TV Licence {MEGAMERGE}

anewme

Valetta wrote: »

Do you have a license?

It's not rocket science to find out who lives at a particular address.

Your name is a matter of public knowledge.

The fact as to whether or not I have a licence is not the matter here. I note you havent asked have I got a tv, but thats another matter.

An Post are not allowed use public data for TV Licence purposes.

It is illegal for an Inspector to say he called to my address at a certain time and date and SPOKE to me when he did not, the result of which I received a legal letter saying I will be brought to court for making a statement to them at a certain time and date. It's actually a lie - the inspector made a false declaration and I have notified them in this case no one spoke to me and I live alone.


They are not allowed to get peoples names from the post, Cable link, next door neighbour or anywhere else and say they spoke to you. I have alerady enquired and this is a breach of data protection and how public data is used.

It will be interesting to see what they say about it.

Just to clarify for other people, the only way they can issue a summons is by calling to an address and speaking to someone and that someone confirming that they have a tv and no licence.

mcmoustache

seamus wrote: »

Here's a summary of how this would go down in court:

Judge: Are you John Doe?

You: No, I'm James Doe.

Judge: Grand, someone update that record. Now James, does your property have a TV licence?

You: Eh, no.

Judge: Grand. That's a €1,500 fine James. NEXT!

I went to one of these court sessions a few years ago to provide some moral support to a friend of mine who was summoned. I took the day off work and it was quite enlightening.

Most arguments were as you described - with a few notable exceptions. There was a guy who lived in a caravan in the middle of nowhere who was quite unkempt. A hermit of sorts... but he stated plainly that he had no tv. This was fairly believable and the judge just accepted that.

In my friend's case, she had printouts of her correspondence via with UPC stating that she didn't want the tv portion of her package as there was no tv in the house. Case closed.

I am a bit troubled by the fact that a person can be brought to court and have to take a day off work to fight a charge where you are guilty unless you can prove your innocence. It sounds a bit backward.

I'd have expected that An Post would have at least needed to provide some evidence that the people who they bring before the courts at least have a tv. As it is, there's a presumption of guilt, which is a bit strange. I also thought that such a frivolous reason to bring someone to court would have been punished by the judge.

No, she just said "NEXT".

salamanca22

Hey there,

It's that time of year again and I have no idea where this thread would best call home so if the mods know better then please move it

So, the old television license is now up and instead of renewing it I think I will go another direction. That being removing all apparatus in my home capable of receiving a television signal.

Now, here is my question. I would like to keep my television set BUT remove the tuner from it, am I right in saying that because the set can no longer receive a television signal that it is no longer considered for the TV license?

I only use the set as a monitor for a PC and have no subscription to a television service or use saorview so wasting €160 at this time of the year seems like madness. If I must pay I will however.

Thanks for any help you can give.

runawaybishop

salamanca22 wrote: »

Hey there,

It's that time of year again and I have no idea where this thread would best call home so if the mods know better then please move it

So, the old television license is now up and instead of renewing it I think I will go another direction. That being removing all apparatus in my home capable of receiving a television signal.

Now, here is my question. I would like to keep my television set BUT remove the tuner from it, am I right in saying that because the set can no longer receive a television signal that it is no longer considered for the TV license?

I only use the set as a monitor for a PC and have no subscription to a television service or use saorview so wasting €160 at this time of the year seems like madness. If I must pay I will however.

Thanks for any help you can give.

No, the set can be repaired so you will still need a license. Just buy a monitor for 160 euro and chuck out the tv if you don't want to pay the license.

Carawaystick

runawaybishop wrote: »

No, the set can be repaired so you will still need a license. Just buy a monitor for 160 euro and chuck out the tv if you don't want to pay the license.

but sher you could add a tuner to the monitor, and you'ld need a license going by your logic.

The apparatus has to be capable of viewing broadcast tv programs.
if it is incapable, its not legally a television.
The fact it could be in the future is neither here nor there.

Would an old crt tv with a smashed crt still need a license?

runawaybishop

Carawaystick wrote: »

but sher you could add a tuner to the monitor, and you'ld need a license going by your logic.

The apparatus has to be capable of viewing broadcast tv programs.
if it is incapable, its not legally a television.
The fact it could be in the future is neither here nor there.

Would an old crt tv with a smashed crt still need a license?

If you added a tuner to a monitor then yes, you'd need a license then.

Judge isn't a technical expert and won't delve into the details behind how it is irreparable, which is also just on your say so. If you have a tv you need a license.

plodder

Isn't there supposed to be a 'broadcasting charge' coming in that replaces the TV license, which every house has to pay regardless of what devices you have or don't have. The idea being to bring into the net, people who throw out the TV and use internet devices instead.

FreudianSlippers

plodder wrote: »

Isn't there supposed to be a 'broadcasting charge' coming in that replaces the TV license, which every house has to pay regardless of what devices you have or don't have. The idea being to bring into the net, people who throw out the TV and use internet devices instead.

It has been indefinitely delayed/postponed.

FreudianSlippers

runawaybishop wrote: »

If you added a tuner to a monitor then yes, you'd need a license then.

Judge isn't a technical expert and won't delve into the details behind how it is irreparable, which is also just on your say so. If you have a tv you need a license.

By the letter of the law I do not believe a TV with the tuner removed would fall under the definition of a television in the 2009 Act.

“ television set ” means any 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;

I would not agree that the Act envisages charging for a monitor or display simply for the fact that it could be modified to receive a TV broadcasting service.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

runawaybishop

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

By the letter of the law I do not believe a TV with the tuner removed would fall under the definition of a television in the 2009 Act.



I would not agree that the Act envisages charging for a monitor or display simply for the fact that it could be modified to receive a TV broadcasting service.

Any basis for your belief?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/media/tv_licences.html
Rules

If your household, business or institution possesses a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal, you are required by law to have a television licence. Even if the television or other equipment is broken and currently unable to receive a signal, it is regarded as capable of being repaired so it can receive a signal and you must hold a licence for it.

You do not require a television licence to watch television on your computer or mobile phone. However, the computer must not be able to receive a signal distributed by conventional television broadcasting networks, for example, cable, satellite or aerial.

FreudianSlippers

runawaybishop wrote: »

Any basis for your belief?

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/consumer_affairs/media/tv_licences.html
Rules

If your household, business or institution possesses a television or equipment capable of receiving a television signal, you are required by law to have a television licence. Even if the television or other equipment is broken and currently unable to receive a signal, it is regarded as capable of being repaired so it can receive a signal and you must hold a licence for it.

You do not require a television licence to watch television on your computer or mobile phone. However, the computer must not be able to receive a signal distributed by conventional television broadcasting networks, for example, cable, satellite or aerial.

My basis is the Broadcasting Act 2009. Citizen's information is a good site, but they have no source for their assertion.

I'm open to correction from anyone who has the legal basis for this claim.

runawaybishop

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

My basis is the Broadcasting Act 2009. Citizen's information is a good site, but they have no source for their assertion.

I'm open to correction from anyone who has the legal basis for this claim.

I'd go with CI tbh.

Judges are not technical experts and will not just go on the face value of someone's claim that they removed a tuner. What does a tuner look like anyway, how can they be sure its gone - if you took it out surely you can just pop it back in easily? Maybe if you set fire to your tv and then hit it with a lump hammer a judge could make a fairly reasonable assumption that its not repairable, but removing the tuner and leaving the TV in a working state is not something most people would be able to accomplish.

FreudianSlippers

runawaybishop wrote: »

I'd go with CI tbh.

Judges are not technical experts and will not just go on the face value of someone's claim that they removed a tuner. What does a tuner look like anyway, how can they be sure its gone - if you took it out surely you can just pop it back in easily? Maybe if you set fire to your tv and then hit it with a lump hammer a judge could make a fairly reasonable assumption that its not repairable, but removing the tuner and leaving the TV in a working state is not something most people would be able to accomplish.

A judge is not going to take CI as authority.

johnciall

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

By the letter of the law I do not believe a TV with the tuner removed would fall under the definition of a television in the 2009 Act.


I would not agree that the Act envisages charging for a monitor or display simply for the fact that it could be modified to receive a TV broadcasting service.

Now here's the big question, Would a tv without a saorview box/module count?

I've a 7 year old Flat screen that has Co-Axial, Scart, Component & HDMI & VGA inputs, None of them are used to broadcast a signal in ireland anymore

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Bruthal

johnciall wrote: »

Now here's the big question, Would a tv without a saorview box/module count?

I've a 7 year old Flat screen that has Co-Axial, Scart, Component & HDMI & VGA inputs, None of them are used to broadcast a signal in ireland anymore

In reality, the entire idea of the tv licence and latest broadcasting act, is simply to ensure all variations of what might be a tv, are encompassed in the act.

In other words, they simply want every household and premises to pay the fee.

And like I posted in times past, if everyone suddenly used a different medium to watch broadcast live tv, the licence would change to cover it.

And this broadcasting charge was the next stage, to have everyone in the net.

Bruthal

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

It would, but if a person used it simply to watch DVDs, and had no other apparatus, then it shouldnt really.

But we all know, they simply want everyone to pay. So the broadcasting act covers as much as possible, to make everyone liable.

Losty Dublin

johnciall wrote: »

Now here's the big question, Would a tv without a saorview box/module count?

I've a 7 year old Flat screen that has Co-Axial, Scart, Component & HDMI & VGA inputs, None of them are used to broadcast a signal in ireland anymore

As we speak I have digital TV signal on my set. It is plugged into an aerial via a co axial cable. You are liable so long as you have a TV on your property and it's capable of reception

johnciall

Losty, Is that with an external saorview box or with a set of bunny ears?

Losty Dublin

johnciall wrote: »

Losty, Is that with an external saorview box or with a set of bunny ears?

In my case it's an old internal aerial that I've plugged into the set. Most TVs today have the Saorview box inside them so it does the techie bit.

Worth the few € if you currently don't have HD via your cable/dish.

intellectual dosser

Its off topic but Im going for it....

The current radio ad for TV License. Its a parody of the charity ads describing the terrible situations of third world countries and how €X a month could make all the difference.

I'm normally not one to be 'offended' but I think its in bad taste, particularly for something people wouldnt find amusing.

runawaybishop

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

A judge is not going to take CI as authority.

Never said they would. The only technical expert they usually listen to is the license inspector.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

FreudianSlippers

runawaybishop wrote: »

Never said they would. The only technical expert they usually listen to is the license inspector.

That's why my question was what's the legislative or precedential basis for the statement. Admittedly I haven't looked beyond the 2009 Act, but it doesn't appear to be in there.

runawaybishop

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Inspectors are indeed technical experts on determining what is and isn't a TV as far as a judge is concerned.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's why my question was what's the legislative or precedential basis for the statement. Admittedly I haven't looked beyond the 2009 Act, but it doesn't appear to be in there.

The act is deliberately vague for good reason as people will try to wiggle around it.

Carawaystick

The defence would to bring the set with the tuner removed and get the "expert" inspector to exhibit a broadcast signal.

Anyway, if an inspector did not see the set exhibit a broadcast tv service, and a defendant said the tuner was removed, there is reasonable doubt.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

runawaybishop

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Fair play to you.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If you can prove with a technical expert that the device can no longer function as a TV then that is fine. Lot of time, effort and money to spend though when you could just buy a monitor, or get a license. You could also prove to the inspector on site that it no longer functions, unless of course you enjoy wasting your own time and everyone elses.

free_man

I wish to narrate a good story.

I don't have a TV .
But had a visit from inspector. He showed his batch and I said I live there. He took down my name and asked if I have a TV. I said NO. He then asked if he could come in and I agreed. He walked in. So my drawing room and went away. So questions or anything.
Hopefully I will not get any more of warning letters !!