[Closed] TV licence people - entering the house?

Gas companies do actually require permission to access a private property.

I was thinking more to responding to a gas leak

TSA - interesting reading, thanks for posting.

"The address then became focussed on and Enforcement Officers (with warrants) started to take an interest"

An "enforcement officer" is no different to a "TV Licensing officer"
They use the words Enforcement and officer to scare the public into thinking they have some sort of legal power. They have no right of entry into your house whatsoever. A warrant can only be obtained from a court if the TV licensing can prove that there is reasonable grounds to believe you need a tv licence. Then the police have to visit with the warrant. Of the ones that do get fined,nearly all after admitting thay are using a tv and do not have a licence only get a couple of hundred quid fine.
I have been getting letters for 3 yrs to a property that doesn't even have a house, only stables. They are just the same recycled ones, designed to scare you..
The link to the BBCtv licensing site posted earlier in thresd is full of usefull info.
http://www.bbctvlicence.com/index.htm

Also they haven't changed the rules, its never been the case that you need a licence simply to own a TV (well for at least the past thirty years or so anyhow).

You don't need a license to own a TV, as they have 'other' uses than receiving terrestrial TV ... xbox, ps3, media centre, etc.

Do you not have to pay a TV license to watch I-Player?

Nope, provided it's not 'live' like News24

Hence they don't make many shows available until they have finished broadcasting on TV.

Sherlock, for example.

No.

(Discussed earlier on this thread)

wonder if that will change, seems odd

just to add to the SA's post about you having more to gain by letting the man in for a nosey. You do for a period of time and then, maybe 6-12 months later, all the regular red threatening letters just start again.

The BBC are considering charging for iPlayer.

The BBC are considering charging for iPlayer.

It's like they [i]want [/i]people to stop using it.

The BBC are considering charging for iPlayer.

I once refused them entry and they said they would come back with a warrant.

Did they?

Is it wrong? Who cares.

Yes. Me. Watching it without paying for it makes you little better than someone who does any petty crime really.

OK anyone know why if I buy an HDMI lead in Sainsburys and use a self service checkout it says "approval needed" the on screen guff says something about a TV license???

So I use my laptop onto a projector with an HDMI lead, what part of that needs a TV license??

Laptop has the potential to receive live broadcasts, making it eligible for TV license (though that's a little blurry due to it being portable, but i think it still needs to be covered by a house license). All sellers of live-broadcast-receiving equipment are legally bound to supply the address of the buyer to the TVL people IIRC. You just don't know it's happening more often than not.

Why are so many on here paranoid about letting some one in their house for a 30 second check? Is STW full of nutters with bodies hanging from meat hooks in the living room and forests of cannabis plants in the back bedroom?
To me it's simple, no live TV broadcasts or recording equipment for live broadcasts then no need for a licence.
Any one who is caught cheating should be sent round to a STW forum members house for hanging on a meat hook.
I think I may have done a Clarkson 🙂
Just realised a slight flaw in my plan as the licence dodger won't be allowed into the house for hanging. Back to the drawing board.

So has there been any 'freedom of information' type request to find out what percentage of households claim to not watch broadcast TV? There must be a lot that genuinely don't watch, but there must be many more Hora types that just don't pay cause they don't want to. (until he got caught)

Watching it without paying for it makes you little better than someone who does any petty crime really.

Really? Your broadcasting stuff all over the country and its wrong for people to receive it?
If you want me to pay for it stop sending it to me please!

EDIT I have a licence by the way I just disagree with the concept of it and the way they go about it.
If I didn't have better things to worry about I wouldn't pay it either.

Why are so many on here paranoid about letting some one in their house for a 30 second check?

Why are the TVLA unable to take your word for it?

or simply use their 'detector vans' 😆 to give them a definitive answer?

Surely if you watch I player then you should pay a fee? After all it is the fee that provides for that service?

And yes the gas emergency service can enter without your permission if they suspect a major breach of the gas safety regs, such as a leak, or to vent your property following a leak in an adjacent property. Mind you for a leak they would probably just dig the road up and cap you off. And shame they didn't gain access to all the flats to me locally following a leak outside. Couldn't get into one of them, heating switched on in the evening and boom.......

TSA.

Good post.

[i]and that you'll get a lot less of the kind of mail that seems to incite so much vitriol and high blood pressure on here[/i]

This pretty much perfectly sums up my point as it describes the mindset of the TVLA as thus:

" We are the TVLA.
We hold records on your address.
You will prove to us, to our satisfaction.
That you're not a Perp.
If you do not help us.
We will bombard you with mail.
We will bombard you with inspectors.
You will live in fear of being found out and fined.
Give us what we demand, or otherwise.... "

It gets my back up and for that reason I refuse to assist and comply.

Ask nicely and I'll do whatever I can to help anyone.
Threaten or try to intimdate me ?, and its the Archers salute from me.

[i]Surely if you watch I player then you should pay a fee? After all it is the fee that provides for that service[/i]

I don't think anyone here is asking to get services for free.
Seems to me we're all in agreement that if you watch it, you should pay for it.
Whether thats the cinema, TV, the theatre, etc, etc.

But, the TVLA have earnt themselves a particularly unliked position in this country for the way they set about collecting their revenue.
imo.

Anything you use to receive live broadcasts needs to be licenced. If the broadcast is delayed such as on IPlayer etc then you don't need a licence no matter what you choose to watch it on. It really is as simple as that!

I imagine the next step in the evolution of iPlayer is giving people who log their licence details access to 'live' broadcasts of content (Sherlock, Dr Who etc), and delaying the catch-up function so it won't appear for at least 24 hours.

Why are so many on here paranoid about letting some one in their house for a 30 second check?

Nothing to do with paranoia, it's the principle of the thing. Why do they need to check? Because they think you're lying. Guilty until proven innocent. Bugger that.

My personal view is if you consume any BBC output (website, TV, Radio, iPlayer etc) then you should have a licence. Why should you not contribute towards the BBC? If you don't use any BBC output then fine, otherwise get a licence. For the amount of output, it is cheap.

(If you get a licence then the TVLA is not an issue - assuming that their records are accurate)

Regarding iPlayer charging. There are moves afoot within the BBC to make available all their archive that you can download and keep. As such there will be costs that the BBC incur (royalty payments, IT costs, etc) and the BBC are planning to charge for this. Given the wealth of information that the Beeb has this is not unreasonable.

I don't need a TV licence because i don't have a TV. Perfectly happy to watch a few bits on i player and listen to the radio without buying a licence. If BBC chose to charge for iplayer then i'd probably not bother with it. Likening me to a petty thief when I'm using something that's freely available just proves you have issues 🙂

My personal view is if you consume any BBC output (website, TV, Radio, iPlayer etc) then you should have a licence. Why should you not contribute towards the BBC?

That's not how the system works though, it's quite possible to legally be required to have a licence even though you don't consume any BBC output.

[i]My personal view is if you consume any BBC output (website, TV, Radio, iPlayer etc) then you should have a licence. Why should you not contribute towards the BBC? If you don't use any BBC output then fine, otherwise get a licence. For the amount of output, it is cheap.[/i]

My personal view is that you should read the thread 😉
AFAIK, nobody is asking to watch the Beeb for free.

Reading the thread ?.
[b]FAIL[/b]

nobody is asking to watch the Beeb for free

Some people have said that they don't have a licence but watch BBC output (BBC 24 hour news, iPlayer) - in that case that are watching teh Been for free. Or have I missed the point.

Likening me to a petty thief when I'm using something that's freely available just proves you have issues

I am not accusing anyone of being a petty thief. The point that I was making (badly) is that someone has to pay for the Beeb and that in the UK we choose to do this via the licence fee. The BBC is not free, most of us pay for it.

The whole issue of having to have a licence if you don't consume any BBC output is a tough question. The alternatives do not make good reading.

I do realise that my original posting did wander off the main thread, however others have also wandered. I was responding to those who said that they didn't have a licence but watched the BBC via iPlayer.

Some people have said that they don't have a licence but watch BBC output (BBC 24 hour news, iPlayer) - in that case that are watching teh Been for free.

It gets my back up and for that reason I refuse to assist and comply.

D0NK

Slight flaw in your STW comparison - adverts displayed to the forum users pays for the forum.

The Beeb don't have adverts.

good shout, bad analogy but doesn't change the fact that bbc are quite happy for none licence payers and internationals who wouldn't be able to get one anyway to watch iplayer.

The Beeb don't have adverts.

They would if the licence fee went away.

Slight flaw in your STW comparison - adverts displayed to the forum users pays for the forum.

The Beeb don't have adverts.

Playing devils advocate on that basis, if I never watched BBC channels on the TV, why should I pay for a licence?

I do wonder, idly, if the licence fee's days are numbered.

Back in the day, the BBC ostensibly [i]was[/i] the TV, and if you watched telly, you got a licence (or at least, most people did). The Licensing people operated on the basis that pretty much every household has a TV, so there was a high likelyhood that unlicensed properties were watching illicitly.

Nowadays we've got a cornucopia of televisual entertainment beamed about the place, Auntie Beeb being a relatively small part of that. We've got film services, on-demand satellite stations, Internet streaming... you could quite easily have a TV and never watch 'broadcast' TV in the traditional (licence-requiring) sense. I can only see that trend increasing.

So now we're getting towards a point where people aren't going to be automatically getting a licence, they're going to be stopping and thinking "actually, do I need this?"

Long term then, the licence system my be increasingly unattainable. What then? An enforced subscription model (as opposed to the unenforced subs model they operate currently)? Would you pay 10 quid a month to get the BBC's combined output? Or adverts and programming sponsorship?

I've long believed the concept of a tv detector van is physically impossible, in the same way that it's impossible for a tree that falls down in the forest to know whether anybody heard it.

[i]plenty of people on the forum who don't have a P next to their name[/i]

What does that prove ?.

Perhaps, there are subbers out there who don't want a 'P'.....

They should've gone before I chained them up.

Whatever you do don't film them or they'll set the cops on you:

if I never watched BBC channels on the TV, why should I pay for a licence?

For me, this is the main problem with the way TV licencing is currently applied.

Would it not be better to let your customers choose what they wanted to pay for rather than forcing them to pay for something they might not want?

I can't think of anything else in life that's charged for by default regardless of whether you want to use the 'service'? (although I've probably overlooked something obvious 🙂 )

I can't think of anything else in life that's charged for by default regardless of whether you want to use the 'service'?

mains water