TV Licence {MEGAMERGE}

Peregrinus

Chancer3001 wrote: »

You would think so. But no, no they don't.

Any threatening letters just get sent to the occupier.

We also receive post to about 6 different Polish sounding names of people who obviously used to live here

That doesn't mean they don't know your name. And, if they don't know, they can fairly easily find out. Anyone can. Who lives where is not exactly a state secret.

Wheelnut

OK, after 272 posts let's see who is still paying attention:

What's wrong with this statement made by mikom in post 247?

mikom wrote: »

...And yes I know its 108 years since 1916...

Answers on the back of a valid TV license please.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

mikom

Wheelnut wrote: »

OK, after 272 posts let's see who is still paying attention:

What's wrong with this statement made by mikom in post 247?



Answers on the back of a valid TV license please.

Shit, that rules me out of entering so.

Grolschevik

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

PO Box no should be 1169...

Chancer3001

Peregrinus wrote: »

That doesn't mean they don't know your name. And, if they don't know, they can fairly easily find out. Anyone can. Who lives where is not exactly a state secret.

Seriously....you think they get their legal requirements from asking the neighbours!!??

I already said, they send post for about 10 people to this house. None of which are me.

sunshine and showers

I really don't get the absolute problem people seem to have with TV licenses. Just pay it. I mean, I can understand not paying if you don't have the money to, but otherwise...

FreudianSlippers

sunshine and showers wrote: »

I really don't get the absolute problem people seem to have with TV licenses. Just pay it. I mean, I can understand not paying if you don't have the money to, but otherwise...

If you can't afford €13.33/month, you should really consider whether you can afford to own a TV in the first place.

Chancer3001

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Seriously....you think they get their legal requirements from asking the neighbours!!??

I already said, they send post for about 10 people to this house. None of which are me.

You do know how An Post works right? If you have the correct address on an envelope they will deliver it no matter what name is on it. However if you put a name on an envelope but have an insufficient address (for example: Joe Smith, Rivervalley, Swords - no estate name or house number) and the letter will usually reach the desired destination. Dara O'Briain even did a comedy routine about this.

The Post Office know where people live. There are a few exceptions of course but your address isn't a state secret. Seriously.

FreudianSlippers

[Deleted User] wrote: »

You do know how An Post works right? If you have the correct address on an envelope they will deliver it no matter what name is on it. However if you put a name on an envelope but have an insufficient address (for example: Joe Smith, Rivervalley, Swords - no estate name or house number) and the letter will usually reach the desired destination. Dara O'Briain even did a comedy routine about this.

The Post Office know where people live. There are a few exceptions of course but your address isn't a state secret. Seriously.

Mammy's House

Chancer3001

Kayroo, how do they know who's responsible for paying the TV licence from the 10 people that get letters here? They don't have the resources to summon us all to court and they won't.

They don't even have the power to check sky subscriptions. They can't just check who's paying for sky and bill those. It's a hilariously badly run department.

I'm not paying because I don't want to

sunshine and showers

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Kayroo, how do they know who's responsible for paying the TV licence from the 10 people that get letters here? They don't have the resources to summon us all to court and they won't.

They don't even have the power to check sky subscriptions. They can't just check who's paying for sky and bill those. It's a hilariously badly run department.

I'm not paying because I don't want to

Well aren't you a fine example of an upstanding citizen. :rolleyes:

Chancer3001

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I'm not paying because I don't want to

There it is. The low life scrounger's motto. Fair play for the honesty anyway.

Chancer3001

Might as well be honest about it. I'll pay sky cos I like their service.

I donate to charities which I like.

I don't think rte is well run, they give way way way too much money to wrong people, they waste too much money. So I'm not giving them my money

Chancer3001

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Might as well be honest about it. I'll pay sky cos I like their service.

I donate to charities which I like.

I don't think rte is well run, they give way way way too much money to wrong people, they waste too much money. So I'm not giving them my money

I don't like the way the HSE is run. I should stop paying income tax. But if I need it i'll still use it. (I'm sure you've never watched a single programme on RTE since you stopped paying your tv licence)

I don't like the potholes on the roads near my house. I'll stop paying my car tax.

I don't like the insurance industry AT ALL. I'll stop paying for my car insurance and I hate the NCT so they can **** right off.

Chancer3001

You make it out like that's a craaaaazy thing.

There are 100s if not 1000s of people out there right now who are not paying income tax.

Others with no nct.

If people think they'll get away with it, and they don't want to pay, they'll try get away with it. Some will. Others will pay up every time.

I don't want to give rte my money and it's almost impossible to be caught so I'm not paying

Bepolite

Chancer3001 wrote: »

I don't want to give rte my money and it's almost impossible to be caught so I'm not paying

Obviously never been in the District Court...

fear le solas

hi all..
I have a summons for not paying tv licence and the court date is tomorrow..

Am I responsible if it was my girlfriend's rented house? She is on the lease,not me..I was there when the inspector came and he asked if I was living there before he said who he was.. so I said yes to hurry up as I was busy with a demanding 4 year old..The inspector left quickly after taking my name and that was December 2013. In May I received a summons and stayed there every now and again when babysitting/hanging out with her etc but was also staying in my parents' house.
approx 6 months every year I work abroad and can show proof of this.

can they fine me if I'm not a tenant? I gave her some cash towards bills etc..
it's not my tv..
my parent's have a tv licence which im gonna show them.
she doesnt have a tv licence.
I have a laptop but no internet but she has internet in her house.

Does anyone have any views on this?

hullaballoo

Thread re-opened after a discussion with the OP.

I'm sure everyone will keep the charter in mind.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

MarkAnthony

Go to court, explain the situation, you'll then have your answer from the only person that matter which is the Judge. I would normally recommend speaking to a solicitor, if you get on the phone now you might catch one still in the office. FLAC etc won't be able to fit you in in time.

Peregrinus

The offence is set out in s. 148 of the Broadcasting Act; it basically involves keeping, or having in your possession, a television set for which there is no licence. (Note that you don't have to have a licence for the set; as long as somebody has a valid licence for the set, you're OK. But I presume the OP's girlfriend does not have a licence.)

Under s.149, anyone who is in occupation of premises, as owner, tenant or otherwise, is an "occupier" of the premises. So if the OP is there as, basically, a long-term guest of his girlfriend, he's still an "occupier". (So is she, of course.) And, also under s. 149, any "occupier" of the premises is presumed to be "keeping or possessing" any television set on the premises, "unless the contrary is shown".

So basically:

- The OP is an "occupier" of the premises.

- The inspector found a TV set on the premises.

- There was (I presume) no licence in respect of the TV set.

- There is a statutory presumption that the OP was "keeping or possessing" the set.

- The OP is the occupier who happened to be there when the inspector called, and he's the one who has been charged.

He can't defend the charge by saying that his girfriend could have been charged. She could, or they both could, but so what?

I theory, he could defend the charge by giving evidence to rebut the presumption that he was "keeping or possessing" the television. In a different context, this might be done, e.g., by showing that the house is a shared house between a number of independent people who are not in conjugal relationship with one another, and that the TV belongs to one of them in particular and is kept in that person's room so is not available to others. But if the OP and his girlfriend are living as a couple, with the TV in the living room and used by both of them, I don't think that argument would fly. The fact that the girlfriend's name is the one on the lease is not enought to mean that she, rather than anyone else, is "keeping or possessing" any television set that may be in the house.

Chancer3001

Al he has to do is prove he didn't live there and it will be thrown out.

Show an electricity bill in your name for a different premises and you'll be fine.

Say that you never told the inspector you lived there.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

fxotoole

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Al he has to do is prove he didn't live there and it will be thrown out.

Show an electricity bill in your name for a different premises and you'll be fine.

Say that you never told the inspector you lived there.

An electricity bill at another address doesn't necessarily mean that you don't live there though. One could have signed up to an electricity supplier at two addresses simultaneously.

Chancer3001

Well if you lived somewhere there'd surely be a witness.

If you'd only signed up to electricity one place and had your phone bills etc going there.

They have to prove you live in that girlfriends house, you never have to prove that you DONT something if you get what I mean.

Peregrinus

But he told the inspector that he lived there, and the inspector has given evidence to that effect in his affidavit. That's enough to discharge the state's burden to show that he is "in occupation", and the onus is now on him to rebut that. Assuming he's not prepared to commit perjury, I don't see how he can rebut it. Producing an electricity bill for another premises is not enough; it's quite possible to be the occupier of more than one premises. He's going to have to give credible evidence that he's not in occupation at his girlfriend's place, and he's going to have to explain why he told the inspector he lived there, or else he has to accuse the inspector of perjury, which is a bit of a stretch; why would the Inspector perjure himself in order to prosecute the wrong defendant?

slimjimmc

fear le solas wrote: »

my parent's have a tv licence which im gonna show them.

The TV licence is specific to the address, so unless your parents have a licence for your girlfriend's house their licence is not relevant.

fear le solas wrote: »

I have a laptop but no internet but she has internet in her house.

At the moment you don't need a licence for internet unless it's used to watch simultaneous broadcasts such as IPTV, e.g. Eircom eVision http://www.uswitch.ie/broadband/guides/what-is-iptv/

WhyTheFace

Hi,

I just got a letter saying legal proceedings will be taken if I don't pay my license. It's the right surname but not my first name.

Does it have to be my proper name to for them to be able to prosecute me?

Cheers

Beano

the tv licence is in respect of a property not a person is it not?