Tv Licence Letter.

Atari Jaguar

paleoperson wrote: »

I find it hard to believe you can do that using authorized means.

I find it easy to believe considering RTÉ Player is available worldwide :rolleyes:

Atari Jaguar

mansize wrote: »

Thanks your patronising reply really backed up your argument

There's no argument to be had here the law is the law.

aido79

paleoperson wrote: »

I find it hard to believe you can do that using authorized means.

I find it hard to believe that you need authorisation to watch tv( not just RTE, but any channel) in Ireland.

aido79

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

I find it easy to believe considering RTÉ Player is available worldwide :rolleyes:

Rte player is geoblocked for the most part in Australia so it's very difficult to watch it here. I was talking about watching it live.

GM228

yosser hughes wrote: »

You're interpreting it incorrectly.
An officer of an issuing agent in this particular situation would have to be appointed and it would have to be a Garda in order for a search to be carried out; and if it comes to that; that same Garda would have to have a a certificate stating that he/she has bee appointed by the issuing agent.
Your standard TV licence inspector does not have any power at all to enter your home.Only a garda does for the purposes of a search

That's not interpreted wrong as officer of an issuing agent is defined in the Act.

A TV licence inspector is an "officer of an issuing agent" for the purposes of the act, once they are appointed by An Post to be a licence inspector they are an officer.

Stasi 2.0

A lot of confusion about the law on trespass.

Opening/entering through an unlocked door IS trespassing but this is (generally*) not in itself illegal however for a trespasser not to leave immediately on being told to is. Breaking and entering is of course always illegal unless on its foot of a search warrant or some kind of emergency.

* There are exceptions such as railway lines, around airports, military barracks etc

mansize wrote: »

There's a lengthy discussion on this elsewhere. The Broadcasting Act 2009 states:

"146 (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.

Again a lot of confusion around this one. An "officer of an issuing agent" is empowered to do all these things IF A HOUSEHOLDER LETS THEM but unless it is on foot of a search warrant there is absolutely no obligation on a householder to do so. Nor is a householder obliged to speak with an officer or give their name unless they are accompanied by Gardaí.

Giving them your name (when one isn't obliged to) is generally a particularly bad idea unless one is intent on owning up to having a TV and paying up.

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

And can't you be done for having a satellite dish or Roof aerial because you have the capacity to receive a tv signal?

Nope (although licence inspectors have been known to claim otherwise). They can use the presence of an aerial or dish as evidence in applying to the courts for a search warrant though. Also contrary to the nonsense spouted on the "citizens information" website (and widely regurgitated as gospel across the interweb) a "broken" TV set does not require a licence however an old analogue set does (even if there is no Saorview box with it).

nice_guy80 wrote: »

If you have a tv and just watch DVDs and stuff off the hard drive do you need a licence?

Unfortunately in Ireland one does. However an HDMI/VGA monitor doesn't require a licence provided there is nothing with a tuner (such as a digital/satellite box, VHS/DVD recorder or USB dongle) on the same premises.

ZeroThreat wrote: »

Also cancel your broadband & sell any PC/laptops you have.

The proposed "broadcast charge" is just that -a proposal. Unless and until the legislation has been passed by the Oireachtas and is on the statute books (which wont be happening soon -possibly ever) any discussion regarding this is speculation and therefore irrelevant.

timthumbni wrote: »

Who is joe Duffy? The republics version of Stephen Nolan I assume?

Only worse

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

RTÉ is our national broadcaster whether we like it or not. .

Nope
TG4, TV3, UTV Ireland, Today FM and Newstalk are our national broadcasters. RTE is a national embarrassment.

Oliver Beetroot

OP, do you have a television capable of receiving a television signal?

ToddyDoody

You can pay it in monthly installments of €17 or so. That's what I had to do.

annascott

Write to or phone them to say that you do not have a tv. I did that when I was a student and they did not bother me again. I moved out of the house two years later.

Atari Jaguar

ToddyDoody wrote: »

You can pay it in monthly installments of €17 or so. That's what I had to do.

13.66 but you need a bank account the OP said already he's closed his for under use

KKkitty

Get stamps for the TV licence in your post office. If they see you're making some kind of effort there's not much they can do.

homingbird

Spend the money on a wifi cam for front door so you know whos their & dont have to answer it.

nice_guy80

I have a 32" led tv with no saorview or satellite tuner

Does that count?

Stasi 2.0

Its a TV (not a monitor) as it contains a tuner of some sort (the fact that it may not be Saorview compatible is besides the point) so in Ireland it needs a licence regardless of what its used for.

mansize

nice_guy80 wrote: »

I have a 32" led tv with no saorview or satellite tuner

Does that count?

You need a tv licence

mansize

KKkitty wrote: »

Get stamps for the TV licence in your post office. If they see you're making some kind of effort there's not much they can do.

The judges would look very favourably on this

mansize

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

There's no argument to be had here the law is the law.

You'll find the law on trespass was expanded upon and it proved my point- legally

Oodoov

homingbird wrote: »

Spend the money on a wifi cam for front door so you know whos their & dont have to answer it.

Peep hole is much better and cheaper. 10 euro in any hardware store.

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

A lot of confusion about the law on trespass.

Indeed there is, but your not entirely correct either.

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

Opening/entering through an unlocked door IS trespassing but this is (generally*) not in itself illegal

Yes trespass in itself is not illegal bar railways etc as you said, trespass is a civil issue except where there is an intent to cause harm, damage or fear, to prevent lawful entry of property or when preventing a lawful removal from property - then becomes criminal.

Opening/entering through an unlocked door IS NOT trespassing when there is lawful authority to do so.

It only becomes trespass when there is no lawful authority, invitation or permission from the owner/occupier of the land to do so (or when doing so for recreational purposes - but that part would not apply to a private dwelling).

Once you have lawful authority to do so you are not a trespasser weather or not the owner has given permission, although how the entry is gained could change that. Section 146 (3) of the Broadcasting Act 2009 gives a TV licence inspector the lawful authority required which means they can't legally be a trespasser once they don't use force and it's a reasonable time - what's a reasonable time could be debatable.

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

however for a trespasser not to leave immediately on being told to is.

This you have totally wrong, it is not illegal for a trespasser to refuse once you ask them to do so, it still remains a civil issue and not a criminal issue unless they are forcibly preventing or resisting your lawful attempt to enter your lands or are resisting a lawful attempt to physically remove them.

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

Again a lot of confusion around this one. An "officer of an issuing agent" is empowered to do all these things IF A HOUSEHOLDER LETS THEM but unless it is on foot of a search warrant there is absolutely no obligation on a householder to do so.

A householder does not have to let them, however an inspector can't use force to gain entry so if a householder physically blocks them or locks a door for example they then can't lawfully enter a premises. If an inspector finds an unlocked door they can open it and enter without your permission and they are not a trespasser, an inspector only needs a warrant to use reasonable force to enter. Once no force is required no warrant is required.

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

Nor is a householder obliged to speak with an officer or give their name unless they are accompanied by Gardaí.

If you want to go by the law it's worth pointing out that this is slightly incorrect, nobody is obliged to speak with or give their name to a member of the Gardaí just as much as they arn't obliged to speak to an inspector for matters in relation to the Broadcasting Act.

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

The proposed "broadcast charge" is just that -a proposal. Unless and until the legislation has been passed by the Oireachtas and is on the statute books (which wont be happening soon -possibly ever) any discussion regarding this is speculation and therefore irrelevant.

The required legislation for a broadcasting charge is already passed by the Oirachtas and in place on the statute books, namely the Broadcasting Act 2009. It already allows for devices such as phones, laptops, and even TV over the public internet to be covered under the "TV Licence", the only reason they arn't covered currently is due to ministerial regulation issued under the Act that exempts them, that could easily be revoked or modified without the approval of the Oireachtas, if they wanted to officially rename the licence as "The Broadcasting Charge" or include radio then the Act only requires an amendment.

ScumLord

Oodoov wrote: »

Peep hole is much better and cheaper. 10 euro in any hardware store.

You could go for the 3D option but it's twice the price.

Stasi 2.0

GM228 wrote: »

The required legislation for a broadcasting charge is already passed by the Oirachtas and in place on the statute books, namely the Broadcasting Act 2009. It already allows for devices such as phones, laptops, and even TV over the public internet to be covered under the "TV Licence", the only reason they arn't covered currently is due to ministerial regulation issued under the Act that exempts them, that could easily be revoked or modified without the approval of the Oireachtas, if they wanted to officially rename the licence as "The Broadcasting Charge" or include radio then the Act only requires an amendment.

The reports on proposal are vague and full of contradictions. Some reports suggest it will apply to a list of specified devices (in which case you may possibly be correct) other reports suggest it will apply to every household in the state (which would definitely require new legislation to be enacted by the Oireachtas) Given that its been the stated policy of two (possibly three ?) successive Governments to introduce such a measure but nothing has actually happened it strongly indicates that new legislation is envisaged for whatever they have in mind.

But as no legislation has been published -letalone enacted Its all remains in the realm of speculation.

Stonedpilot

Throw it in the bin, don't answer door to them and I presume no one is stupid enough to answer TV license inspectors questions?!.

If you want to pay it work away.

Digital Solitude

Stonedpilot wrote: »

Throw it in the bin, don't answer door to them and I presume no one is stupid enough to answer TV license inspectors questions?!.

If you want to pay it work away.

I thought I was being clever at the GF's house "jaysus I dunno" to every question in a big culchie accent, apparently I confirmed there was a TV in the resident. Court Order or Court Summons or some ****e was on the next letter so herself ponied up straight away.

He'll get a stone wall when he dawdles up to my house, I live with the meanest hoors

Stonedpilot

Digital Solitude wrote: »

I thought I was being clever at the GF's house "jaysus I dunno" to every question in a big culchie accent, apparently I confirmed there was a TV in the resident. Court Order or Court Summons or some ****e was on the next letter so herself ponied up straight away.

He'll get a stone wall when he dawdles up to my house, I live with the meanest hoors

Did he/she get your name?. Wouldn't even bother opening the door if you have no interest in paying it. No point is there?!. If you do open it by accident. Make a polite statement and close it like so

'Hello Sir I don't wish to engage with you today have a nice day and God bless' Then swiftly close the door.
Keep this in mind.

Fish only get caught because they open their mouths!.

Stasi 2.0

Digital Solitude wrote: »

I thought I was being clever at the GF's house .....so herself ponied up straight away.

How's life in the doghouse ?

Digital Solitude

I'm a fish then, twas my first run in with them and I gave her own name, didn't get my own but I don't think that matters.

Digital Solitude

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

How's life in the doghouse ?

I haven't gone near her housemates since!

In fairness in telling the inspector I hadn't a clue, and I didn't think there was a TV and that none of the residents were home with 4 of them sitting in the front room I don't think I did too bad by them. Better than any of them would have done anyways.

deathtocaptcha

Had a licence inspector around last month. We genuinely don't actually have a TV in the house and he took my word for it (he could see in to the sitting room where we just have a router on a TV stand) and wrote up a little slip of paper confirming the inspection time, date and outcome i.e. 'no set'...

Who actually uses a TV these days anyway? It's all about the screen itself so paying a little extra for an LED screen *without* a TV tuner makes sense if all you do is watch netflix or stream things online..

Stasi 2.0

Digital Solitude wrote: »

In telling the inspector I hadn't a clue, and I didn't think there was a TV and that none of the residents were home with 4 of them sitting in the front room I don't think I did too bad by them. Better than any of them would have done anyways.

Going on this and other stories I've heard they don't seem to make much effort to establish if the person opening the door to them is the actual householder.

Their modus operandi seems to be try and get people to pay up and failing that try and get a name -any name which they can send a summons to and actually establishing facts including whether there is actually a working TV on the premises and if so who is actually responsible for it are all strictly optional

Who actually uses a TV these days anyway?

Lots of people still do. Not everyone is a cool internet kid although it is becoming a trend.

The assumption that everyone who has no licence is an "evader" ****'s me off though. If I don't have a gun/dog/car licence I'm treated as innocent until proven guilty but when it comes to TV its the other way around.

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

Going on this and other stories I've heard they don't seem to make much effort to establish if the person opening the door to them is the actual householder.

They arn't required to establish if anyone is the householder though, any person on the premises is legally required to produce a TV licence if requested to do so by an inspector.

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

Their modus operandi seems to be try and get people to pay up and failing that try and get a name -any name which they can send a summons to and actually establishing facts including whether there is actually a working TV on the premises and if so who is actually responsible for it are all strictly optional.

They are not required to establish if you have a TV or not, just that you have a TV licence or not, the presumption of having a TV until proven otherwise is a matter of law.

Stasi 2.0

GM228 wrote: »

They arn't required to establish if anyone is the householder though, any person on the premises is legally required to produce a TV licence if requested to do so by an inspector..

So the first thing I should tell my visitors/babysitters/plumbers etc when they arrive at the door is where I keep my TV licence lest they accidently open the door to the Telly dude

GM228 wrote: »

They are not required to establish if you have a TV or not, just that you have a TV licence or not, the presumption of having a TV until proven otherwise is a matter of law.

It is an offence to be in possession of an unlicensed television set. Therefore in order to prove such an offence has taken place are they not required to determine.
1) Whether a television set actually exists
2) Who is in possession of it ?

Atari Jaguar

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

Who actually uses a TV these days anyway? It's all about the screen itself so paying a little extra for an LED screen *without* a TV tuner makes sense if all you do is watch netflix or stream things online..

Plenty of people watch Sky and Virgin or freeview options. You can't stream or Netflix everything.

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

So the first thing I should tell my visitors/babysitters/plumbers etc when they arrive at the door is where I keep my TV licence lest they accidently open the door to the Telly dude

You can tell them if you wish, but the law says:-

An officer of an issuing agent may request any person on the premises or at the place where he or she finds a television set or evidence of such to produce the television licence for the time being in force in respect of the premises or specified place for inspection by the officer.

Once they believe they have evidence of such they can request the licence from any person on the premises.

Also if they don't have any evidence of such they can personally hand you a Statutory Declaration in which you must give your name and address within 28 days of being served the notice. It's the only time you are legally required to provide your name to an inspector.

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

It is an offence to be in possession of an unlicensed television set. Therefore in order to prove such an offence has taken place are they not required to determine.
1) Whether a television set actually exists
2) Who is in possession of it ?

No they are not required to prove the offence has taken place, it's what is know as the "reversed burden of proof" or the "evidential burden of proof", the legal doctrine where the accused must prove their innocence as opposed to the prosecution proving their guilt - which is known as the "legal burden of proof".

Stasi 2.0

GM228 wrote: »

An officer of an issuing agent may request any person on the premises or at the place where he or she finds a television set or evidence of such to produce the television licence

And if they DONT find a television set because they havent been allowed in what happens then ?

Where does it say people are required to prove their innocence (not easy to prove a negative)?

Thats kinda unusual (possibly unconstitutional?) in common-law jurisdictions.

deathtocaptcha wrote: »

Had a licence inspector around last month. We genuinely don't actually have a TV in the house and he took my word for it (he could see in to the sitting room where we just have a router on a TV stand) and wrote up a little slip of paper confirming the inspection time, date and outcome i.e. 'no set'.....

What happens next i.e. how long before they are likely to return ?

Confused mum84

If your name was on letter , I'd get it sorted .. If your name wasn't on letter - ignore it .. Inspector may call back soon so don't open door to cold caller., once your face to face you can't ignore & once your in the system, you'll be stuck paying it forever

GrumpyMe

Confused mum84 wrote: »

Inspector may call back soon so don't open door to cold caller., once your face to face you can't ignore

The Inspector is given that name to make it appear that he/she/it is important!
While I agree with the sentiment of not answering to cold callers - if you do have the misfortune to open the door to The Inspector - just close it again without speaking or listening...
He/she/it has no magical powers to compel you to interact. Just close the door and go on about your business.
Simples - tisck!

mansize

Some people (and its usually NOT those most destitute), don't want to pay for ANYTHING it seems to me...

Dr Crayfish

Ok so I'm still a bit unclear on all this. I got a "The Occupier" letter to the house I bought earlier this year. Went in the bin of course, I'd never pay for the likes of Tubber's and Duffy's salaries.
Anyway. I do have a TV which I never watch, as I don't have any piped TV or anything at all.
If I go and put it in the attic and an inspector calls around, am I in the clear? Do they come in and start looking in your rooms? I'm very surprised that's legal, it seems so intrusive. Like would he be looking under your beds etc?

And can you own a phone/laptop without having to pay the licence?

GrumpyMe

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Anyway. I do have a TV which I never watch, as I don't have any piped TV or anything at all.
If I go and put it in the attic and an inspector calls around, am I in the clear?

If it is capable of working then No you are still obliged to have a licence

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Do they come in and start looking in your rooms? I'm very surprised that's legal, it seems so intrusive. Like would he be looking under your beds etc?

I refer the member to my previous answer!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101949294&postcount=189
They are TV licence inspectors not the Gestapo!
They have no powers that your local Eircom phone Watch salesman doesn't have!
They can go to court and ask the court to grant powers but they don't carry spare powers around in their pocket - just in case!

Dr Crayfish

GrumpyMe wrote: »

If it is capable of working then No you are still obliged to have a licence


I refer the member to my previous answer!
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=101949294&postcount=189
They are TV licence inspectors not the Gestapo!
They have no powers that your local Eircom phone Watch salesman doesn't have!
They can go to court and ask the court to grant powers but they don't carry spare powers around in their pocket - just in case!

Thanks. No I know I need a licence anyway. And if he visits once and sees there's no TV how often will the f*ckers want to check?

Stasi 2.0

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

If I go and put it in the attic and an inspector calls around, am I in the clear?

*Technically* No however I doubt they'd even think of looking up there. Bury it under a pile of other crap if you want to be sure.

ADDS: Assuming the set doesn't have a detachable mains cable you could also consider cutting the plug off in order to render it incapable of receiving broadcasts (and therefore perfectly legal) replacing it with a new plug if you later change your mind is a fairly simple/cheap DIY project.

GrumpyMe

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Thanks. No I know I need a licence anyway. And if he visits once and sees there's no TV how often will the f*ckers want to check?

FFS - He has no power to visit!
If he calls to your door tell him that you wish to withdraw any implied right he thinks he has to come onto your property - tell him to leave or you will use reasonable force to remove him! He is not a "f*ckers" - he is a joe soap just like any other caller to your door. They call to any door that they don't have a record of as being in possession of a current valid TV licence. It is not rocket science!He has no right to "see that there is no TV". He can go to court and get a warrant but that will only happen after some prolonged carry on!

Dr Crayfish

GrumpyMe wrote: »

He can go to court and get a warrant but that will only happen after some prolonged carry on!

Right, and then I'll have to pay it! What I'm asking is - if I let him in, and he can't find a TV, am I in the clear forever?

mansize

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Right, and then I'll have to pay it! What I'm asking is - if I let him in, and he can't find a TV, am I in the clear forever?

No. you would have to declare each time he visits! Its not as if its difficult to acquire a tv

GrumpyMe

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Right, and then I'll have to pay it! What I'm asking is - if I let him in, and he can't find a TV, am I in the clear forever?

He has the same powers before during and after you let him in or when you don't let him in or if he never calls!
If you are concerned that he might use his powers to find that you should have but don't have a licence then get a licence.
It seems stupid to me to keep a TV in the attic and have no licence when you are obliged to have one.
Why not just get rid of the TV - then the f*ckers can do their worst but can do nothing to you!

Dr Crayfish

mansize wrote: »

No. you would have to declare each time he visits! Its not as if its difficult to acquire a tv

I wont be opening the door for the rest of my life so

And can we confirm that as long as they don't get my name they can't get a warrant etc to enter the premises with Gardai or whatever?

mansize

GrumpyMe wrote: »

FFS - He has no power to visit!
If he calls to your door tell him that you wish to withdraw any implied right he thinks he has to come onto your property - tell him to leave or you will use reasonable force to remove him! He is not a "f*ckers" - he is a joe soap just like any other caller to your door. They call to any door that they don't have a record of as being in possession of a current valid TV licence. It is not rocket science!He has no right to "see that there is no TV". He can go to court and get a warrant but that will only happen after some prolonged carry on!

And you will bare these costs if convicted

Stasi 2.0

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

am I in the clear forever?

Doubt that. People do change address and former non-TV owners sometimes buy TV's (and "forget" to licence them). Presumably there wouldn't come back every week but have some kind of embargo period ?

And can we confirm that as long as they don't get my name they can't get a warrant etc to enter the premises

I seriously doubt that.

They need a name to issue a summons but if they needed if for a warrant one could be doing all sorts in their house provided they told everyone they were Mickey Mouse.

Dr Crayfish

GrumpyMe wrote: »

He has the same powers before during and after you let him in or when you don't let him in or if he never calls!
If you are concerned that he might use his powers to find that you should have but don't have a licence then get a licence.
It seems stupid to me to keep a TV in the attic and have no licence when you are obliged to have one.
Why not just get rid of the TV - then the f*ckers can do their worst but can do nothing to you!

Well maybe one day I'll want a TV. I live alone at the moment but maybe I'll live with a person who watches TV one day and it seems a waste to throw out a good TV.

Surely they don't start bringing ladders into the gaf to go up into the attic? lol. The whole thing is just hilarious.

For some reason I'm reminded of those English 70s sex comedys about Window Cleaners etc, except it's a TV licence inspector. Ooooh errr maybe we can come to another arrangement Mrs Patterson...

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

And if they DONT find a television set because they havent been allowed in what happens then ?

Then they can issue a statutory declaration which must be filled in or they can simply be satisfied that you don't have a TV and take no further action - their choice, or get a warrant if entry is refused.

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

Where does it say people are required to prove their innocence (not easy to prove a negative)?

They presumption stems from Sectiom 147 of the Broadcasting Act.

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

Thats kinda unusual (possibly unconstitutional?) in common-law jurisdictions.

It's far from unusual and applies to many offences, the reversed burden of proof is in fact a legal principle which operates  in probably every common law and civil law jurisdiction around the world and is well settled in Irish law in terms of constitutional compatability by our judicial system.