TV Licence {MEGAMERGE}

Fred Swanson · 16-12-2014 4:15pm

This post has been deleted.

runawaybishop · 16-12-2014 5:04pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

If inspectors are not doing their job, and that is definitely part of it, then there is a complaints procedure to follow also. Seems to me like you are prepared to go to a lot of effort to show something that is easily taken care of well before court?

Losty Dublin · 16-12-2014 9:12pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Is your technical witness able to attest that the apparatus wasn't capable on the day of the inspection?

Fred Swanson · 16-12-2014 9:17pm

This post has been deleted.

Losty Dublin · 16-12-2014 9:55pm

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Purely for the sake of debate, how does this work out at trial?

Legal; You mend tellies?
Expert; Yup.
Legal: Did you fiddle with Fred's telly?
Expert; To the point of no return; it's an ex telly now.
Legal; No Further Questions.

No chance of...

Judge; How do we know that you did all that; have you a certificate to say that you took part in Fred's TV buggering upping or the parts of the de-oscillator?
Expert; Errrrrr
Judge; And could Harry Moore fix this so that it could run again for more years than he could care to remember?
Expert; Ummmmmmm, perhaps.

Or is there som

Peregrinus · 17-12-2014 1:08am

Scenario B is not a problem. If somebody turns up in court and gives evidence that he buggered up Fred's telly, there is no need for any certificate to say that he did so; you have direct first-person evidence from the man himself, which is better evidence than any certificate could ever be. Generally, you only need a certificate to prove something which can't be proven by first-person testimony.

And the question of whether the television could have been repaired is irrelevant. You don't need a licence for a set of components that could, hypothetically, possibly with the addition of more components, be assembled into a functioning apparatus; you only need a licence for an aparatus this is actually capable of receiving signals.

To be on the safe side, bring the buggered up telly into court, and offer the prosecution an opportunity to use it to demonstrate that it can, as they claim, receive signals. Hilarity will ensue.

Bray Head · 22-01-2015 1:00am

I have read this thread and am curious as to the following:

Is there any evidence (anecdotal or otherwise) that TV license inspectors ever get warrants to search people's homes?
If so, how do they convince a judge that there is probable cause (apologies if this is not legally the correct term) to enter someone's home?
And finally, what happens if they cannot be sure of the name of the person on the premises?

The current regime seems to rest on the prevailing ignorance about the fact that there is no legal obligation to provide either your name or access to your house to any inspector who calls.

Legal brains feel free to set me right on this btw.

wobzilla1 · 22-01-2015 1:18am

I have been summoned to appear in court in February over not having a tv licence.

I bought my current tv broken (Not even turning on) and removed the tuner/decoder before repairing it. It was never a functioning tv while in my house.

When I start getting the reminders and warnings in my door, I emailed an post telling them that my tv could not receive a signal as the tuner had been removed. I proposed them to send an inspector to view the tv. I was simply asked for the make and model of the tv and told it was a tv. It was obvious at this point that the person I was dealing with was incompetent in dealing with my issue and I did not reply anymore.

I have taken the tv apart and taken photos of the inside including the mainboard where the tuner had been removed. I have also obtained the original mainboard schematics that show where the tuner should be.

I intend to bring these and print-outs of the email conversation with me on the day.

The summons says I am being charged under section 142 and 148 of the broadcasting act 2009. The definition of a tv set in 140 is

“ 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;

There is no mention of repairibilty in there.

What do you reckon my chances are on the day?

They also used an incorrect name on the summons

Sergio · 22-01-2015 7:31pm

Got another letter in the door the other day from the tv license office. Again it was to the occupier of my premises as they do not have my name. The letter stated that an inspector visited the premises recently but didnt speak with anybody but he/she did observe evidence of a TV at the premises on the day. They then said further action will be taken unless a TV licence is purchased immediately. Do they need my name in order for a summons to be issued to the address?

Icepick · 22-01-2015 9:04pm

anewme wrote: »

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.

wrong

anewme · 24-01-2015 9:59am

Icepick wrote: »

wrong

Sorry but it is not wrong.

They have to call to the premises and speak to someone. They cannot just issue s summons to the occupier.

Why do you think they need TV Licence inspectors.

Chancer3001 · 24-01-2015 11:42am

Icepick wrote: »

wrong

Care to elaborate??

Johnboy1951 · 24-01-2015 12:45pm

wobzilla1 wrote: »

I have been summoned to appear in court in February over not having a tv licence.

I bought my current tv broken (Not even turning on) and removed the tuner/decoder before repairing it. It was never a functioning tv while in my house.

When I start getting the reminders and warnings in my door, I emailed an post telling them that my tv could not receive a signal as the tuner had been removed. I proposed them to send an inspector to view the tv. I was simply asked for the make and model of the tv and told it was a tv. It was obvious at this point that the person I was dealing with was incompetent in dealing with my issue and I did not reply anymore.

I have taken the tv apart and taken photos of the inside including the mainboard where the tuner had been removed. I have also obtained the original mainboard schematics that show where the tuner should be.

I intend to bring these and print-outs of the email conversation with me on the day.

The summons says I am being charged under section 142 and 148 of the broadcasting act 2009. The definition of a tv set in 140 is

There is no mention of repairibilty in there.

What do you reckon my chances are on the day?

They also used an incorrect name on the summons

Essentially what you have is a monitor ..... and in your position I would emphasise this, as monitors are not subject to a TV licence.
Of course if you have another means of receiving the broadcast signals then you do need a licence as a receiver in conjunction with a monitor is subject to licence.

anewme · 24-01-2015 1:01pm

Chancer3001 wrote: »

Care to elaborate??

Read above.

The summons indicates that the inspector calls to whatever address at whatever date and found x person with a tv (or apparatus) and no licence.

They have to call to an address and speak to someone. Otherwise the summons would not stand up. You cant go around sending summons where no offence is committed. That's the whole idea of the inspector. He is there to inspect the licence.

That's the law.

slimjimmc · 24-01-2015 3:05pm

anewme wrote: »

Read above.

The summons indicates that the inspector calls to whatever address at whatever date and found x person with a tv (or apparatus) and no licence.

They have to call to an address and speak to someone. Otherwise the summons would not stand up. You cant go around sending summons where no offence is committed. That's the whole idea of the inspector. He is there to inspect the licence.

That's the law.

What about the situation whereby the inspector knows that a Mr. X lives at that premises but cannot conduct an inspection (no answer at the door, can't see in, whatever).
The inspector then sends a statutory declaration to M. X requiring him to declare whether or not he has a TV and a licence. Mr. X fails to declare which is an offence and carries a similar penalty to having an un-licenced TV. Can't the inspector have Mr. X summonsed for failing to declare even though he has never spoken to the man?

Chancer3001 · 24-01-2015 3:16pm

How does the inspector know who lives there?

Losty Dublin · 24-01-2015 7:05pm

Chancer3001 wrote: »

How does the inspector know who lives there?

Electoral register? Phone book listing? Previously named at the address as having held a TV licence or having had correspondence with the TV licence folk? I am only throwing out possible ideas here so feel free to say why they aren't relevant.

Wobzilla wrote:

I have been summoned to appear in court in February over not having a tv licence.

I bought my current tv broken (Not even turning on) and removed the tuner/decoder before repairing it. It was never a functioning tv while in my house.

When I start getting the reminders and warnings in my door, I emailed an post telling them that my tv could not receive a signal as the tuner had been removed. I proposed them to send an inspector to view the tv. I was simply asked for the make and model of the tv and told it was a tv. It was obvious at this point that the person I was dealing with was incompetent in dealing with my issue and I did not reply anymore.

What the court will want to know is if you had a TV or not (You did, even if it was broken.) and if you have or had a licence for it (You didn't.). If you are willing to appear in court and claim to a judge that it never was or is a television set as per law then you will need to do your legwork ahead of the day; it isn't as simple as walking in and telling the judge that you are right and that you encountered "incompetent" staff and decided to ignore them. Some decent legal and technical advice ahead of the hearing is advised if you go the court route.

Chancer3001 · 24-01-2015 7:23pm

They can't check the electoral register afaik. That would only work for numbered town houses anyways, not villages .

Phone book, doesn't five specific enough addresses. Just the town land?

If you previously signed up and paid, then yes, you are screwed.

Icepick · 26-01-2015 5:29pm

anewme wrote: »

Sorry but it is not wrong.

They have to call to the premises and speak to someone. They cannot just issue s summons to the occupier.

Why do you think they need TV Licence inspectors.

that someone confirming that they have a tv and no licence.

is just nonsense

If the inspector believes you have a TV, you could be summoned. He can say he saw it from outside in your living room for example.

Chancer3001 · 27-01-2015 8:16pm

But how does he get your name ice pick???

Grolschevik · 27-01-2015 8:18pm

Chancer3001 wrote: »

But how does he get your name ice pick???

An Post collect it. They know where you live.

Grolschevik · 27-01-2015 8:19pm

Chancer3001 wrote: »

But how does he get your name ice pick???

An Post collect it. They know where you live.

Chancer3001 · 27-01-2015 8:19pm

The postman does.

Not the tv inspector.

shruikan2553 · 27-01-2015 8:26pm

Grolschevik wrote: »

An Post collect it. They know where you live.

People are always saying this but as far as I know they arent allowed to just go through the post and get your name. They are both a part of An Post but they are different departments. The postman has no idea how your savings are doing.

Grolschevik · 27-01-2015 8:33pm

Probably right. Sure I was just being facetious given the repeated "but how do they KNOW!!!"

Chancer3001 · 27-01-2015 11:12pm

Grolschevik wrote: »

Probably right. Sure I was just being facetious given the repeated "but how do they KNOW!!!"

They don't know. That's why it's so easy to dodge paying it.

Unless you give your name you're fine

slimjimmc · 28-01-2015 12:58am

Chancer3001 wrote: »

But how does he get your name ice pick???

Page 2 of the explanatory memorandum for the Broadcasting (Television Licence Fees Recovery) Bill 2012 should give some insight to their sources (which apparently does include the electoral register).

The maintenance of an up-to-date accurate database of licensable premises is crucial to enable efficient targeting of evaders. An Post have a national television licence database into which are fed household and occupier details, checked against the electoral register as it is issued.

Lists of persons entitled to have their television licence fees paid under the Department of Social and Family Affairs free licence scheme, and terminations of free licence entitlement, are provided to An Post on a monthly basis. Local authority planning permission numbers and housing completions, augmented by inspectors’ reports are used to identify new houses.

Prior to 2009, notifications from television dealers were also used for identifying licensable properties. Television dealers were required by law to notify An Post of each transaction for the sale or rental of a television and to provide full details of the purchaser or renter. However, enforcement of this process was discontinued because An Post considered that the data being provided was unreliable or unusable.

Chancer3001 · 28-01-2015 9:15am

IF that were true,

1, they wouldn't keep sending warning letters to "the occupier" , they'd just send it to your name

And

2,it would only work in housing estates with numbered houses. Would hardly work in a village. Everyone who's listed as Ardfert for example. How would they know who owns which house in the village? They wouldn't.

Peregrinus · 28-01-2015 9:20am

Chancer3001 wrote: »

IF that were true,

1, they wouldn't keep sending warning letters to "the occupier" , they'd just send it to your name

And

2,it would only work in housing estates with numbered houses. Would hardly work in a village. Everyone who's listed as Ardfert for example. How would they know who owns which house in the village? They wouldn't.

They certainly would. They're the post office, remember; they deliver the post. They know who lives where, or can easily find out.

It's not a state secret, people. This is Ireland. It's easy to find out who lives in a particular house, if you want to. At the point where they need to find the name of the occupier of a particular house, they'll find it without too much difficulty.

I've done this myself, for the purpose of serving legal proceedings. I just went into the post office and asked. If I had got no joy there, I would have gone to the guards' barracks. Failing that, a local pub. But in fact I've never had to go further than the guards' barracks; they always know, and they can usually tell me when you're most likely to be around to accept service of proceedings. ("He does go down to the mammy in Nenagh most weekends, but if you call on a Monday evening . . .") Piece of cake!

Pawwed Rig · 28-01-2015 9:27am

slimjimmc wrote: »

What about the situation whereby the inspector knows that a Mr. X lives at that premises but cannot conduct an inspection (no answer at the door, can't see in, whatever).
The inspector then sends a statutory declaration to M. X requiring him to declare whether or not he has a TV and a licence. Mr. X fails to declare which is an offence and carries a similar penalty to having an un-licenced TV. Can't the inspector have Mr. X summonsed for failing to declare even though he has never spoken to the man?

I recently got a letter, again addressed to 'The Occupier' threatening a search warrant. Slight escalation after 3 years :pac:

TV Licence {MEGAMERGE}

Comments