward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭psychward


    mikom wrote: »
    Often the TV licence inspector that shows up in court is not even the one that visited your house.
    I have heard of a few cases which have been struck out where the defendant was able to prove as much.

    I am sure it would be an offence for anyone to turn up in court and to commit perjury and fraud in such a manner. How come you never hear of any TV licence inspectors being convicted or even charged of such a thing ? If the judge can see the inspector is lying then why doesnt he convict him of such ?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #222
    mikom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,391 ✭✭✭✭mikom


    psychward wrote: »
    I am sure it would be an offence for anyone to turn up in court and to commit perjury and fraud in such a manner. How come you never hear of any TV licence inspectors being convicted or even charged of such a thing ? If the judge can see the inspector is lying then why doesnt he convict him of such ?

    In the cases i have heard about the licence inspectors were not letting on to be the ones that scoped out the property.
    They were sent to the court to take the place of the other one who was presumably sick or out annoying other home owners.
    No perjury.


  • Options
    #223
    psychward
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,187 ✭✭✭psychward


    mikom wrote: »
    No perjury.

    Apart from I presume; when they lie and say you have a Telly even if you don't!


  • Options
    #224
    preepreepree
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭preepreepree


    Until now notices from 'An Post TV License' have been addressed to 'The Occupier' and duly ignored. I recently filled in a card and 'ticked the box' which stated there is no television set here.
    I should have made a copy, but I'm fairly sure I did not print my name on the card nor was that even called for. I may have signed the card, but if so, will have done so illegibly.

    Today I received a letter addressed to me personally regarding the Statutory Declaration (Section 147 of the Broadcasting Act 2009).

    First, I am most curious as to how they obtained my name and my rights on the issue.
    I am not registered to vote at this address and aside from cross referencing my personal post I can't imagine how An Post will have obtained the information.
    Have they infringed my rights by doing so?
    Do I have a right to know details as to how they did actually obtain the information?

    Then there is the form itself. I am legally obliged to fill this out (and return it within 28 days).
    I may not make a 'false or misleading statement', however, surely I am not obliged to give 'actual information' - for instance: merely draw circles for the 'Is there a television.../license' questions.

    As a rule I do not answer my door, and even if it had ever happened that an inspector accosted me upon opening it, under no circumstances would he/she be permitted into my place of residence (same for any unsolicited calls excepting police with warrant - not that that's ever happened).

    Whether or not I own a television is moot as far as I'm concerned.
    I'm not fond of having rights infringed or at least my privacy 'toyed with'.

    Granted it is the law to have a license for your tv, but it is not your job to specifically prove you don't have one in the first place, and I believe we are within our rights to withhold personal information and permission to enter our premises as we see fit.


  • Options
    #225
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    There is no obligation to fill in that form.


  • Options
    #226
    preepreepree
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭preepreepree


    Our man in Havana wrote: »
    There is no obligation to fill in that form.
    "Under section 147 of the Broadcasting Act 2009, a person who, when required to do so, fails to complete and return a From of Declaration [...] is liable to prosecution and fine."


  • Options
    #227
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    I have certainly never completed one and nothing ever happened.


  • Options
    #228
    preepreepree
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭preepreepree


    I've just noticed a typo in the definition of "television set" under the form.
    I'm no solicitor, but I believe that renders the document relatively useless in legal terms.

    There is a similar 'mistake' in the definition of "gleas teilifise" in the Irish translation.


  • Options
    #229
    Procrastastudy
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,224 ✭✭✭Procrastastudy


    preepreepree wrote: »
    Until now notices from 'An Post TV License' have been addressed to 'The Occupier' and duly ignored. I recently filled in a card and 'ticked the box' which stated there is no television set here.
    I should have made a copy, but I'm fairly sure I did not print my name on the card nor was that even called for. I may have signed the card, but if so, will have done so illegibly.

    Today I received a letter addressed to me personally regarding the Statutory Declaration (Section 147 of the Broadcasting Act 2009).

    First, I am most curious as to how they obtained my name and my rights on the issue.
    I am not registered to vote at this address and aside from cross referencing my personal post I can't imagine how An Post will have obtained the information.
    Have they infringed my rights by doing so?
    Do I have a right to know details as to how they did actually obtain the information?

    Then there is the form itself. I am legally obliged to fill this out (and return it within 28 days).
    I may not make a 'false or misleading statement', however, surely I am not obliged to give 'actual information' - for instance: merely draw circles for the 'Is there a television.../license' questions.

    As a rule I do not answer my door, and even if it had ever happened that an inspector accosted me upon opening it, under no circumstances would he/she be permitted into my place of residence (same for any unsolicited calls excepting police with warrant - not that that's ever happened).

    Whether or not I own a television is moot as far as I'm concerned.
    I'm not fond of having rights infringed or at least my privacy 'toyed with'.

    Granted it is the law to have a license for your tv, but it is not your job to specifically prove you don't have one in the first place, and I believe we are within our rights to withhold personal information and permission to enter our premises as we see fit.

    Get a solicitor and no less than an SC and 2 JC on this right away and let us know how you got on.


  • Options
    #230
    preepreepree
    Registered Users Posts: 4 ✭preepreepree


    Procrastastudy wrote: »
    Get a solicitor and no less than an SC and 2 JC on this right away and let us know how you got on.

    As amusing as your advice is, it's the kind of thing I would be thrilled to do if I won the lotto tomorrow.


  • Options
    #231
    BornToKill
    Registered Users Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭BornToKill


    Section 147. Interesting alright - a positive duty to make the return and to declare whether or not you have a TV and, if you have one, to give details of where it is kept and the number, etc. of the licence for it.

    If you fail or forget to send back the declaration then it is presumed that you have an unlicensed TV.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #232
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    If you fail or forget to send back the declaration then it is presumed that you have an unlicensed TV.
    That does not help them one little bit. They still have to prove their case in court.


  • Options
    #233
    BornToKill
    Registered Users Posts: 1,053 ✭✭✭BornToKill


    Our man in Havana wrote: »
    That does not help them one little bit. They still have to prove their case in court.

    It would certainly help with the evidential burden of proof.


  • Options
    #234
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    Nope.

    They need evidence from the inspector of a Television.


  • Options
    #235
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Our man in Havana wrote: »
    Nope.

    They need evidence from the inspector of a Television.

    it would seem subsection 4 tries to transfer the evidential burden to the accused. So the accused going into the box and swearing to the fact that he does not have a TV, would transfer the burden back to An Post, who would then need to aduce evidence that the person did in fact have a TV. If the person does not turn up or does not get into the box then the Court can presume that a TV is held by the person at the address.

    (4) Where a person fails or neglects, within 28 days of service, to duly complete the form of declaration accompanied or annexed to a notice given or sent to him, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is shown, that he or she keeps or has possession of a television set at the premises or specified place to which the notice relates and a television licence is not in force in relation to the premises or specified place authorising the keeping or having possession of a television set at the premises or specified place.


  • Options
    #236
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,476 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    I have not heard of anyone being prosecuted on just failing to complete their silly form.


  • Options
    #237
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    Our man in Havana wrote: »
    I have not heard of anyone being prosecuted on just failing to complete their silly form.


    I would say you are indeed correct, I would think An Post would be very carefull of taking a case they may very well not win, as unlike the DPP and AGS I dont think An Post are exempt from a costs order.


  • Options
    #238
    _pure_mule_
    Registered Users Posts: 166 ✭✭_pure_mule_


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLitEwAxNmQ worth a look.


  • Options
    #239
    ResearchWill
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,111 ✭✭✭ResearchWill


    _pure_mule_ wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SLitEwAxNmQ worth a look.

    Yup worth a look for a laugh. How anyone can claim the "consent of the governed" requires each of us to consent to every act FFS I really think the Irish Education System needs a complete overhaul if it can produce even one person who believes this rubbish.


Advertisement