TV Licensing

How would you expect them to know how many individual residences there are at your address? It could have been split into flats for all they know, which may all potentially require a seperate TV Licence.

They've asked the question, and presumably you've enlightened them accordingly. Was it that difficult?

Thanks for all the help everyone.



So if say I was watching BBC News online via the bbc.co.uk/news website then would that mean I'd require a licence but if say I watched BBC iPlayer then I wouldn't require a licence.



I thought there was something like that, although I think it would be easier to take the laptop as it already has everything I want on it.



That would go back to something I read on here a few months back where all you need to do is unplug the laptop if/when the license enforcers come around and then there would be no argument.



I can imagine quite a few people doing that. The license may not be a lot to pay in the grand scheme of things but if I can avoid having to pay for it then the better.

I am not sure about the legal position, but my understanding of it was as follows:
You do need a license if you have a tv that is capable of receiving off air tv, even if it has no tuner inside it was made to have one so a tuner could be put back in.
also if you have a VCR or DVDR then they have tuners and mean that you can again receive off air transmissions.
On the subject of flats etc, i think that they will just use council tax records or electoral role to find out if a given address is split into one or more flats.
I think the only way to really get around it would be to have a pro built monitor (no tuner ) and a video or DVD player only. you would no doubt get endless letters and visits but they would have to back down if your set up is not capable of receiving transmissions.
I do not know what the law is for computers or laptops though.

With regard to the post made earlier about just turning off the tv when the guy knocks on the door, i think that is the job of detector vans, to get evidence before the guy even knocks at the door.

I would like to add that i do not have any personal experience of this but this has always been my understanding of the law.
It may also be worth adding that i am sure that many have tried to sidestep this and no doubt failed, it is easier just to pay it and be done!

And No i do not work for them and i in fact thoroughly begrudge paying it too, i would like to see the Beeb go pay as you go. I am sure they would close down within one year of that or start producing great stuff like they did in the past. I do not accept that they have any right to force us all to pay even if we do not want the poor service that they now provide!

All the best,

Chris.

Many believe "detector vans" are a carefully cultivated myth, and nothing more than a device to frighten those who don't pay into thinking they better had.

There's a full discussion on the matter at Metropol, TV Forum's sister site.

you CAN watch streaming TV via internet on a PC until a senior court rules otherwise or new legislation is passed by parliament.

a device that receives broadcast TV signals and thus has a 'tuner' as described by current legislation (but is not a TV or video recorder) will require a licence if attached to a monitor (i.e. a PC)

watching a TV programme streamed via the internet is not covered by the BBC TV tax laws.

StuartPlymouth: The PAF database from the post office is used by all government agencies to define what is a single residential address - as referred to in the BBC tax legislation. The PAF data is built from local authority planning data, land registry and electoral role data.

For the BBC tax collectors to write in a way that implies an individual needs a licence rather than a whole residential building is at best misleading, and at worst a deliberate attempt at fraud..

It is very easy to tell what is or is not a separate address - indeed they make adverts telling/scaring people that the BBC Tax database 'knows where you live'.

Yawn - TV Forum in danger of descending into the boredom that DS has become!

I'm maybe a bit out of date but my understanding is that you need a television license if the equipment you own is capable of receiving a television broadcast (digital or analogue). Therefore owning a DVD Player and a Television Set would mean that you have to have a television license regardless of whether it is tuned in, regardless of whether you actually watch any live television. The same can be said for owning a PVR, DVD Recorder or a VCR. The same applies to a computer with a TV Card in it.

You don't need an additional license for extra TVs or receivers within one dwelling (unless there are lockable doors between rooms). You don't need a license for a battery operated set, used by someone from a properly licensed dwelling when they are out and about (this is a pretty old rule dating back to at least the 80s, possibly 70s, created when 'portable' TV sets became avaiable for used in caravans or boats). Unfortunately, this rule dictates that you can't use a battery set and your home set at the same time.

So, when you're at Uni, you cannot use your folks' license (unless you watch a battery set when you know they're out!). You need a license if your laptop has a TV card in it, regardless of whether you're on battery or mains. You need a license if you own a telly, regardless of whether or not you watch anything live.

If you MUST avoid paying the license and you're a DVD or gaming type person - you have to get a monitor without a tv tuner in it - several plasmas and LCDs still are display only, PC monitors often are displays even though some bundle analogue tv tuners in to add to the spec relatively cheaply.

Because when you buy a screen, the retailer is obliged by law to send your details on to the TV Licensing agency, you'll probably still get some hassle from them, but if you can show the display hasn't got a tuner in it and you don't own a VCR or a PC with a TV card in it, then they haven't got a case, so should leave you alone.

Otherwise, pay the £140 (it ain't much) and make the most of the BBC while it still exists!

And to think that it's not that long ago that there was a Radio License too...

One of the better summaries but the old chesnut of "lockable doors" is pure myth.

The distinction where is with regards to tenancy agreements - for a typical student a shared contract would require one licence and separate contracts requiring separate licences; a logical extension otherwise a hall could simply buy one licence to cover hundreds.

Another point; if you had a television that was entirely detuned you would probably be able to satisfy a licencing officer.

So many things wrong with that post I don't know the start. We are talking FACTS here - the only thing that requires a 'yawn' is your tiresome fishwives tales about what is required in law.

- 'Capable of receiving TV programmes has been judged in a court as TUNED IN.
- Ownership of a TV is not an automatic BBC tax liability.
- All your 'locked doors' comments are complete nonsense.

Student halls are a class of commercial property, so each let/sub licence does require a separate BBC TV tax payment

Shared houses only need one licence if the property has a rateable valuation as a single unit (receives one council tax banding and bill)

the key point is TUNED IN and working not ownership of a device. Game away without problems.
Another point about the law: the onus is on them to prove wrongdoing, not you to prove otherwise. So long as your are not watching broadcast TV via a tuner, then all you have to do is tell them once. That discharges your legal duty to them,

BBC Tax enforcers have a) No right of entry b) No right of 'interview' or anything else unless you give it to them. Hell, they cant even come to your door if you add a line telling them you are withdrawing the 'presumed right of access' to your property.

They can only enter your property with a court order, which can only be granted if they have reasonable grounds and evidence of wrongdoing. They would need to show that they think you DO watch TV - A sky subscription, can view you through the window watching TV, read your comments about some minute detail of Look North on TVF.

Not having a licence but owning a TV are NOT reasonable grounds.

The only reason that BBC Tax enforcers get away with making people pay who should not is the fact that to many British people stand on the sidelines repeating total rubbish about the subject.

This is not an anti BBC post, I just get annoyed when people are bullied out of right that parliament has granted. The law is structured the way it is for a reason, the way BBC Tax collectors enforce it is a disgrace.

The 'detector vans' are simply urban legend - the TV Licensing authority uses a database system called LASSY which has records for every address in the UK (I speculate that it may gather information from Royal Mail's databases or the Land Registry) and then queries that against the expiry date of the last TV license registered against that address. It's a very simple system. Letters are sent out first, but if the person cannot prove that they don't own a receiver, or simply doesn't pay up, they can send an enforcement officer around to check things out. They can obtain a court order, but the onus is on them to prove you have a set which is capable of receiving signals.

I don't see why people see the license as a bad deal - £140 per year (works out at just over £10 a month) gives you permission to watch any FTA channel in the UK, some of which are ad-free. It's good deal when you consider that some TV providers (which also require you to take a phone line) charge as much for hundreds of pointless, ad-laden channels with programming about sock hairs on the inside of your left ankle.

Clearly GaryC and I have very different opinions on whether the TV License is a good or a bad thing and clearly he thinks that the way it can be dealt with by the Licensing autohorities is heavy handed at times. From what I've read about the tactics used by TV Licensing, they do sound heavy handed, but these are at the end of the day, stories and the Licensing people have a duty to do whatever they can to ensure the BBC's income is protected.

I personally have never had any problems with them even though I have had some trouble about a properly licensed address where a mix-up over land registration led to a different address appearing on their system. It all got sorted out in the end and I never experienced anything underhand, intimidating or threatening. It took a bit of to-ing and fro-ing yes, but it was never anything like the trouble we had with British Gas !!!

Anyway, I digress...

I may not have had the facts straight (but I said so at the very start of my post). The core of the post was if you own a 'tv set', just get a license. It's a lot easier than the hassle you might get from a License Inspector (who's at the end of the day just doing his job). Is £140 really too much to ask people to pay for the excellent television services we get in this country? It may not be what it was, but go virtually anywhere else in the world and you'd soon see how good British Television (and actually, in more general terms, British Broadcast media) is. Yes, I know the License only funds the BBC, but the BBC being what it is makes the competition good too.

Sorry the facts weren't right GaryC. However, even though you may not consider your post to be Anti-BBC, it's tone (and its use of the phrase 'BBC Tax Collectors') certainly comes across as Anti Television License and actually, anti-me.

deejay: it is not anti you by any means, or anti BBC.

What is important is the the BBC tax collectors (The EU,the world bank , and the courts all view the TV licence as a tax - it is a name of fact) behave in a way the law has dictated.

I wholeheartedly agree that the Licence is the best value you can get when it comes to "paying" for television and radio - but like Gary I believe that the means of collection is underhand, disingenuous and in some cases downright threatening.

I believe that they need to rethink how the collection of the fee is carried out - and they should stop perpetuating myths designed to frighten members of the public in a ludicrous, over-egged "Big Brother"style way.

However I would happily campaign for the retention of the BBC in its current form and the fee.

The two views are not mutually exclusive - and I think perhaps you may be taking the matter personally - which doesn't really help the debate.