• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

TV Licensing: The Stated Facts, In Black-And-White

It is my understanding that the tv license is tied to the address, not to whom ever is in the house. It follows from this that the legal house holder is liable, not a visitor. As long as you can prove it isn't your residence you should have no problem.

Rather like the road tax on a car is tied to the car, not whom ever is driving it.
 
Swifty said:
So if you buy a second hand telly off a friend, the licencing lot wouldn't be aware you even had a set then?

.. I remember years ago someone telling me that if you cut the wall plug off your TV set with scissors and they later got into your home, you could legally not get done because clearly it couldn't even be plugged in .. I've no idea if that was true or not or still is.
Click to expand...
That's right, or when you buy a new TV or freeview box, you give the name, postcode and address of someone you know who has a TV licence (and pay cash ) or someone who doesn't if you don't like them !
 
Last edited:
INT21 said:
It is my understanding that the tv license is tied to the address, not to whom ever is in the house. It follows from this that the legal house holder is liable, not a visitor. As long as you can prove it isn't your residence you should have no problem.

Rather like the road tax on a car is tied to the car, not whom ever is driving it.
Click to expand...
Escargot has some shocking news for you then because you would be wrong apparently. As far as I can tell, it's a legal extortion racket.
 
Last edited:
Or Escargot is ?

Mine is now free, so it's moot anyway.
 
It seems a bit of a grey area; the license is 'per household' but I think the TV Licensing people would speak to anyone who was at the property.

I agree it is completely stupid to prosecute someone who is 'just visiting'; I know there's that "ignorance of the law is no defence" thing but surely there's also an expectation of what a "reasonable person should be expected to know" (is that what they refer to as "the man on the Clapham omnibus"?) In other words; if you're at somebody else's house you would "reasonably assume" that they have a license if they have a telly; in the same way that you would "reasonably assume" that any kids in the house are theirs, and as you are just a lay-person and not a professional you shouldn't be expected to know any more than that.

Surely? Hopefully? :)

Anyway from what I understand (not that I've ever been in the situation) one doesn't have to speak to the TV licensing people or let them in; they don't have any special powers that give them the right to enter your house. I think a lot of people are unaware of that, and probably feel intimidated etc. :gent:


When we bought a telly recently (from a physical shop, not online) we didn't have to give our address; I didn't really think about it at the time but years ago when we last bought one we did. (Mind you they could probably just get our address cos we paid it by card; wonder if it would have been different had we paid in cash :D )
 
Swifty said:
.. I remember years ago someone telling me that if you cut the wall plug off your TV set with scissors and they later got into your home, you could legally not get done because clearly it couldn't even be plugged in .. I've no idea if that was true or not or still is.
Click to expand...

If you smash the screen in with a brick they can't do you.
 
Swifty said:
So if you buy a second hand telly off a friend, the licencing lot wouldn't be aware you even had a set then?

.. I remember years ago someone telling me that if you cut the wall plug off your TV set with scissors and they later got into your home, you could legally not get done because clearly it couldn't even be plugged in .. I've no idea if that was true or not or still is.
Click to expand...

If you buy a TV from a shop or dealer, even second-hand shop, they're supposed to inform the licensing authorities. A friend you bought a telly off isn't obliged though.

As for the cut-off cable, that wouldn't work because the offender is whoever is watching the TV. They'll try to get you to admit watching it or they'll see it playing while you're at the front door, when you've opened it to them.

A friend of mine was done that way last year! He heard the knock and answered the door, and the TV licence lot were there. They saw the TV and had him bang to rights.
To avoid prosecution he paid from that month's licence onwards. He is disabled so they probably gave him a bit of grace.
 
Schrodinger's Zebra said:
Anyway from what I understand (not that I've ever been in the situation) one doesn't have to speak to the TV licensing people or let them in; they don't have any special powers that give them the right to enter your house. I think a lot of people are unaware of that, and probably feel intimidated etc
Click to expand...

Yup, they blag it. As I've mentioned, they can look into the house and see the TV playing where they know there is no licence. The offence is to watch the TV without one so whoever's opened the door gets it.

This isn't something I've made up; I worked at the Magistrates' Courts where TV licence prosecutions are held and saw how it worked.
 
escargot said:
As for the cut-off cable, that wouldn't work because the offender is whoever is watching the TV.
Click to expand...

But surely if you've physically cut the plug off that provides all electricity to your set at the wall socket, you can't even switch it on .. that was the cable I meant .. a plug is no longer attached to it ..
 
Swifty said:
But surely if you've physically cut the plug off that provides all electricity to your set at the wall socket, you can't even switch it on .. that was the cable I meant .. a plug is no longer attached to it ..
Click to expand...
It has to be 'capable of receiving a TV broadcast'. Friends of mine found they never watched TV, so they ripped out the little silver receiver box from the telly and just used it for watching videotapes instead. They were able to show this and prove it to the TV licensing authorities and didn't have to pay the fee. Dunno if they could do that now.
 
'capable of receiving a TV broadcast' ... that's the zinger they use isn't it .. (back to the drawing board)
 
Swifty said:
'capable of receiving a TV broadcast' ... that's the zinger they use isn't it .. (back to the drawing board)
Click to expand...

How about if you don't have a rooftop aerial and only use a portable one? Which can be hidden away in a cupboard?

"Look here, kind TV licencing Sir, I don't have an aerial so my television is not capable of receiving a broadcast. Then you enter my home and try to say otherwise. That's just not cricket."
"Oh, I am sorry to have troubled you my dear Householder. I shall see myself out."
"Alright. Have a good day won't you." :hoff:
 
There are several salient points here.

1. The offence is watching TV without a licence. So watching TV in someone else's house where there's no licence is an offence. It's then up to the accused to argue about it in court.

2. The licence applies to the household so everyone in it is covered by the licence if there is one.
If there isn't and the TV Licence Enquiry Officers roll up, they'll already know. All they need to do is get someone to admit they're watching TV and obtain their details.

3. The TV Licence Enquiry Officers just need to get a name and address to complete their task. If the person they're talking to is a visitor or babysitter and they give their details then that's where the summons will go.

So if you're in someone else's gaff with the TV on, don't answer the door to ANYONE, whether the householder is there or not.
 
"Record 3.5million Brits cancel BBC’s licence fee in favour of streaming sites Netflix and Amazon Prime

Updated: 20 Dec 2017

Almost 3.5million Brits have cancelled their TV licence fee in the last four years — a rate of almost one million a year.

Many are snubbing the BBC in favour of streaming sites such as Netflix, statistics reveal.

Figures obtained under Freedom of Information rules show 788,605 people cancelled in 2017. In the preceding years it was 817,509, 875,169, and 945,751."

https://www.thesun.co.uk/tvandshowbiz/5167904/licence-fee-amazon-prime-netflix-bbc/

maximus otter
 
I would be happy to pay a small annual licence - say 50GBP - for a slimmed down BBC - back to two channels plus radio 1 to 4 and World Service. I don't want to pay for a service that seems to be trying to emulate Sky when I already pay Sky for that.
 
CarlosTheDJ said:
I don't mind paying a licence fee - have you seen the crap they run on the commercial channels?
Click to expand...

Well yes. Because that's what I watch (and pay for) for 90% of the time. In common with much of the rest of the country. Sky has 12.5 million customers - multiply that by 4 (2.4 children etc) for actual consumers. Netflix has about the same. I actually watch more BBC than most people I know, and some no longer watch live TV at all.

Like it or not the days of the BBC in its current form are numbered. I think i make a reasonable suggestion. It ought to be able to produce two channels of quality television - that is, not Eastenders or suchlike dope for morons which can be perfectly well left to the commercial channels - from a drastically reduced licence fee. As well as the World service and the main radio stations.

Agreed there is a lot of crap, but there is good stuff on the commercial channels as well, you just need to be a discriminating consumer. But I certainly don't want to lose programmes like 'Only Connect' ,or TMS that would be unlikely to be made commercially. hence i don't want to see the licence fee abolished, just reduced to a level everyone can afford.
 
I'm still not buying this 'choice' argument.

The TV Licence gives you the right to watch or record live TV, and consume anything on the iPlayer.

So if you''re happy watching every other catch-up service and nothing live you don't need a licence. There is a choice.

Having said that, most people are either not sure what the options are, or they find it too much hassle to 'opt out' (and prove it), or they think they might want to use one of those services at some point so they might as well pay it 'just in case'.

I'm in total agreement that the system should be simplified, but I really find adverts painfully annoying. For that reason I pretty much only watch BBC/iPlayer, Netflix, Prime and Youtube.

Never used Sky or Virgin, I assume those have adverts? Even though you've paid a hefty subscription fee?


Handy licence fee info here https://www.moneysavingexpert.com/utilities/tv-licence/
 
CarlosTheDJ said:
...The TV Licence gives you the right to watch or record live TV, and consume anything on the iPlayer.

So if you''re happy watching every other catch-up service and nothing live you don't need a licence. There is a choice...
Click to expand...

Yup. Internetville ties itself in knots over this - but it's really kind of simple. It's like the offside law, but for sofas.
 
INT21 said:
It is my understanding that the tv license is tied to the address, not to whom ever is in the house. It follows from this that the legal house holder is liable, not a visitor. As long as you can prove it isn't your residence you should have no problem.

Rather like the road tax on a car is tied to the car, not whom ever is driving it.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I'm pretty sure it's an offence to drive an untaxed car on the public highway, though, whether or not you are the registered owner of it. It's the driver's responsibility to check beforehand, isn't it?
 
Krepostnoi said:
Hmm, I'm pretty sure it's an offence to drive an untaxed car on the public highway, though, whether or not you are the registered owner of it. It's the driver's responsibility to check beforehand, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Yep. You can check here.

lf you’re stopped by an increasingly rare Traffic bobby, you’ll carry the can.

lf you’re caught on ANPR the registered keeper will get an automatic letter and option to pay a fixed penalty (fine). Unless he dobs you in...

maximus otter
 
INT21 said:
It is my understanding that the tv license is tied to the address, not to whom ever is in the house. It follows from this that the legal house holder is liable, not a visitor. As long as you can prove it isn't your residence you should have no problem.

Rather like the road tax on a car is tied to the car, not whom ever is driving it.
Click to expand...

Nope, it's not like road tax. As I've mentioned the offence is watching TV without a licence, not letting the licence lapse or forgetting to buy one. A visitor is liable if they are the one caught watching the unlicensed TV. I've personally seen prosecutions for this.
 
For the record, because this seems to confuse a lot of people, and has a whiff of UL about it:

These days, it's about usage - not hardware. You do not need a licence simply because you possess a TV. This may not always have been the case, but that particular qualification is now clearly absent from the regulations section of both the TV Licensing website and the relevant GOV/UK page.

Anyone still in any doubt about the supposedly necessary connection between a TV licence and a physical television set could refer to the following answer to a FAQ on the TV Licensing website - in reference to whether an individual needs a licence for a TV when it is used solely for gaming or playing DVDs:

No. You don’t need a TV Licence if you only use your TV for gaming or DVDs…
Click to expand...

Source.

The phrase TV Licence has become something of a misnomer - TV Usage Licence might be more accurate.
 
Cochise said:
I would be happy to pay a small annual licence - say 50GBP - for a slimmed down BBC - back to two channels plus radio 1 to 4 and World Service. I don't want to pay for a service that seems to be trying to emulate Sky when I already pay Sky for that.
Click to expand...

Now that's quite a good idea, I would go along with that as an alternative to scrapping it altogether (or at least making non-payment of a licence no longer an offence).

I still wouldn't be watching the BBC but at least it wouldn't be quite so painful on the bank balance.
 
In the US the cable companies just don't provide the service if you don't pay the fees. They stopped most broadcast services long ago. But there are multiple ways to wire cable to get service without paying, all of them illegal and ACTIVELY illegal since you have to go mess with wiring to do it. Broadcast services are not the big stations these days, if you get any broadcast at all.

But yeah cable bundles... are stupid. They want you to pay for access to 450 or so channels, most of which you will never watch. It's like Cochise said, they want you to pay for a bunch of stuff you're physically unable to use.
 
tuco said:
That's right, or when you buy a new TV or freeview box, you give the name, postcode and address of someone you know who has a TV licence (and pay cash ) or someone who doesn't if you don't like them !
Click to expand...

The above is no longer the case following a change in the law a few years ago. Vendors no longer have to obtain details of people buying TV receiving apparatus to pass on to Capita. You could always give them false information anyway (and I always did).
 
I was under the impression that it is not an offence to buy/own a tv. You could have a thousand of them in your house if you wished. It's the watching of it without a licence. And again, as far as I'm aware, the tv licensing bods cannot enter your home and if they go and fetch the police, they too cannot enter as no crime has been committed (as long as they can't prove you have been watching it). So keep your curtains shut and you'll be fine. (I stand to be corrected however as I've always had a licence).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top