Tv Licence Letter.

GM228

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

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?

A name is not required for the warrant (and the owner is also not required to be present to execute the warrant) as it is in relation to a place as opposed to a person.

GM228

GrumpyMe wrote: »

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!

You can't remove an implied right because it dosn't apply, the inspector has a lawful right and you can't use "reasonal force" to remove a trespasser either unless criminal trespass applies and you are doing so to protect yourself or your property.

Read the Broadcasting Act and you will see the inspector has got the right to check for a TV, and by the way the issuing of the warrant if required is actually a simple quick process.

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

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.

Do you really think that would work and satisfy an inspector/court?

The capability of the TV working can be dependent on the use of something else in conjunction wth it, namely the plug - something which is already covered in the Act.

Stasi 2.0

The legal definition is

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;

If the cable is cut and no bare wires exposed the apparatus is not capable of anything.

GM228 wrote: »

Read the Broadcasting Act and you will see the inspector has got the right to check for a TV, and by the way the issuing of the warrant if required is actually a simple quick process.

Nevertheless without a warrant one is not obliged to speak to them, answer any questions, open the door to them or keep it open.

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

The legal definition is

If the cable is cut and no bare wires exposed the apparatus is not capable of anything.

"whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it", the capability of the TV is dependent on the use of a plug (and electricity), the fact that a plug is actually fitted or not is irrelevant, next you will say it's perfectly legal to have an unlicenced TV in a house with no electricity.

I was at a sitting of the District Court several years ago where some smart arse used that very excuse and provided photos to prove it, they left the court with a €300 fine!

It's amazing what lenghts people will go to to try and circumvent the law, and even more amazing the amount of people who are convinced they are correct and can beat the system.

Dr Crayfish

Seriously no one has a clue what they can and can't do according to this thread. Conflicting reports everywhere.

Stasi 2.0

Even with a dozen plugs a TV in the state I've described is incapable of anything

Dr Crayfish wrote: »

Seriously no one has a clue what they can and can't do according to this thread. Conflicting reports everywhere.

That's why one shouldn't take legal advice given for free by strangers on the internet.

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

Even with a dozen plugs a TV in the state I've described is incapable of anything

The legislation and the courts would disagree with you.

Sillybillyx

Tv licence resistance Ireland, it's a Facebook group join it and will assure you you will never pay a TVs licence again, I stopped paying it years ago go have a read there you'll understand it better, even had a court appearance and won

Digital Solitude

GM228 wrote: »

The legislation and the courts would disagree with you.

What if I put my foot through it? Right there and then, infront of the inspector

Sillybillyx

Micky8728 wrote: »

Hi. Received a letter this morning in post from Tv Licence crowd. Pretty much saying an inspector visted recently and we werent there. Then says "further action will be taken unless a Licence is purchased immediately".Should I be worried? Really cant afford it atm. And dont have abank account to do it by direct debit.

Tv licence resistance Ireland, it's a Facebook group join it and will assure you you will never pay a TVs licence again, I stopped paying it years ago go have a read there you'll understand it better, even had a court appearance and won

Atari Jaguar

Digital Solitude wrote: »

What if I put my foot through it? Right there and then, infront of the inspector

You still didn't have a licence up to that moment which you're liable for

hot buttered scones

Only looked into this thread to see if someone would post this:

https://youtu.be/k5CeDPnM00Y?t=21s

GrumpyMe

GM228 wrote: »

You can't remove an implied right because it dosn't apply, the inspector has a lawful right and you can't use "reasonal force" to remove a trespasser either unless criminal trespass applies and you are doing so to protect yourself or your property.

Read the Broadcasting Act and you will see the inspector has got the right to check for a TV, and by the way the issuing of the warrant if required is actually a simple quick process.

It would appear then that you are powerless in the face of the powers of the "officers of the issuing agent"...

GM228 wrote: »

or get a warrant if entry is refused.

and then it would appear that the "officers of the issuing agent" can be refused entry.

Stasi 2.0

GM228 wrote: »

the courts would disagree with you.

District court judgments don't establish precedent in Irish law

Tv licence resistance Ireland, it's a Facebook group

Much as there is a gap in the Irish market for such a thing I find it hard to take seriously any outfit which sets up a facebook page in lieu of a proper website.

GM228

Sillybillyx wrote: »

Tv licence resistance Ireland, it's a Facebook group join it and will assure you you will never pay a TVs licence again, I stopped paying it years ago go have a read there you'll understand it better, even had a court appearance and won

What a load of rubbish, a group who incorrectly reference Gary Doyle Orders and breaches of Data Protection laws is best suited to be discussed on this thread.

GM228

GrumpyMe wrote: »

It would appear then that you are powerless in the face of the powers of the "officers of the issuing agent"...




and then it would appear that the "officers of the issuing agent" can be refused entry.

You can refuse them entry all you like but they are still legally allowed onto your property, but not using force, so if you are refusing them entry by blocking their way then they need a warrant, otherwise they don't.

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

District court judgments don't establish precedent in Irish law

I never said they did, the DC does not make judgements.

The law is clearly written, such a matter would only need clarification of the High Court (or the Supreme Court after that) when there is a vagueness in the wording or meaning of something, the wording is clear, a DC judge would not need clarification on what "weather or not" means, it's plain english.

And the likelyhood of an ordinary joe taking such to the High Court for clarification is next to nil due to the efforts and costs associated with what is essentially a minor criminal point.

Until such happens a DC judge will continue to read the plain english meaning of the legislation and apply it as such.

GrumpyMe

GM228 wrote: »

You can refuse them entry all you like but they are still legally allowed onto your property, but not using force, so if you are refusing them entry by blocking their way then they need a warrant, otherwise they don't.

So does that mean if you invite/allow them in, they can come in but otherwise they can't, without going through the simple quick process of getting a warrant?

I would think the same applies to most/all callers including the ubiquitous door to door salesman type! :rolleyes:

GM228

GrumpyMe wrote: »

So does that mean if you invite/allow them in, they can come in but otherwise they can't, without going through the simple quick process of getting a warrant?

I would think the same applies to most/all callers including the ubiquitous door to door salesman type! :rolleyes:

They have the lawful right to enter any premises with or without your permission without a warrant, what they don't have is the lawful right to enter any premises using force - that is when they need a warrant.

So for example say your standing in your garden and you refuse them entry they can walk right past you and enter your property (at a reasonable time) once they don't use force - i.e push you or force open a door.

Someone who has a lawful right to be somewhere can not be a trespasser.

Stasi 2.0

So hypothetically TV dude comes in my garden gate ignores my shout to "get off my property" (which he is on BEFORE he approaches front door if there is a garden) opens my front door only to be attacked and severely injured by my (licenced) dog and there is no TV on the premises what happens then.....He was warned !

MadYaker

We have a TV in the front room but the curtains are always closed so you can't see it. I was at home alone one Monday afternoon and I opened the door a few inches when I heard a knock. Hello TV license inspector the guy says and holds up some ID in my face. I said "Oh hello" and gently closed the door again, went out the back door, through the courtyard and on to a different street. Went for a pint came back an hour later and he was gone. Haven't heard from them since. Although we did get a flyer recently saying inspectors will be around again.

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

So hypothetically TV dude comes in my garden gate ignores my shout to "get off my property" (which he is on BEFORE he approaches front door if there is a garden) opens my front door only to be attacked and severely injured by my (licenced) dog and there is no TV on the premises what happens then.....He was warned !

You will be liable as dog attacks on a person and livestock bear the doctrine of strict liability.

Even when there is a trespasser on your property you are still liable - but only in accordance with the rules of law relating to liability for negligence.

GrumpyMe

GM228 wrote: »

They have the lawful right to enter any premises with or without your permission without a warrant, what they don't have is the lawful right to enter any premises using force - that is when they need a warrant.

So for example say your standing in your garden and you refuse them entry they can walk right past you and enter your property (at a reasonable time) once they don't use force - i.e push you or force open a door.

Someone who has a lawful right to be somewhere can not be a trespasser.

"Someone who has a lawful right to be somewhere can not be a trespasser" good to know!

Having a lawful right and the real world are two distinct places.

Mr Inspector can't come in unless you allow/invite him in or he has gone to the trouble of getting a warrant by making a statement on oath that he has good reason to believe that there is an unlicensed television in the premises - which would be hard to do in the OP's situation - TV in the attic.

GM228

GrumpyMe wrote: »

"Someone who has a lawful right to be somewhere can not be a trespasser" good to know!

Having a lawful right and the real world are two distinct places.

Indeed, however if you use force to remove the inspector from your property or call Gardaí telling them that you have a "trespasser" on your property or you try take legal action against them and you will soon see that the law will quickly beat what people believe in the "real world".

GrumpyMe wrote: »

Mr Inspector can't come in unless you allow/invite him in or he has gone to the trouble of getting a warrant by making a statement on oath that he has good reason to believe that there is an unlicensed television in the premises - which would be hard to do in the OP's situation - TV in the attic.

You would be surprised what a judge will sanction, the act of refusing someone access when they have a lawful right to do so could see the judge being happy with the inspectors reasonable suspicion that the owner is hiding something. In reality though warrants are rarely issued for such purposes.

london bus 200

i got a letter looking for a tv licence the last day, ****ing crazy as i haven't had elecdtricity in over ten years, the esb wires got knocked in a storm, and have no ****ing tv,

admittedly id sit out in the car to listen to the radio but never rte,

so i have to write a letter back to them now ,

i need a secratray

Discodog

GM228 wrote: »

You will be liable as dog attacks on a person and livestock bear the doctrine of strict liability.

Even when there is a trespasser on your property you are still liable - but only in accordance with the rules of law relating to liability for negligence.

A person is entitled to access to your front door unless you lock the gate. However it's a totally different ball game if they open it. It would be reasonable for a person to defend themselves first if a they found someone in their house.

Are we saying that a TV license inspector has the same rights as a bailiff, in that he can make peaceful entry if a door is unlocked ?

The police in the UK told me to put a padlock on my gate. They said that anyone on the property would be guilty of entering secure premises rather than trespass. Is there such a law here ?

GM228

Discodog wrote: »

It would be reasonable for a person to defend themselves first if a they found someone in their house.

This is where things can get very messy, yes you are correct is is reasonable to defend yourself using reasonable force if you believe that someone has entered your premises for the purposes of commiting an offence even if they havn't actually entered to commit an offence.

In such a case you can use reasonable force and be free from commiting an offence to protect yourself or another person present in your house from injury, assault, detention or death caused by a criminal act, to protect your property or the property of another person from appropriation, destruction or damage caused by a criminal act, or to prevent the commission of a crime or to effect, or assist in effecting, a lawful arrest.

But here's the sting, that dosn't apply when someone is present lawfully performing a function authorised by or under any enactment. In that case even if you believed it to be a genuine case of protecting yourself or your property then you could be guilty of an offence such as assault etc.

Discodog wrote: »

Are we saying that a TV license inspector has the same rights as a bailiff, in that he can make peaceful entry if a door is unlocked ?

A Sheriff as opposed to a Bailiff has the power here and may enter any dwelling using force. There is some doubt as to weather a Bailiff is afforded the same legal protections and rights as a Sheriff, something which the Law Reform Commission reported to the Attorney General years ago.

Discodog wrote: »

The police in the UK told me to put a padlock on my gate. They said that anyone on the property would be guilty of entering secure premises rather than trespass. Is there such a law here ?

Trespass is still trespass either way, in the UK just like here it's a civil issue rather than a criminal offence - although the UK have a criminal offence of aggrevated trespass.

What is intended as a result of the trespass is what is important, for example if someone unlawfully enters a premises with the intention of commiting an arrestable offence then it's an offence of burglary, but not trespass whilst say breaking a lock to enter a premises could be criminal damage.

Stasi 2.0

london bus 200 wrote: »

i haven't had elecdtricity in over ten years, the esb wires got knocked in a storm, and have no ****ing tv,

What ?

Even when there is a trespasser on your property you are still liable - but only in accordance with the rules of law relating to liability for negligence.

Dog behind closed door and TV dude ignored a warning -who is being negligent ?

paleoperson

Why don't they just take it from public funds, forget all this grabass.

Oodoov

paleoperson wrote: »

Why don't they just take it from public funds, forget all this grabass.

It shouldnt be funded by anyone except advertisers or maybe anyone who wants to subscribe to it. Let them stand or fall on their own.

GM228

Stasi 2.0 wrote: »

Dog behind closed door and TV dude ignored a warning -who is being negligent ?

TV inspector isn't a trespasser so it's irrelevant.

Oodoov

GM228 wrote: »

TV inspector isn't a trespasser so it's irrelevant.

They are trespassers if not invited inside the property.

yosser hughes

paleoperson wrote: »

Why don't they just take it from public funds, forget all this grabass.

You want to pay more tax to pay Joe Duffy €400,000 for a phone show? Or talentless Tubridy even more for an outdated glorified advertorial show.
The whole concept of a licence is bizarre in this day and age.
If people want RTE, they can subscribe and pay for it themselves.Forcing people to pay? Nah.

elperello

paleoperson wrote: »

Why don't they just take it from public funds, forget all this grabass.

Probably because they have always done it this way.You'd be surprised how many things like this just carry on for that reason.
In truth the tv licence is an outmoded concept and increasingly becoming unenforceable. It's a bit like the window tax from the 18th century.In years to come people will look back and say how did we allow it to keep going so long past it's time.

Tin Foil Hat

paleoperson wrote: »

Why don't they just take it from public funds, forget all this grabass.

Because then they'd have to justify it every time a budget comes around. And there's no justifying the hundreds of millions spend on the crap RTE produce.

Dr Crayfish

Why do so many people have no problem paying this tax? RTE f*cking advertise. If they were making quality programming and had no adverts, like the BBC with Planet Earth and some of the really quality drama they've had in the last few years - then I might pay it, but at the moment we're just paying a fee, even if we don't watch their channel, to pay ridiculous salaries to talentless clowns.

elperello

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Because then they'd have to justify it every time a budget comes around. And there's no justifying the hundreds of millions spend on the crap RTE produce.

Whatever we may think of RTE public service broadcasting is a vital public good and we need to face up to paying for it but not by an outmoded licencing system.

Tin Foil Hat

elperello wrote: »

Whatever we may think of RTE public service broadcasting is a vital public good and we need to face up to paying for it but not by an outmoded licencing system.

Sorry, no. It isn't. It's a government mouthpiece and a gravy train for those on board.

elperello

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Sorry, no. It isn't. It's a government mouthpiece and a gravy train for those on board.

I'd rather take my chances with with a properly regulated public broadcasting service in preference to relying on Fox or Sky or some such.

LG1234

I got the TV licence letter and I don't have a licence. I'm just about to cancel my tv subscription with Virgin. If I send them proof of that do you think that will get them off my back?

paleoperson

elperello wrote: »

I'd rather take my chances with with a properly regulated public broadcasting service in preference to relying on Fox or Sky or some such.

It's not a very popular opinion in some circles but I tend to agree. Also with the crashing entertainment sector because of piracy, it could be part of a fair and good solution so people can be compensated for their work.

Atari Jaguar

LG1234 wrote: »

I got the TV licence letter and I don't have a licence. I'm just about to cancel my tv subscription with Virgin. If I send them proof of that do you think that will get them off my back?

No. the licence is for owning a television set. Whether you use it or not is irrelevant.

LG1234

Atari Jaguar wrote: »

No. the licence is for owning a television set. Whether you use it or not is irrelevant.

Ye but Ill tell them I got rid of the tv set and the cancelling the tv subscription kind of helps to prove that

Atari Jaguar

LG1234 wrote: »

Ye but Ill tell them I got rid of the tv set and the cancelling the tv subscription kind of helps to prove that

No it doesn't. Cancelling virgin tv doesn't for one second mean you've gotten rid of your television like I cancelled Sky but my TV is still in my sitting room and it's still used...

yosser hughes

elperello wrote: »

Whatever we may think of RTE public service broadcasting is a vital public good and we need to face up to paying for it but not by an outmoded licencing system.

No, it's not any more. People have all the information they need at their fingertips and a state broadcaster is not required to tell them what's good for them.
RTE programming is actually made of of over 40 % repeats.
http://www.independent.ie/entertainment/television/tv-reviews/pat-stacey-rte-is-showing-20-repeats-today-why-are-we-paying-160-a-year-for-this-31428735.html
Is Eastenders and the Champions League public service broadcasting?
Their News programming is heavily editorialised and frequently offer the same voices with very little opposng views.
RTE operates for the benefit of its employees and untill they are forced to actually compete without a licence fee it will be a bloated sub-standard white elephant.
I'd rather pay my licence fee to the BBC which is far from perfect, but it's what I listen to on the radio every morning. I don't go to RTE for news as I can't rely on it to give me a full, balanced picture.
I have long got rid of my television

Bebo stunnah

Just to point out, Sky informs an Post that you've taken out a subscription with them. I had no licence for about 6 months (then again I didn't watch tv), within a week of subscribing to sky I had a letter in the door. I went in to pay for it and found out that your 1st tv licence subscription is only valid until the end of the 11th month. So if you pay for it at the end of a month you're effectively paying a years subscription and only covered for 10 months.

That little factor that they robbed me the first time I paid for one ensured I didn't want to, and subsequenly didnt, pay for it the 2 years after.

I've since moved to the UK and before doing so had read and heard stories about a broadcasting licence being in place over here, something the powers that be are trying to impliment back home, but more extreme. Clearly misinforming a lot of people.

The broadcasting licence in Ireland is effectively charging everyone who owns a mobile device, laptop, pc and tv, irregardless of if you use it to watch tv.

There is a broadcasting licence here (still called a tv licence), but you only have to pay it if you watch or stream live boradcasts on a tv or other devices. You can own a tv and still be exempt so long as you're not watching a live tv broadcast!

lawred2

cursai wrote: »

Is your name on the letter?

In a previous shared gaff I once collected money from everyone and registered the licence online in the name of Hugh Jazz.

There was not another licence bought in that house while we were living there.

But we did leave a nice pile of unopened letters addressed to a Mr Hugh Jazz.

GM228

Oodoov wrote: »

GM228 wrote: »

TV inspector isn't a trespasser so it's irrelevant.

They are trespassers if not invited inside the property.

Eh no they are not unless they force entry.

MadYaker

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

Sorry, no. It isn't. It's a government mouthpiece and a gravy train for those on board.

Ah saying it's a government mouthpeice isn't really true. The prime time program and the likes of Vincent Browne have opened numerous cans of worms for governments over the years.