Got the tv licence squashed

[Star-Child]

The test of people requiring to get a TV License is not if you own a TV , but whether you intend to watch or record content AS IT IS BEING BROADCAST. So if you watch TV on an Iphone at home as it is being broadcast , and you have no TV , you would still need to have a license (from TVL's point of view) because as I said, the test is not what the equipment is but... whether you intend to watch or record content AS IT IS BEING BROADCAST


My stepdaughter has a TV, no aerial connections running to it, but uses it to play the kids DVD etc.. TV license guy has been in and seen this, and this is fine because she is not using the TV device to watch or record content AS IT IS BEING BROADCAST.

She has no idea of freeman stuff, she just genuinely is and has been in that position. So no need to obtain license.


This is from their own website

If you don’t watch or record television programmes as they are being shown on TV, on any device, you don’t need a TV Licence. Here’s how you can let us know.


http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-y ... ded-top12/



Good points though ed on the fact that ;

a) Nobody is legally obligated to answer anyones questions.
b) Nobody need let anyone in without a warrant.


I watch more and more content delayed from online these days. Just an easier way to view stuff that one likes at a time when one likes.

[Ed209]

look guys the point here is it doesn't matter if you have a tv or not the point is they have no right to know as they are a private company, really didn't mean to cause offence, just wanted to share a success story . The worst thing they can do is give you a summons if you admit to having a tv. That summons will turn into a plead guilty by post which will then turn into a small fine (not seen anyone pay more that £200 for fine). Once your fine is paid thats it, there is no criminal record or anything like that which also proves that it is not a crime otherwise you would have a criminal record from it. The only way they can kick your door off is if you ignore the summons, then thats a different crime you have committed...contempt of court or something like that??

anyhow ill leave it there thanks for the input guys and once again thats for the site really helped get things into focus

[Geronimo]

Im a bit curious about you being skeptical. Are you looking for 100% proof of what the OP is contending? Have you a Licence? If so, rather than taking the OP's word for it, you might try out what he did for yourself as an experiment and thus deal with the issue to your own satisfaction, if your that curious of course.

If you havent got a TV, as many on here havent, you can still try it out as the OP seems to have done. Incidentally Does "brave" or "clever" enter into it? If so how and why?

My skepticism is in reference to efficacy the Freeman argument, not that events occurred as the OP described. As for brave, the OP frames his "success" as a small gamble he took as a stepping stone towards taking the same tack with his income/council tax, as though here seems to be the crux! Isn't this just your opinion and if your wrong on this then does the rest support itself? there was some risk in what he was doing, when in fact it was as brave as walking past something in a shop you don't want to buy. As for clever, he frames his "success" as due to him having the insight to write the letter he did, that he outsmarted the license fee collectors by invoking a Freeman argument. Neither applies in this case. How can you be sure of that?

it is simply that religion is accepted by TPTB because it was created by them in order to control the people

Agreed on the point that it's a lie, but religion predates your "TPTB" by a long LONG time!

More sceptical (english/UK) than curious I presume.

True. Curiosity, though, is what brought me here and keeps me here, for now.

i have done this way with 3 other people, all with tvs, sent one letter saying no longer required then next letter you get is a green one and they say they will contact you in 2 years, when they do just tell them nothing has changed. 100% works, i dont think its worth being over nasty to the guys at the door, its only a shitty little job for them the last thing they care about is the ins and outs of the laws.

peace

Here's the problem with this. You accepted no risk - you don't own a TV. I see it as irresponsible to advise people who do own a TV to do the same thing based on your experience. What do you suggest these people do if they want to retain their TV's but not pay a licence and dont want to be penalised for said? Your letter was in good faith, and was taken and accepted by TV Licensing as a notification that you don't own a TV. Your three friend's letters, however, were not in good faith, and were deliberately misleading in that they carried the implication that your friends did not have TVs either. Their green letters were received on that misleading basis alone.

Tell you what, if you *genuinely* believe it was the "no contract" Freeman argument that got TV Licensing off your back, with the next friend you advise, tell them to write "I do own a TV, which I use to watch live television broadcasts" alongside the usual "I believe I do not require your services". I somehow doubt your friend will recieve a green letter, because what you're saying holds no weight at all. Are you aware people have done just that?

Skeptical but Curious

[Freeman Stephen]

An iPod isnt TV receiving equipment as specified in the Communications Act 2003, unless theres some gadget that you can get that has a TV tuner on it such as a DVB stick you could plug into a TV making your PC a device for which you need a licence. In any case, they dont have any right to enter your property to get evidence that your watching TV, and without any evidence, how can they get a warrant to enter your property, unless your signing up for sky and the whole kaboodle. I know its all very well saying that warrants dont lawfully apply to me, but youve still got an armed nutter at your door demanding entry because a judge wrote something down on a bit of a paper. Bit of paper or no bit of paper, that guy is going to get in your door, or your going to die trying to prevent him.

[SbutC]

What do you suggest these people do if they want to retain their TV's but not pay a licence and dont want to be penalised for said?

I don't claim to offer an alternative. I suppose they could join the campaign for a change in the law. I don't agree with this particular law either, but I don't pretend it doesn't exist.

Surely you agree that saying "it worked for me" is misleading when your situation was wholly different to the one you're offering advice on. His friends now stand to receive fines if TVL decide to check up on their claims, whereas the OP doesn't.

Are you aware people have done just that?

I wasn't aware of that. Are you one of these people? I've briefly browsed the most recent 3 pages of this sub-forum and nobody seems to be making that claim. It seems clear to me that such a letter would be unacceptable to the TVL because if it was, telling a visting TVL inspector the same thing would have the same effect. Which it doesn't.

Skeptical but Curious

[ljtherock]

@ SbutC...

Then how would you explain away my experiences, as below;

3 visits over a 12 month period from TVL, on each occassion the TVL agent could see and hear the tv on in the lounge. I answered none of their questions, I only enforced my will upon them once they had advised me of who they were.

On one of the visits the agent, once having told me who he was then went on to state something else but at that point I stopped him and told him with no doubt "not to lie to me." after a few other attempted words from him, I shut the door.
At the point of his leaving he threatened to get a warrant, so i re opened door and called out to him and said "I told you once, do not lie to me." I again shut the door.

On another visit, my wife answered the door and once realising who he was, she told him to go and then shut the door. Again the tv was on throughout.
I asked he who it was (knowingly) and I could see him still standing on the doorstep. At this I went to the door and opened it and told him "You have 2 minutes to remove yourself from the property otherwise I have a right to remove him myself or I may call the police for his trespass."
He replied "I will wait here then." I shut the door and after about 40 seconds he left and went back to his car, made a phone call and drove off.

Why did they not see fit to gain a search warrant or take me to court... especially in reference to on the one visit, the agent called at mine, got absolutely no where and then called at my brothers house just 2 miles away about 10 minutes later.
My brother of course answered all of the agents questions and signed his statement under caution, only to end up in court and recieve a fine with cost's of £365 total...

Can you spot the difference...

[Geronimo]

What do you suggest these people do if they want to retain their TV's but not pay a licence and dont want to be penalised for said?

I don't claim to offer an alternative. I suppose they could join the campaign for a change in the law. I don't agree with this particular law Law? either, but I don't pretend it doesn't exist.

Surely you agree that saying "it worked for me" is misleading when your situation was wholly different to the one you're offering advice on. His friends now stand to receive fines if TVL decide to check up on their claims, whereas the OP doesn't.

Are you aware people have done just that?

I wasn't aware of that. There is a lot of 'evidence' that people have done what you suggested, perhaps you need to look it up unless your mind is already made up. In fact it would seem that if you enter tpuc into google an article by JH dealing with TV licensing actually comes up. Funny how you have never seen that. Are you one of these people? That would be my business but suffice to say i dont need a licence, nor do i need a newspaper or the BBC or the main news, or an ariel for that matter. Anything else you want to ask...? I've briefly browsed the most recent 3 pages of this sub-forum and nobody seems to be making that claim. It seems clear to me that such a letter would be unacceptable to the TVL because if it was, telling a visting TVL inspector the same thing would have the same effect. Which it doesn't.

Skeptical but Curious and perhaps slightly lazy

[SbutC]

Geronimo:
I presume you mean the article (http://www.tpuc.org/content/tv-licensin ... lus-won-co) posted by JH in which he admits to the TVL that he uses the TV and finds himself in court 3 months later, only getting out of prosecution on a technicality that had nothing at all to do with claims to not require their service. You'll note he didn't recieve a green letter following his admission, just his day in court. Did you really mean to point me to further proof of what I'm saying?

Ljtherock:
It's likely they moved onto easier targets but don't worry - I'm sure you're still on their list. I presume your doorstep posturing didn't earn you a green letter(?), so I don't see that it shows anything other than if you make things difficult for the TVL they're inclined to go for an easier target. Nothing in your experience contradicts my point that the OP's green letter is purely a result of not having a TV and that he wouldn't have that letter if he'd said he owned one, just like you didn't recieve a green letter after making it abundantly clear you didn't feel you needed a license (but revealed your TV).

Skeptical but Curious

[Geronimo]

Geronimo:
I presume you mean the article (http://www.tpuc.org/content/tv-licensin ... lus-won-co) posted by JH in which he admits to the TVL that he uses the TV and finds himself in court 3 months later, only getting out of prosecution on a technicality that had nothing at all to do with claims to not require their service. You'll note he didn't recieve a green letter following his admission, just his day in court. Did you really mean to point me to further proof of what I'm saying?

Ljtherock:
It's likely they moved onto easier targets but don't worry - I'm sure you're still on their list. I presume your doorstep posturing didn't earn you a green letter(?), so I don't see that it shows anything other than if you make things difficult for the TVL they're inclined to go for an easier target. Nothing in your experience contradicts my point that the OP's green letter is purely a result of not having a TV and that he wouldn't have that letter if he'd said he owned one, just like you didn't recieve a green letter after making it abundantly clear you didn't feel you needed a license (but revealed your TV).

Skeptical but Curious

Have you a Tv licence?

[ljtherock]

@SbutC...

How can I not have been what you term an "Easy Target."
I gave them all the ammunition they required, in their eyes (and ears). How much easier do they need it...

Perhaps, the lack of incriminating myself by answering their questions or not signing an incriminating statement of evidence against myself...

I do not need a tv license and that is a fact, whether or not I use a tv to recieve live broadcast... prove me wrong.