TV Licensing keeps sending really annoying letters

[Clive Page]

I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence, fortunately. And a record in my bank account of having paid it as recently as April 2022 when the previous licence was due for renewal. Despite this the shower who do TV Licensing (is is still Messrs Crapita? that might explain quite a lot) keeps on sending me letters saying that I haven't paid. The latest is in a red envelope and is headed

"You are now breaking the law if you watch TV at this address".

This is obviously not true. They don't provide any way of contacting them such as an email address or a postal address, only a non-free telephone number which I will not use as it is their mistake and I don't see why I should pay for a call to correct it.

If I don't respond then I guess there may be a visit from some droid, which is what they are threatening. That would no doubt cost them a lot of money. I am tempted to just leave it so that happens.

I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to have a proper postal address on it somewhere - all is says is "Scott Robson, Enforcement Manager, Oxford" with no company registered address on it anywhere and no postcode. Surely this cannot be legal?

And I'm just wondering: does this letter constitute libel, or do I have to make it public in some way for that to be possible?

[Martin Brown]

I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence, fortunately.  And
a record in my bank account of having paid it as recently as April 2022
when the previous licence was due for renewal.  Despite this the shower
who do TV Licensing (is is still Messrs Crapita? that might explain
quite a lot) keeps on sending me letters saying that I haven't paid.
The latest is in a red envelope and is headed
"You are now breaking the law if you watch TV at this address".
This is obviously not true.  They don't provide any way of contacting
them such as an email address or a postal address, only a non-free
telephone number which I will not use as it is their mistake and I don't
see why I should pay for a call to correct it.

Are you sure that there is binding between your TV license and your
correct physical address? I used to get about 5 copies of a free Journal
of Artificial Intelligence to different mis-spellings of my name and
address. Attempts to cancel bogus ones resulted in additional copies!

If I don't respond then I guess there may be a visit from some droid,
which is what they are threatening.  That would no doubt cost them a lot
of money.  I am tempted to just leave it so that happens.

If you are sure of your ground then do that. I did the same largely by
accident when my parents house was unoccupied and without a TV since we
only went over every three weeks at holiday season. That was long enough
for them to escalate to physical visits much good did it do them.

The TV licensing went from "We note you haven't got a licence last
chance to buy or else" to "We will keep on visiting until we catch you
at it". The latter looked like a ransom note put together by someone
from Spectre since it makes ample use or random fonts and lots of red
ink. I see no reason not to waste their time if they persist in lunacy.

ISTR you can also point out their folly online if inclined to do so.
(and that service is free)

I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to
have a proper postal address on it somewhere - all is says is "Scott
Robson, Enforcement Manager, Oxford" with no company registered address
on it anywhere and no postcode.  Surely this cannot be legal?

They might be on very thin ice if they do not disclose information that
must be displayed on any official communication from a limited company.

And I'm just wondering: does this letter constitute libel, or do I have
to make it public in some way for that to be possible?

They have sent it specifically to you. Believe me the letters get
increasingly desperate and ever more *RED INK* the longer it goes.

[Ben]

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Clive Page
I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence, fortunately. And
a record in my bank account of having paid it as recently as April 2022
when the previous licence was due for renewal. Despite this the shower
who do TV Licensing (is is still Messrs Crapita? that might explain
quite a lot) keeps on sending me letters saying that I haven't paid.
The latest is in a red envelope and is headed
"You are now breaking the law if you watch TV at this address".
This is obviously not true. They don't provide any way of contacting
them such as an email address or a postal address, only a non-free
telephone number which I will not use as it is their mistake and I don't
see why I should pay for a call to correct it.

Are you sure that there is binding between your TV license and your
correct physical address? I used to get about 5 copies of a free Journal
of Artificial Intelligence to different mis-spellings of my name and
address. Attempts to cancel bogus ones resulted in additional copies!

They should have kept the extra copies, it may have done them some good ;-)

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Clive Page
If I don't respond then I guess there may be a visit from some droid,
which is what they are threatening. That would no doubt cost them a
lot of money. I am tempted to just leave it so that happens.

I don't see any reason not to just leave it. In my experience it's
very unlikely they will send anyone round. And if they do then of
course you can just show them your licence - although it may be
a good idea to triple-check it definitely has the exact right
address on it!

Post by Clive Page
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to
have a proper postal address on it somewhere - all is says is "Scott
Robson, Enforcement Manager, Oxford" with no company registered
address on it anywhere and no postcode. Surely this cannot be legal?

I think that would be illegal, yes - so are you sure it isn't on the
back or in the small print, and are you sure it is a genuine letter from
TV Licensing?

Post by Clive Page
And I'm just wondering: does this letter constitute libel,

No, because you cannot libel someone to themselves.

Post by Clive Page
or do I have to make it public in some way for that to be possible?

That would mean you would have libelled yourself, which is again not
something you can sue anyone over.

[RustyHinge]

/snip/

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Clive Page
And I'm just wondering: does this letter constitute libel,

No, because you cannot libel someone to themselves.

Yes. Sight of the letter proclaims its contents, if only to the postman
and sorting office staff, so it *doesn't* only concern the addressee.

Mind you, the compensation you could expect would be very small if
measurable. I understand that the rules about punitive damages have been
changed not too long ago, or that might have been an interesting avenue
to pursue.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Clive Page
or do I have to make it public in some way for that to be possible?

That would mean you would have libelled yourself, which is again not
something you can sue anyone over.

That, of course, is correct.

[Jonathan Ward]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Clive Page
If I don't respond then I guess there may be a visit from some droid,
which is what they are threatening. That would no doubt cost them a
lot of money. I am tempted to just leave it so that happens.

I don't see any reason not to just leave it. In my experience it's
very unlikely they will send anyone round. And if they do then of
course you can just show them your licence - although it may be
a good idea to triple-check it definitely has the exact right
address on it!

Post by Clive Page
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to
have a proper postal address on it somewhere - all is says is "Scott
Robson, Enforcement Manager, Oxford" with no company registered
address on it anywhere and no postcode. Surely this cannot be legal?

I think that would be illegal, yes - so are you sure it isn't on the
back or in the small print, and are you sure it is a genuine letter from
TV Licensing?

Post by Clive Page
And I'm just wondering: does this letter constitute libel,

No, because you cannot libel someone to themselves.

Post by Clive Page
or do I have to make it public in some way for that to be possible?

That would mean you would have libelled yourself, which is again not
something you can sue anyone over.

Write a letter with a copy to your MP. I got £150 in compensation from them when we had an empty property that was having extensive buidling works.

Jonathan

[Pancho]

Post by Clive Page
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to
have a proper postal address on it somewhere -

I suspect if you look in section:

Don’t think you need a TV Licence?

Customer Services, TV Licensing, Darlington DL98 1TL.

Best just ignore it.

[Owain Lastname]

Post by Pancho

Post by Clive Page
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to
have a proper postal address on it somewhere -

Customer Services, TV Licensing, Darlington DL98 1TL.

That is not an address, however, at which legal notice can be served physically or by any courier other than Royal Mail.

The BBC Head of Revenue Management works from home, so you can write to or call at her home address.

https://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2018/05/tv-licensing-boss-gets-doorstepped.html

Owain

[Pancho]

Post by Owain Lastname

Post by Pancho

Post by Clive Page
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to
have a proper postal address on it somewhere -

Customer Services, TV Licensing, Darlington DL98 1TL.

That is not an address, however, at which legal notice can be served physically or by any courier other than Royal Mail.
The BBC Head of Revenue Management works from home, so you can write to or call at her home address.
https://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2018/05/tv-licensing-boss-gets-doorstepped.html

lol!. To be fair, I did say best to just ignore it.

AIUI the government are looking to drop the TV licence in a few years
time. With the advent of streaming, a lot of people, quite legally, just
don't need one. So a choice is being forced, extended a licence
fee/charge to streaming/internet or abolish it.

My suspicion is that abolition of the licence revenue is one of the
reasons journalists have been so critical of Boris. It will shrink money
available for journalism and that will presumably have a knock on effect
on the rates all UK journalists can get, BBC or otherwise.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Pancho

Post by Owain Lastname

Post by Pancho

Post by Clive Page
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to
have a proper postal address on it somewhere -

Customer Services, TV Licensing, Darlington DL98 1TL.

That is not an address, however, at which legal notice can be served
physically or by any courier other than Royal Mail.
The BBC Head of Revenue Management works from home, so you can write to or
call at her home address.
https://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2018/05/tv-licensing-boss-gets-doorstepped.html

lol!. To be fair, I did say best to just ignore it.
AIUI the government are looking to drop the TV licence in a few years
time. With the advent of streaming, a lot of people, quite legally, just
don't need one. So a choice is being forced, extended a licence
fee/charge to streaming/internet or abolish it.

They have already extended it to streaming/Internet, at least as far as
streaming the current content of organisations licensed to broadcast to the UK
is concerned.

Post by Pancho
My suspicion is that abolition of the licence revenue is one of the
reasons journalists have been so critical of Boris. It will shrink money
available for journalism and that will presumably have a knock on effect
on the rates all UK journalists can get, BBC or otherwise.

[JNugent]

Post by Pancho

Post by Owain Lastname

Post by Pancho

Post by Clive Page
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to
have a proper postal address on it somewhere -

Customer Services, TV Licensing, Darlington DL98 1TL.

That is not an address, however, at which legal notice can be served
physically or by any courier other than Royal Mail.
The BBC Head of Revenue Management works from home, so you can write
to or call at her home address.
https://tv-licensing.blogspot.com/2018/05/tv-licensing-boss-gets-doorstepped.html

lol!. To be fair, I did say best to just ignore it.
AIUI the government are looking to drop the TV licence in a few years
time. With the advent of streaming, a lot of people, quite legally, just
don't need one. So a choice is being forced, extended a licence
fee/charge to streaming/internet or abolish it.

Bring it on.

Abolition, not licencing of internet connections.

Post by Pancho
My suspicion is that abolition of the licence revenue is one of the
reasons journalists have been so critical of Boris. It will shrink money
available for journalism and that will presumably have a knock on effect
on the rates all UK journalists can get, BBC or otherwise.

[Clive Page]

Post by Pancho

Post by Clive Page
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to have a proper postal address on it somewhere -

Don’t think you need a TV Licence?
Customer Services, TV Licensing, Darlington DL98 1TL.
Best just ignore it.

I also would have thought that a threatening letter must have a proper postal address on it, but this one does no. I have looked at both sides of the letter vary carefully but there is no postal address anywhere on it. Under "Don't think you need a TV Licence?" it just has tvl.co.uk/noTV

I am pretty certain that it is genuine as the all the personal details (including my name and address) are exactly as shown on the TV Licence itself, and it hasn't come out of the blue, just the the most recent in a series over the last few months. It must be a database error, but as my details are exactly right, it's hard to see what.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Clive Page
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to have a proper postal address on it somewhere -

Don’t think you need a TV Licence?
Customer Services, TV Licensing, Darlington DL98 1TL.
Best just ignore it.

I also would have thought that a threatening letter must have a proper postal address on it, but this one does no. I have looked at both sides of the letter vary carefully but there is no postal address anywhere on it. Under "Don't think you need a TV Licence?" it just has tvl.co.uk/noTV
I am pretty certain that it is genuine as the all the personal details (including my name and address) are exactly as shown on the TV Licence itself, and it hasn't come out of the blue, just the the most recent in a series over the last few months. It must be a database error, but as my details are exactly right, it's hard to see what.
--
Clive Page

It is government IT, what do you expect?

[Pancho]

Post by Clive Page

Post by Pancho

Post by Clive Page
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to
have a proper postal address on it somewhere -

Don’t think you need a TV Licence?
Customer Services, TV Licensing, Darlington DL98 1TL.
Best just ignore it.

I also would have thought that a threatening letter must have a proper
postal address on it, but this one does no.  I have looked at both sides
of the letter vary carefully but there is no postal address anywhere on
it.  Under "Don't think you need a TV Licence?" it just has tvl.co.uk/noTV

Fair enough, I looked at another one, of the approximately 50 they have
sent me, and you're right it doesn't have the address. So some do, some
don't. Their letters tend to repeat after a while. The address is
available from tvl.co.uk/noTV.

Post by Clive Page
I am pretty certain that it is genuine as the all the personal details
(including my name and address) are exactly as shown on the TV Licence
itself, and it hasn't come out of the blue, just the the most recent in
a series over the last few months.   It must be a database error, but as
my details are exactly right, it's hard to see what.

They don't care. It is spam. However, it is sanctioned by the
government. You can complain if you enjoy complaining, but it's a full
moon tomorrow, you might just as well howl at that.

FWIW, last month I complained about a home insurance renewal invoice,
suggesting I owed them money after I hadn't renewed. I huffed and puffed
about: it was misleading, threatening, and abusive. They asked how they
could fix the complaint, I said, give me £50. They said they wouldn't. A
few weeks later, after no further communication, they sent me a £50
cheque.

I think even a slightly competent complaint is expensive to deal with,
but I think TVL will be experts, and have no interest in keeping you happy.

[RustyHinge]

Post by Pancho
They don't care. It is spam. However, it is sanctioned by the
government. You can complain if you enjoy complaining, but it's a full
moon tomorrow, you might just as well howl at that.

And a supermoon tonight. I suspect high tides.

[Andy Burns]

Post by RustyHinge

it's a full moon tomorrow, you
might just as well howl at that.

And a supermoon tonight. I suspect high tides.

I noticed the moon in a mirror last night, it looked big and bright over my
neighbour's roof, I turned round and it looked smaller, is this a special case
of the moon illusion?

[RustyHinge]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by RustyHinge

it's a full moon tomorrow, you might just as well howl at that.

And a supermoon tonight. I suspect high tides.

I noticed the moon in a mirror last night, it looked big and bright over
my neighbour's roof, I turned round and it looked smaller, is this a
special case of the moon illusion?

It probably means the surface of the mirror is slightly convex.

[RustyHinge]

I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence, fortunately.  And
a record in my bank account of having paid it as recently as April 2022
when the previous licence was due for renewal.  Despite this the shower
who do TV Licensing (is is still Messrs Crapita? that might explain
quite a lot) keeps on sending me letters saying that I haven't paid.
The latest is in a red envelope and is headed
"You are now breaking the law if you watch TV at this address".
This is obviously not true.  They don't provide any way of contacting
them such as an email address or a postal address, only a non-free
telephone number which I will not use as it is their mistake and I don't
see why I should pay for a call to correct it.
If I don't respond then I guess there may be a visit from some droid,
which is what they are threatening.  That would no doubt cost them a lot
of money.  I am tempted to just leave it so that happens.

Leave it, ignore them. If they do arrive on your doorstep (very
unlikely) you have every righr to give them the same message as was
given to the Яussian warship (now destroyed) by the Ukrainian defenders
of Snake Island(?). They might not go away, but IME the threats are all
empty - I have no Idiots' Lantern, therefore no licence. Years ago I
told them my age (exempted me from paying for a licence) and that I
didn't have a set and had no intention of getting one. I'm now 82 and
still getting threatening litters from the incompetent squirts.

I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to
have a proper postal address on it somewhere - all is says is "Scott
Robson, Enforcement Manager, Oxford" with no company registered address
on it anywhere and no postcode.  Surely this cannot be legal?

Certainly gives you every reason to ignore it.

And I'm just wondering: does this letter constitute libel, or do I have
to make it public in some way for that to be possible?

The very recognisable cover certainly is libellous (IMO), but it costs
them, and I'd do anything to reduce the income of such a shower of
parasites.

[Vir Campestris]

I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence, fortunately.  And
a record in my bank account of having paid it as recently as April 2022
when the previous licence was due for renewal.  Despite this the shower
who do TV Licensing (is is still Messrs Crapita? that might explain
quite a lot) keeps on sending me letters saying that I haven't paid.
The latest is in a red envelope and is headed
"You are now breaking the law if you watch TV at this address".
This is obviously not true.  They don't provide any way of contacting
them such as an email address or a postal address, only a non-free
telephone number which I will not use as it is their mistake and I don't
see why I should pay for a call to correct it.
If I don't respond then I guess there may be a visit from some droid,
which is what they are threatening.  That would no doubt cost them a lot
of money.  I am tempted to just leave it so that happens.
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to
have a proper postal address on it somewhere - all is says is "Scott
Robson, Enforcement Manager, Oxford" with no company registered address
on it anywhere and no postcode.  Surely this cannot be legal?
And I'm just wondering: does this letter constitute libel, or do I have
to make it public in some way for that to be possible?

My son had a droid turn up. He was more polite than me, let him in, and
showed him the lack of TV...

But isn't there a protection from harassment act or suchlike? Someone
here will know better than I.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_from_Harassment_Act_1997>

Andy

[Colin Bignell]

On 11/07/2022 22:11, Vir Campestris wrote:
.....

Post by Vir Campestris
My son had a droid turn up. He was more polite than me, let him in, and
showed him the lack of TV...

I don't have a TV and haven't had one since the change to digital
broadcasts. However, I still need a licence to watch BBC iPlayer on my
computer, or to watch live broadcasts on any other online TV.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Clive Page
I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence

My son had a droid turn up. He was more polite than me, let him in, and showed
him the lack of TV...

I informed TV licencing after my father died, they sent a refund and a letter
confirming cancellation.

Then after 6 months they sent another letter saying "Something has changed at
$ADDRESS" given that nothing had changed I ignored it, maybe Capita believe in
reincarnation? They send another letter most months, the TV sits in the lounge
unplugged from mains, unplugged from the aerial, the screen facing the wall.

[Colin Bignell]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by Clive Page
I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence

My son had a droid turn up. He was more polite than me, let him in,
and showed him the lack of TV...

I informed TV licencing after my father died, they sent a refund and a
letter confirming cancellation.
Then after 6 months they sent another letter saying "Something has
changed at $ADDRESS" given that nothing had changed I ignored it, maybe
Capita believe in reincarnation?  They send another letter most months,
the TV sits in the lounge unplugged from mains, unplugged from the
aerial, the screen facing the wall.

Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is broadcast
receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that exists is
plugged in.

[Andy Burns]

Post by Colin Bignell
Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is broadcast
receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that exists is plugged in.

It isn't 'owning' a television receiver that requires a licence, it's having a
television receiver 'installed' for viewing or recording ...

<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363>

After all, every PC, phone and tablet can now be used as a television receiver.

[JNugent]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Colin Bignell
Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is
broadcast receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that
exists is plugged in.

It isn't 'owning' a television receiver that requires a licence, it's
having a television receiver 'installed' for viewing or recording ...
<https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363>
After all, every PC, phone and tablet can now be used as a television receiver.

I can't wait for the BBC's "TV Licencing" department to bring a test
case that every PC, Mac or tablet with an internet connection needs a TV
Licence.

[Jeff]

Post by Colin Bignell
Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is broadcast
receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that exists is
plugged in.

It has not changed, but that was never the case.

The offences has always been "using or installing", with the additional
offence of possessing or having in your control with the intent to use
or install.

Jeff

[Martin Brown]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by Clive Page
I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence

My son had a droid turn up. He was more polite than me, let him in,
and showed him the lack of TV...

I informed TV licencing after my father died, they sent a refund and a
letter confirming cancellation.
Then after 6 months they sent another letter saying "Something has
changed at $ADDRESS" given that nothing had changed I ignored it,
maybe Capita believe in reincarnation?  They send another letter most
months, the TV sits in the lounge unplugged from mains, unplugged from
the aerial, the screen facing the wall.

Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is broadcast
receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that exists is
plugged in.

I have a feeling that they have to catch you using it as a TV as well.

We used modified (at some personal risk) colour TVs as colour monitors
back when I was at university - no aerial connection used at all and the
IF stage for TV reception disabled.

Possession of a TV or a steam radio without a license is not an offence
in itself. Using a TV or live streaming BBC without one is (in the UK).

[Norman Wells]

Post by Martin Brown

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by Clive Page
I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence

My son had a droid turn up. He was more polite than me, let him in,
and showed him the lack of TV...

I informed TV licencing after my father died, they sent a refund and
a letter confirming cancellation.
Then after 6 months they sent another letter saying "Something has
changed at $ADDRESS" given that nothing had changed I ignored it,
maybe Capita believe in reincarnation?  They send another letter most
months, the TV sits in the lounge unplugged from mains, unplugged
from the aerial, the screen facing the wall.

Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is
broadcast receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that
exists is plugged in.

I have a feeling that they have to catch you using it as a TV as well.

No they don't, but of course it saves an awful lot of argument if they
do. What they have to establish is that you had television receiving
apparatus *installed*. If it has an aerial plugged into the back even
if the device is switched off I don't think they'd have any difficulty
in establishing that on the balance of probabilities.

I would also expect a tablet or phone with a TV app (or iPlayer) on it
to be considered as 'installed' television receiving apparatus, but I
don't know if that has ever been tested in court.

Post by Martin Brown
We used modified (at some personal risk) colour TVs as colour monitors
back when I was at university - no aerial connection used at all and the
IF stage for TV reception disabled.

That would be so that it could no longer be considered television
receiving apparatus.

Post by Martin Brown
Possession of a TV or a steam radio without a license is not an offence
in itself. Using a TV or live streaming BBC without one is (in the UK).

Radio licences are not required at all. You need a TV licence if you
have TV receiving apparatus 'installed'.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by Clive Page
I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence

My son had a droid turn up. He was more polite than me, let him in,
and showed him the lack of TV...

I informed TV licencing after my father died, they sent a refund and a
letter confirming cancellation.
Then after 6 months they sent another letter saying "Something has
changed at $ADDRESS" given that nothing had changed I ignored it,
maybe Capita believe in reincarnation?  They send another letter most
months, the TV sits in the lounge unplugged from mains, unplugged from
the aerial, the screen facing the wall.

Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is broadcast
receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that exists is
plugged in.

The criterion is actually whether it is 'installed', which is obviously
open to interpretation.

It could clearly be made to work in just a few moments, and it serves no
purpose whatsoever unless it is to be so used.

Is a television set not 'installed' if you just unplug it either from
the mains or from an adjacent aerial socket?

[RustyHinge]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by Clive Page
I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence

My son had a droid turn up. He was more polite than me, let him in,
and showed him the lack of TV...

I informed TV licencing after my father died, they sent a refund and
a letter confirming cancellation.
Then after 6 months they sent another letter saying "Something has
changed at $ADDRESS" given that nothing had changed I ignored it,
maybe Capita believe in reincarnation?  They send another letter most
months, the TV sits in the lounge unplugged from mains, unplugged
from the aerial, the screen facing the wall.

Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is
broadcast receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that
exists is plugged in.

The criterion is actually whether it is 'installed', which is obviously
open to interpretation.
It could clearly be made to work in just a few moments, and it serves no
purpose whatsoever unless it is to be so used.
Is a television set not 'installed' if you just unplug it either from
the mains or from an adjacent aerial socket?

I live so close to the mast (I can see it, and it's about a mile away)
that I don't *need* an ærial...

[JNugent]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by Clive Page
I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence

My son had a droid turn up. He was more polite than me, let him in,
and showed him the lack of TV...

I informed TV licencing after my father died, they sent a refund and a
letter confirming cancellation.
Then after 6 months they sent another letter saying "Something has
changed at $ADDRESS" given that nothing had changed I ignored it,
maybe Capita believe in reincarnation?  They send another letter most
months, the TV sits in the lounge unplugged from mains, unplugged from
the aerial, the screen facing the wall.

Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is broadcast
receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that exists is
plugged in.

That cannot be right.

I can see that the BBC's "TV Licencing" organisation (and perhaps
certain other people) would wish it to be true, but it cannot be.

Here's a suitably redacted copy of my current TV licence (name / address
/ number deleted).

The wording is that I am permitted to install and use television
receivers. Not that I am permitted to store unused equipment. I don't
need permission for that.

<https://ibb.co/sJmLD4f>

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by Clive Page
I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence

My son had a droid turn up. He was more polite than me, let him in,
and showed him the lack of TV...

I informed TV licencing after my father died, they sent a refund and a
letter confirming cancellation.
Then after 6 months they sent another letter saying "Something has
changed at $ADDRESS" given that nothing had changed I ignored it,
maybe Capita believe in reincarnation? They send another letter most
months, the TV sits in the lounge unplugged from mains, unplugged from
the aerial, the screen facing the wall.

Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is broadcast
receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that exists is
plugged in.

That cannot be right.
I can see that the BBC's "TV Licencing" organisation (and perhaps
certain other people) would wish it to be true, but it cannot be.
Here's a suitably redacted copy of my current TV licence (name / address
/ number deleted).
The wording is that I am permitted to install and use television
receivers. Not that I am permitted to store unused equipment. I don't
need permission for that.
<https://ibb.co/sJmLD4f>

The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

[Jeff]

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
installing, requires a licence:
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

Jeff

[Mike Scott]

On 13/07/2022 09:24, Jeff wrote:
...

Post by Jeff
The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
 it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

But it's ambiguous.

"be installed" could refer to either the one-off act of installation, or
the on-going state of being installed.

Post by Jeff
Jeff

[JNugent]

Post by Mike Scott
...

Post by Jeff
The set has still there once been illegally installed and once
installed   it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

But it's ambiguous.
"be installed" could refer to either the one-off act of installation, or
the on-going state of being installed.

Exactly.

An interpretation other than that latter would mean that a house in
which a set has once been installed (eg, by a previous owner) would
always be liable to payment of the BBC Tax, even if vacant or having
changed hands.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Mike Scott
...

Post by Jeff
The set has still there once been illegally installed and once
installed it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

But it's ambiguous.
"be installed" could refer to either the one-off act of installation, or
the on-going state of being installed.

Exactly.
An interpretation other than that latter would mean that a house in
which a set has once been installed (eg, by a previous owner) would
always be liable to payment of the BBC Tax, even if vacant or having
changed hands.

The converse is true! If it is the act of installing while without a licence
which is the offence (which is the usual interpretation) then the person who
did so can be penalised for this historic offence, if admitted or proved. But
this has no bearing on whether he or a future householder should get a
licence. They only need to if they are going to watch TV or *install the same
or another TV again*. On this interpretation then the continuation of an
installed TV set being there, let alone a previous instantaneous act, have no
bearing on the household needing a licence. One is needed *only* if TV is
watched or someone wants to install a TV again in the future.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Mike Scott
...

Post by Jeff
The set has still there once been illegally installed and once
installed it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

But it's ambiguous.
"be installed" could refer to either the one-off act of installation, or
the on-going state of being installed.

Exactly.
An interpretation other than that latter would mean that a house in
which a set has once been installed (eg, by a previous owner) would
always be liable to payment of the BBC Tax, even if vacant or having
changed hands.

The converse is true! If it is the act of installing while without a licence
which is the offence (which is the usual interpretation) then the person who
did so can be penalised for this historic offence, if admitted or proved. But
this has no bearing on whether he or a future householder should get a
licence. They only need to if they are going to watch TV or *install the same
or another TV again*. On this interpretation then the continuation of an
installed TV set being there, let alone a previous instantaneous act, have no
bearing on the household needing a licence. One is needed *only* if TV is
watched or someone wants to install a TV again in the future.

Except that:

'A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
control who ... intends to install or use it in contravention of
subsection (1) is guilty of an offence'.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Mike Scott
...

Post by Jeff
The set has still there once been illegally installed and once
installed it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

But it's ambiguous.
"be installed" could refer to either the one-off act of installation, or
the on-going state of being installed.

Exactly.
An interpretation other than that latter would mean that a house in
which a set has once been installed (eg, by a previous owner) would
always be liable to payment of the BBC Tax, even if vacant or having
changed hands.

The converse is true! If it is the act of installing while without a licence
which is the offence (which is the usual interpretation) then the person who
did so can be penalised for this historic offence, if admitted or proved. But
this has no bearing on whether he or a future householder should get a
licence. They only need to if they are going to watch TV or *install the same
or another TV again*. On this interpretation then the continuation of an
installed TV set being there, let alone a previous instantaneous act, have no
bearing on the household needing a licence. One is needed *only* if TV is
watched or someone wants to install a TV again in the future.

'A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
control who ... intends to install

If it's still in its cardboard box (or whatever), then unpacking it and
plugging it in etc, is the act of "installing".

Post by Norman Wells
or use it in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence'.

Using it is a well understood offence.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Mike Scott
...

Post by Jeff
The set has still there once been illegally installed and once
installed   it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

But it's ambiguous.
"be installed" could refer to either the one-off act of
installation, or
the on-going state of being installed.

Exactly.
An interpretation other than that latter would mean that a house in
which a set has once been installed (eg, by a previous owner) would
always be liable to payment of the BBC Tax, even if vacant or having
changed hands.

 The converse is true!  If it is the act of installing while without
a licence
which is the offence (which is the  usual interpretation) then the
person who
did so can be penalised for this historic offence, if admitted or proved. But
this has no bearing on whether he or a future householder should get a
licence. They only need to if they are going to watch TV or *install the same
or another TV again*. On this interpretation then the continuation of an
installed TV set being there, let alone a previous instantaneous act, have no
bearing on the household needing a licence. One is needed *only* if TV is
watched or someone wants to install a TV again in the future.

'A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
control who ... intends to install

If it's still in its cardboard box (or whatever), then unpacking it and
plugging it in etc, is the act of "installing".

And having it in its cardboard box is a clear indication of intention to
install or use it, at least to most people.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Norman Wells
or use it in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence'.

Using it is a well understood offence.

Of course it is, but the question is about someone who claims that a
television in his possession is neither installed nor used because, for
example, it is not being watched at the time, it's still in its box,
it's unplugged, it doesn't have an attached aerial or it's facing the
wall. Such a person thinks he doesn't need a TV licence. I'm just
asking how you think he realistically escapes the provision of the law I
quoted above.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Mike Scott
...

Post by Jeff
The set has still there once been illegally installed and once
installed   it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

But it's ambiguous.
"be installed" could refer to either the one-off act of
installation, or the on-going state of being installed.

Exactly.
An interpretation other than that latter would mean that a house in
which a set has once been installed (eg, by a previous owner) would
always be liable to payment of the BBC Tax, even if vacant or having
changed hands.

 The converse is true!  If it is the act of installing while
without a licence which is the offence (which is the  usual
interpretation) then the person who did so can be penalised for
this historic offence, if admitted or proved. But this has no
bearing on whether he or a future householder should get a licence.
They only need to if they are going to watch TV or *install the
same or another TV again*. On this interpretation then the
continuation of an installed TV set being there, let alone a
previous instantaneous act, have no bearing on the household
needing a licence. One is needed *only* if TV is watched or
someone wants to install a TV again in the future.

'A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
control who ... intends to install

If it's still in its cardboard box (or whatever), then unpacking it
and plugging it in etc, is the act of "installing".

And having it in its cardboard box is a clear indication of intention
to install or use it, at least to most people.

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Norman Wells
or use it in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence'.

Using it is a well understood offence.

Of course it is, but the question is about someone who claims that a
television in his possession is neither installed nor used because, for
example, it is not being watched at the time, it's still in its box,
it's unplugged, it doesn't have an attached aerial or it's facing the
wall. Such a person thinks he doesn't need a TV licence. I'm just
asking how you think he realistically escapes the provision of the law
I quoted above.

Mainly because the person in question isn't using it. And no-one caught
them in the act of plugging it all in several years ago (whatever else
has happened in the mean time).

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Norman Wells

 The converse is true!  If it is the act of installing while
without  a licence  which is the offence (which is the  usual
interpretation) then the  person who  did so can be penalised for
this historic offence, if admitted or  proved. But  this has no
bearing on whether he or a future householder should get a
licence. They only need to if they are going to watch TV or
*install  the same  or another TV again*. On this interpretation
then the continuation of an  installed TV set being there, let
alone a previous instantaneous act,  have no  bearing on the
household needing a licence. One is needed *only* if  TV is
watched or someone wants to install a TV again in the future.

'A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
control who ... intends to install

 If it's still in its cardboard box (or whatever), then unpacking it
and  plugging it in etc, is the act of "installing".

And having it in its cardboard box is a clear indication of intention
to install or use it, at least to most people.

Post by Norman Wells
or use it in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence'.

 Using it is a well understood offence.

Of course it is, but the question is about someone who claims that a
television in his possession is neither installed nor used because,
for example, it is not being watched at the time, it's still in its
box, it's unplugged, it doesn't have an attached aerial or it's facing
the wall.  Such a person thinks he doesn't need a TV licence.  I'm
just asking how you think he realistically escapes the provision of
the law I quoted above.

Mainly because the person in question isn't using it. And no-one caught
them in the act of plugging it all in several years ago (whatever else
has happened in the mean time).

First, as explained elsewhere, actual use is not required. Intention to
use is sufficient to require a licence and that can be readily inferred
in all but very exceptional circumstances.

Second, if 'plugging it in' several years ago 'installed' it, then it is
logical that unplugging it uninstalls it as does turning it off. And it
is installed again every time you plug it back in or turn it on.

What else does 'installed' mean? And what logic makes it mean just the
very first time it was plugged in, maybe several years ago?

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Mike Scott
...

Post by Jeff
The set has still there once been illegally installed and once
installed it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

But it's ambiguous.
"be installed" could refer to either the one-off act of installation, or
the on-going state of being installed.

Exactly.
An interpretation other than that latter would mean that a house in
which a set has once been installed (eg, by a previous owner) would
always be liable to payment of the BBC Tax, even if vacant or having
changed hands.

The converse is true! If it is the act of installing while without a licence
which is the offence (which is the usual interpretation) then the person who
did so can be penalised for this historic offence, if admitted or proved. But
this has no bearing on whether he or a future householder should get a
licence. They only need to if they are going to watch TV or *install the same
or another TV again*. On this interpretation then the continuation of an
installed TV set being there, let alone a previous instantaneous act, have no
bearing on the household needing a licence. One is needed *only* if TV is
watched or someone wants to install a TV again in the future.

Thank you for that.

I assume you can point to the relevant part of the legislation which
states and clarifies that point?

If so, I'd be grateful for a reference to it.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
The converse is true! If it is the act of installing while without a
licence which is the offence (which is the usual interpretation)
then the person who did so can be penalised for this historic
offence, if admitted or proved. But this has no bearing on whether he
or a future householder should get a licence. They only need to if
they are going to watch TV or *install the same or another TV again*.
On this interpretation then the continuation of an installed TV set
being there, let alone a previous instantaneous act, have no bearing
on the household needing a licence. One is needed *only* if TV is
watched or someone wants to install a TV again in the future.

Thank you for that.
I assume you can point to the relevant part of the legislation which
states and clarifies that point?
If so, I'd be grateful for a reference to it.

The Communications Act 2003 s363(2):

(2) A person who installs or uses a television receiver in
contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4

[JNugent]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter
The converse is true! If it is the act of installing while without a
licence which is the offence (which is the usual interpretation)
then the person who did so can be penalised for this historic
offence, if admitted or proved. But this has no bearing on whether he
or a future householder should get a licence. They only need to if
they are going to watch TV or *install the same or another TV again*.
On this interpretation then the continuation of an installed TV set
being there, let alone a previous instantaneous act, have no bearing
on the household needing a licence. One is needed *only* if TV is
watched or someone wants to install a TV again in the future.

Thank you for that.
I assume you can point to the relevant part of the legislation which
states and clarifies that point?
If so, I'd be grateful for a reference to it.

(2) A person who installs or uses a television receiver in
contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/4

Thank you. But that does not address Hayter's claims (which go deeper
than the short section of text above).

[Jeff]

Post by JNugent

Post by Mike Scott
But it's ambiguous.
"be installed" could refer to either the one-off act of installation,
or the on-going state of being installed.

Exactly.
An interpretation other than that latter would mean that a house in
which a set has once been installed (eg, by a previous owner) would
always be liable to payment of the BBC Tax, even if vacant or having
changed hands.

As indeed it is.

Jeff

[JNugent]

Post by Jeff

Post by JNugent

Post by Mike Scott
But it's ambiguous.
"be installed" could refer to either the one-off act of installation,
or the on-going state of being installed.

Exactly.
An interpretation other than that latter would mean that a house in
which a set has once been installed (eg, by a previous owner) would
always be liable to payment of the BBC Tax, even if vacant or having
changed hands.

As indeed it is.

That is certainly what the so-far posted extracts from the law seem to
indicate.

Once installed : always installed.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."
Jeff

I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.


--
Roger Hayter

[Jeff]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."
Jeff

I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.
--
Roger Hayter

As has been previously noted, the wording of The Communications
(Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 for the definition of a
“television receiver would seem to indicate a different intention.

Meaning of “television receiver

9.—(1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television
receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of
receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any
television programme service,"

Jeff

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."
Jeff

I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.

So uninstalling the set will not / never extinguish liability for the
BBC Tax at the relevant address?

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."
Jeff

I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.

So uninstalling the set will not / never extinguish liability for the
BBC Tax at the relevant address?

The penalty for installing a set without a licence is a fine (or whatever)
upon conviction, for this *action*. This particula offence has no bearing on
whether you need a licence in future. That depends whether you watch TV on the
previously installed set or want to install another.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."
Jeff

I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.

So uninstalling the set will not / never extinguish liability for the
BBC Tax at the relevant address?

The penalty for installing a set without a licence is a fine (or whatever)
upon conviction, for this *action*. This particula offence has no bearing on
whether you need a licence in future. That depends whether you watch TV on the
previously installed set or want to install another.

Or 'intends to use it'

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."
Jeff

I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.

So uninstalling the set will not / never extinguish liability for the
BBC Tax at the relevant address?

The penalty for installing a set without a licence is a fine (or whatever)
upon conviction, for this *action*. This particula offence has no bearing on
whether you need a licence in future. That depends whether you watch TV on the
previously installed set or want to install another.

The wording seems to militate against that (see other posts - by other
posters - nearby which take up the same point).

[Roland Perry]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.

So uninstalling the set will not / never extinguish liability for the
BBC Tax at the relevant address?

The Act says nothing about un-installing a set, only about using it (and
if it's been un-installed you won't be able to use it).

Switching it on is not an act of installing, and switching it off isn't
an act of un-installing.

[Jeff]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
   it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

 I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.

So uninstalling the set will not / never extinguish liability for the
BBC Tax at the relevant address?

The Act says nothing about un-installing a set, only about using it (and
if it's been un-installed you won't be able to use it).
Switching it on is not an act of installing, and switching it off isn't
an act of un-installing.

I seem to recall there is case law that even unplugging the aerial or
mains is not enough to uninstall, if it is capable of being plugged back
in easily and quickly. Which also supports the notion that installing is
an ongoing situation.

(This may have been radio equipment under the Wireless Telegraphy Act
which contains identical wording re installation and use without a licence)

Jeff

[Roland Perry]

Post by Jeff

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful,
though they need to prove who did it. But once it is installed
it is quite lawful for it to remain insalled, as long as it is
not used for receiving broadcast television either for immediate
watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once
installed    it still requires a licence, the "installation", not
only the act of installing, requires a licence: " A television
receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and
use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part."

 I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.

So uninstalling the set will not / never extinguish liability for
the BBC Tax at the relevant address?

The Act says nothing about un-installing a set, only about using it
(and if it's been un-installed you won't be able to use it).
Switching it on is not an act of installing, and switching it off
isn't an act of un-installing.

I seem to recall there is case law that even unplugging the aerial or
mains is not enough to uninstall, if it is capable of being plugged
back in easily and quickly. Which also supports the notion that
installing is an ongoing situation.

Apart from it being clear from the legislation that it means "initial
installation", not "keeping it operational". The exmption for TV dealers
doing the installation is what nails it (even though everyone airbrushes
out that subsection).

[Les. Hayward]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jeff
I seem to recall there is case law that even unplugging the aerial or
mains is not enough to uninstall, if it is capable of being plugged
back in easily and quickly. Which also supports the notion that
installing is an ongoing situation.

Apart from it being clear from the legislation that it means "initial
installation", not "keeping it operational". The exmption for TV dealers
doing the installation is what nails it (even though everyone airbrushes
out that subsection).

Indeed. I used to do training for the amateur licence, which permits
transmission & reception of various modes of TV as well.

When I started to get the letters, I wrote back and said that the place
was littered with bits of television stuff, for the purposes of repair
and the training of self and others in the art of electronics and
wireless telegraphy.

I also said that they were welcome to come and inspect, but did advise
as to making an appointment, since I live on a rural smallholding and
could not be responsible for accidents arising from unscheduled visits,
due to bulls in the yard, dangerous dogs, silage pits and the shooting
of vermin.

They declined.

[JNugent]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jeff

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful,
though  they need  to prove who did it. But once it is installed
it is quite lawful  for it to  remain insalled, as long as it is
not used for receiving broadcast  television  either for
immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once
installed it still requires a licence, the "installation", not
only the act of  installing, requires a licence:  " A television
receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation
and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part."

 I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.

So uninstalling the set will not / never extinguish liability for
the  BBC Tax at the relevant address?

 The Act says nothing about un-installing a set, only about using it
(and  if it's been un-installed you won't be able to use it).
 Switching it on is not an act of installing, and switching it off
isn't an act of un-installing.

I seem to recall there is case law that even unplugging the aerial or
mains is not enough to uninstall, if it is capable of being plugged
back in easily and quickly. Which also supports the notion that
installing is an ongoing situation.

Apart from it being clear from the legislation that it means "initial
installation", not "keeping it operational". The exmption for TV dealers
doing the installation is what nails it (even though everyone airbrushes
out that subsection).

That's because the dealer's installation engineer (or any repairman
called in by a householder) is acting on behalf of the customer.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
   it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

 I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.

So uninstalling the set will not / never extinguish liability for the
BBC Tax at the relevant address?

The Act says nothing about un-installing a set, only about using it (and
if it's been un-installed you won't be able to use it).
Switching it on is not an act of installing, and switching it off isn't
an act of un-installing.

So, what is?

And does it necessarily involve a sledgehammer?

If not, it seems from what you said in another post here, namely:

'unpacking it and plugging it in etc, is the act of "installing"'

that once it has been plugged in for the first time, it is 'installed'
and will forever remain so regardless of whether it's subsequently
unplugged, has no aerial, or put up in the loft in a big cardboard box.

And if it's 'installed', it requires a licence.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful,
though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving
broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
   it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

 I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.

So uninstalling the set will not / never extinguish liability for
the BBC Tax at the relevant address?

The Act says nothing about un-installing a set, only about using it
(and if it's been un-installed you won't be able to use it).
Switching it on is not an act of installing, and switching it off
isn't an act of un-installing.

So, what is?

It doesn't matter, because the law is only concerned about the initial
installation (and subsequent use).

Post by Norman Wells
And does it necessarily involve a sledgehammer?
'unpacking it and plugging it in etc, is the act of "installing"'
that once it has been plugged in for the first time, it is 'installed'
and will forever remain so regardless of whether it's subsequently
unplugged, has no aerial, or put up in the loft in a big cardboard box.

Think about parking a car on the pavement, something else that's
generally prohibited. You have to be caught in the act. Coming along
later and finding the car parked there isn't sufficient.

Post by Norman Wells
And if it's 'installed', it requires a licence.

No, if it is used; or you are caught in the act of initially installing
it.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Norman Wells

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful,
though  they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving
broadcast  television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
   it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

 I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.

So uninstalling the set will not / never extinguish liability for
the  BBC Tax at the relevant address?

 The Act says nothing about un-installing a set, only about using it
(and  if it's been un-installed you won't be able to use it).
 Switching it on is not an act of installing, and switching it off
isn't  an act of un-installing.

So, what is?

It doesn't matter, because the law is only concerned about the initial
installation (and subsequent use).

Post by Norman Wells
And does it necessarily involve a sledgehammer?
'unpacking it and plugging it in etc, is the act of "installing"'
that once it has been plugged in for the first time, it is 'installed'
and will forever remain so regardless of whether it's subsequently
unplugged, has no aerial, or put up in the loft in a big cardboard box.

Think about parking a car on the pavement, something else that's
generally prohibited. You have to be caught in the act. Coming along
later and finding the car parked there isn't sufficient.

Post by Norman Wells
And if it's 'installed', it requires a licence.

No, if it is used; or you are caught in the act of initially installing it.

Not so. Section 363 of the Communications Act 2003 says:

"(3) A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
control who—
(a) intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
(b) knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another
person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
is guilty of an offence."

Intention to install or use does not require actual installation
(whatever that is) or use.

All the person has to do to require a licence is to have it in his
possession with such an intention. And such an intention will be
readily inferred because that is what the receiver is for and how the
vast majority use it.

I suggest a magistrate would need an awful lot of persuading that you
had it with any other intention.

[RustyHinge]

Post by Norman Wells
I suggest a magistrate would need an awful lot of persuading that you
had it with any other intention.

I wanted it for some of its components yer'onner.

[JNugent]

[ ... ]

... the law is only concerned about the initial
installation (and subsequent use).

Post by Norman Wells
And does it necessarily involve a sledgehammer?
'unpacking it and plugging it in etc, is the act of "installing"'
that once it has been plugged in for the first time, it is
'installed' and will forever remain so regardless of whether it's
subsequently unplugged, has no aerial, or put up in the loft in a big
cardboard box.

Think about parking a car on the pavement, something else that's
generally prohibited. You have to be caught in the act. Coming along
later and finding the car parked there isn't sufficient.

Post by Norman Wells
And if it's 'installed', it requires a licence.

No, if it is used; or you are caught in the act of initially
installing it.

"(3)  A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
control who—
 (a) intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
 (b) knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another
person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
is guilty of an offence."
Intention to install or use does not require actual installation
(whatever that is) or use.

Exactly.

And it means that having bought your set at Richer Sounds, you have to
stop at the Post Office* on the way home. Strictly, you ought to have
gone to the Post Office before going to Richer Sounds, so that the
period of time between taking possession of the set and having a licence
is a minus or zero number of seconds.

[* Yes, I know that getting a TV Licence at the PO may not be possible
these days.]

All the person has to do to require a licence is to have it in his
possession with such an intention.  And such an intention will be
readily inferred because that is what the receiver is for and how the
vast majority use it.
I suggest a magistrate would need an awful lot of persuading that you
had it with any other intention.

[JNugent]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
   it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

 I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.

So uninstalling the set will not / never extinguish liability for the
BBC Tax at the relevant address?

The Act says nothing about un-installing a set, only about using it (and
if it's been un-installed you won't be able to use it).
Switching it on is not an act of installing, and switching it off isn't
an act of un-installing.

And obviously, uninstalling does not undo the legal effect of its
intallation.

Not never, not nohow.

[Roger Hayter]

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.

So uninstalling the set will not / never extinguish liability for the
BBC Tax at the relevant address?

The Act says nothing about un-installing a set, only about using it (and
if it's been un-installed you won't be able to use it).
Switching it on is not an act of installing, and switching it off isn't
an act of un-installing.

And obviously, uninstalling does not undo the legal effect of its
intallation.
Not never, not nohow.

There is *no* legal effect of installing it, except on the historical guilt of
the person carrying out the installation (assuming they did not hold a TV
licence for the premises at the time.[1]) There is no continuing effect on the
premises (or continuing effect on the individual for that matter) of leaving
the TV in an installed position. What matters on a continuing basis is whether
the TV is used for watching (or recording) TV broadcasts.

[1] On your construction the absurd conclusion would arise that having a TV
installation would require a licence only if there was *not* a current licence
when it was installed. If it had been installed while a licence was current
this would have been legal, and the contining installation could not require a
new licence to be purchased in the future.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter
There is *no* legal effect of installing it, except on the historical guilt of
the person carrying out the installation (assuming they did not hold a TV
licence for the premises at the time.[1]) There is no continuing effect on the
premises (or continuing effect on the individual for that matter) of leaving
the TV in an installed position. What matters on a continuing basis is whether
the TV is used for watching (or recording) TV broadcasts.
[1] On your construction the absurd conclusion would arise that having a TV
installation would require a licence only if there was *not* a current licence
when it was installed. If it had been installed while a licence was current
this would have been legal, and the contining installation could not require a
new licence to be purchased in the future.

What exactly do you mean by 'installed'? What specific (and presumably
one-off) acts 'install' a TV? If you can't say, you can't say who
installed it, can you?

So, a bit of precision is required methinks.

[JNugent]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by JNugent

Post by Roland Perry

Post by JNugent

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

The set has still there once been illegally installed and once installed
it still requires a licence, the "installation", not only the act of
" A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the
installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under
this Part."

I believe "installed" is interpreted as an action rather than a state.

So uninstalling the set will not / never extinguish liability for the
BBC Tax at the relevant address?

The Act says nothing about un-installing a set, only about using it (and
if it's been un-installed you won't be able to use it).
Switching it on is not an act of installing, and switching it off isn't
an act of un-installing.

And obviously, uninstalling does not undo the legal effect of its
intallation.
Not never, not nohow.

There is *no* legal effect of installing it, except on the historical guilt of
the person carrying out the installation (assuming they did not hold a TV
licence for the premises at the time.[1]) There is no continuing effect on the
premises (or continuing effect on the individual for that matter) of leaving
the TV in an installed position. What matters on a continuing basis is whether
the TV is used for watching (or recording) TV broadcasts.
[1] On your construction the absurd conclusion would arise that having a TV
installation would require a licence only if there was *not* a current licence
when it was installed. If it had been installed while a licence was current
this would have been legal, and the contining installation could not require a
new licence to be purchased in the future.

I was responding to the proposition that "...switching [a set] off isn't
an act of un-installing...".

You haven't challenged that.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roger Hayter
The act of installing it without a licence is also unlawful, though they need
to prove who did it. But once it is installed it is quite lawful for it to
remain insalled, as long as it is not used for receiving broadcast television
either for immediate watching or for recording.

Not without a licence.

"Meaning of “television receiver”

9.—(1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television
receiver” means any apparatus *installed or used* [emphasis added] for
the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or
otherwise) any television programme service,"

The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004

[RustyHinge]

Post by Colin Bignell

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by Clive Page
I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence

My son had a droid turn up. He was more polite than me, let him in,
and showed him the lack of TV...

I informed TV licencing after my father died, they sent a refund and a
letter confirming cancellation.
Then after 6 months they sent another letter saying "Something has
changed at $ADDRESS" given that nothing had changed I ignored it,
maybe Capita believe in reincarnation?  They send another letter most
months, the TV sits in the lounge unplugged from mains, unplugged from
the aerial, the screen facing the wall.

Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is broadcast
receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that exists is
plugged in.

Not so. The criterion is that if you don't use it, you don't have to pay.

[Jeff]

Post by RustyHinge

Post by Colin Bignell
Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is
broadcast receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that
exists is plugged in.

Not so. The criterion is that if you don't use it, you don't have to pay.

It is an offence to 'install' TV receiving apparatus regardless of
whether you 'use' it or not. Read the legislation.

Jeff

[The Todal]

Post by Jeff

Post by RustyHinge

Post by Colin Bignell
Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is
broadcast receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that
exists is plugged in.

Not so. The criterion is that if you don't use it, you don't have to pay.

It is an offence to 'install' TV receiving apparatus regardless of
whether you 'use' it or not. Read the legislation.
Jeff

I think we should read this instead.

https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

[Jeff]

Post by The Todal

Post by Jeff

Post by RustyHinge

Post by Colin Bignell
Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is
broadcast receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that
exists is plugged in.

Not so. The criterion is that if you don't use it, you don't have to pay.

It is an offence to 'install' TV receiving apparatus regardless of
whether you 'use' it or not. Read the legislation.
Jeff

I think we should read this instead.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

Why? It does not contain any info regarding installing equipment.

Jeff

[Roger Hayter]

Post by Jeff

Post by The Todal

Post by Jeff

Post by RustyHinge

Post by Colin Bignell
Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is
broadcast receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that
exists is plugged in.

Not so. The criterion is that if you don't use it, you don't have to pay.

It is an offence to 'install' TV receiving apparatus regardless of
whether you 'use' it or not. Read the legislation.
Jeff

I think we should read this instead.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

Why? It does not contain any info regarding installing equipment.
Jeff

It is ambiguous. Clearly you can "install" it to the extent that you can see
pictures on it in order to watch streaming services without a licence, but do
not need to "install" it to the extent that you can receive terrestrial or
satellite broadcasts. Whether the latter is distinguishable in practice
depends on the local setup. The conclusion I reach is that installation as a
criterion has been overtaken by technology. I am pretty sure there never has
been a prosecution for having a TV with mains and aerial in the corner, but no
evidence of watching it. And it is unlikely anyone would actually do the
installation while a licensing official was watching.

[Jeff]

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff

Post by The Todal

Post by Jeff

Post by RustyHinge

Post by Colin Bignell
Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is
broadcast receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that
exists is plugged in.

Not so. The criterion is that if you don't use it, you don't have to pay.

It is an offence to 'install' TV receiving apparatus regardless of
whether you 'use' it or not. Read the legislation.
Jeff

I think we should read this instead.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

Why? It does not contain any info regarding installing equipment.
Jeff

It is ambiguous. Clearly you can "install" it to the extent that you can see
pictures on it in order to watch streaming services without a licence, but do
not need to "install" it to the extent that you can receive terrestrial or
satellite broadcasts. Whether the latter is distinguishable in practice
depends on the local setup. The conclusion I reach is that installation as a
criterion has been overtaken by technology. I am pretty sure there never has
been a prosecution for having a TV with mains and aerial in the corner, but no
evidence of watching it. And it is unlikely anyone would actually do the
installation while a licensing official was watching.

I think it is a pretty clear distinction; if broadcast TV over the air
can be received by the 'installation' without any further changes or
modifications to the installation then it requires a licence.

Technology only becomes a problem when considering things over the internet.

Jeff

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter
It is ambiguous. Clearly you can "install" it to the extent that you
can see pictures on it in order to watch streaming services without a
licence, but do not need to "install" it to the extent that you can
receive terrestrial or satellite broadcasts. Whether the latter is
distinguishable in practice depends on the local setup. The
conclusion I reach is that installation as a criterion has been
overtaken by technology. I am pretty sure there never has been a
prosecution for having a TV with mains and aerial in the corner, but
no evidence of watching it. And it is unlikely anyone would actually
do the installation while a licensing official was watching.

I think it is a pretty clear distinction; if broadcast TV over the air
can be received by the 'installation' without any further changes or
modifications to the installation then it requires a licence.

But you're wrong. You don't need a licence just because there is
equipment installed *. If you don't believe me, just ask TV Licensing
(or check their web site). Or, er, read the legislation.

* The caveat to this is that if a TV licensing inspector comes round,
and for some reason you let them in, and they are able to report that
you have a TV plugged in to the mains and the aerial and set up in
prime position in the living room with all the chairs angled towards
it and TV Times magazine on the coffee table then, well... good luck
convincing the magistrate that you never watch TV on it.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Jeff

Post by Roger Hayter

Post by Jeff

Post by The Todal

Post by Jeff

Post by RustyHinge

Post by Colin Bignell
Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is
broadcast receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that
exists is plugged in.

Not so. The criterion is that if you don't use it, you don't have to pay.

It is an offence to 'install' TV receiving apparatus regardless of
whether you 'use' it or not. Read the legislation.

I think we should read this instead.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

Why? It does not contain any info regarding installing equipment.

It is ambiguous. Clearly you can "install" it to the extent that you
can see pictures on it in order to watch streaming services without a
licence, but do not need to "install" it to the extent that you can
receive terrestrial or satellite broadcasts. Whether the latter is
distinguishable in practice depends on the local setup. The
conclusion I reach is that installation as a criterion has been
overtaken by technology. I am pretty sure there never has been a
prosecution for having a TV with mains and aerial in the corner, but
no evidence of watching it. And it is unlikely anyone would actually
do the installation while a licensing official was watching.

I think it is a pretty clear distinction; if broadcast TV over the air
can be received by the 'installation' without any further changes or
modifications to the installation then it requires a licence.
Technology only becomes a problem when considering things over the internet.

Not at all. It's technology neutral when it comes to the transmission
medium. So applies equally to UHF, Satellite, classic Cable or Internet.

I sat in the relevant committee sessions (kicking people under the
table) back in 2002/3.

Back then most people were convinced "convergence" was thing - watching
TV on your PC, or typing your thesis into MS-Word on your TV. Pah! In
terms of content regulation (aka watersheds etc) we came quite close to
defining a TV as "whatever sits in the corner of the living room, and
everyone else has to watch whatever the person with the remote control
in their hand decides".

As for "Broadcasting", there's vestigial doubt in the mind of some
pedants about the simultaneousness, but we can dismiss that because
no-one cares that UHF and Sky Satellites (let alone iPlayer
streaming-live) are typically out of synch by up to four seconds. And
no-one seriously claims that's a loophole.

[Roger Hayter]

On 14 Jul 2022 at 11:50:14 BST, "Roland Perry" <***@perry.co.uk> wrote:
snip

Post by Roland Perry
As for "Broadcasting", there's vestigial doubt in the mind of some
pedants about the simultaneousness, but we can dismiss that because
no-one cares that UHF and Sky Satellites (let alone iPlayer
streaming-live) are typically out of synch by up to four seconds. And
no-one seriously claims that's a loophole.

Though an end of an era for the pips!

[Andy Burns]

Post by The Todal

Post by Jeff
Read the legislation.

I think we should read this instead.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

Why?  It does not contain any info regarding installing equipment.

it annoys me that we have laws that are so verbose, yet avoid being clear what
they mean, and which are often interpreted by the courts in ways that seem plain
wrong.

Then we end-up with websites like the above trying to explain the whole mess,
but end-up using very woolly language.

[The Todal]

Post by The Todal

Post by Jeff

Post by RustyHinge

Post by Colin Bignell
Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is
broadcast receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that
exists is plugged in.

Not so. The criterion is that if you don't use it, you don't have to pay.

It is an offence to 'install' TV receiving apparatus regardless of
whether you 'use' it or not. Read the legislation.
Jeff

I think we should read this instead.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

Why?  It does not contain any info regarding installing equipment.
Jeff

Although you said "read the legislation" you didn't give a link, so your
post didn't give any information either.

But see
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/legislation-and-policy-AB9

quote

Part 4 of the Communications Act 2003 makes it an offence to use or
install TV receiving equipment to:

* watch or record programmes as they’re being shown on TV or live
on an online TV service, including programmes streamed over the internet
and satellite programmes from outside the UK, or
* watch or download BBC programmes on demand, including catch up
TV, on BBC iPlayer without being covered by a TV Licence.

[Jeff]

Post by The Todal

Post by The Todal
I think we should read this instead.
https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ104

Why?  It does not contain any info regarding installing equipment.
Jeff

Although you said "read the legislation" you didn't give a link, so your
post didn't give any information either.

I didn't think it was necessary as the relevant section of the
Communications Act has already been posted. Hence the comment.

Jeff

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Jeff

Post by RustyHinge

Post by Colin Bignell
Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is
broadcast receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that
exists is plugged in.

Not so. The criterion is that if you don't use it, you don't have to pay.

It is an offence to 'install' TV receiving apparatus regardless of
whether you 'use' it or not. Read the legislation.

"Install" is something you do to the TV on the day you buy it, and then
it's done. Unless TV Licensing can prove who did that and when, they
can't prosecute anyone for it. That's not going to happen unless the
person spontaneously confesses (not entirely unlikely, of course).

[Norman Wells]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jeff

Post by RustyHinge

Post by Colin Bignell
Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is
broadcast receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that
exists is plugged in.

Not so. The criterion is that if you don't use it, you don't have to pay.

It is an offence to 'install' TV receiving apparatus regardless of
whether you 'use' it or not. Read the legislation.

"Install" is something you do to the TV on the day you buy it, and then
it's done.

Is it? Who says?

Does it then remain 'installed' if you (a) turn it off and unplug it
from the mains, (b) unplug the aerial lead, or (c) put it up in the loft
in a plastic bag?

In short, what does 'installed' mean?

Post by Jon Ribbens
Unless TV Licensing can prove who did that and when, they
can't prosecute anyone for it.

The law also provides that:

'A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his
control who ... intends to install or use it in contravention of
subsection (1) is guilty of an offence'.

So, you don't actually have to watch anything on it. You just have to
have it for the purpose for which it is intended.

Post by Jon Ribbens
That's not going to happen unless the
person spontaneously confesses (not entirely unlikely, of course).

I think you're concentrating erroneously on the 'process of installing'
a TV (whatever that comprises) rather than the state of its being
installed, which obviously requires its presence and, I would argue,
fairly easily being usable in the way nature intended.
.

[Max Demian]

Post by Jon Ribbens
"Install" is something you do to the TV on the day you buy it, and then
it's done.

Is it?  Who says?
Does it then remain 'installed' if you (a) turn it off and unplug it
from the mains, (b) unplug the aerial lead, or (c) put it up in the loft
in a plastic bag?
In short, what does 'installed' mean?

You have to take the valves out to make it "uninstalled".

[Roland Perry]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Jeff

Post by RustyHinge

Post by Colin Bignell
Unless it has changed, the criteria is whether or not there is
broadcast receiving equipment on the premises, not whether any that
exists is plugged in.

Not so. The criterion is that if you don't use it, you don't have to pay.

It is an offence to 'install' TV receiving apparatus regardless of
whether you 'use' it or not. Read the legislation.

"Install" is something you do to the TV on the day you buy it, and
then it's done.

Is it? Who says?
Does it then remain 'installed' if you (a) turn it off and unplug it
from the mains, (b) unplug the aerial lead, or (c) put it up in the
loft in a plastic bag?
In short, what does 'installed' mean?

The Act contains more than the quotes so far published, viz:

363(3) A person with a television receiver in his possession or under
his control who

(a) intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or

(b) knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person
intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,

is guilty of an offence.

The slightly different language there makes it more likely the
"installing" is a one-off activity.

[Jeff]

Post by Roland Perry
363(3) A person with a television receiver in his possession or under
       his control who
 (a) intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
 (b) knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person
     intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
       is guilty of an offence.
The slightly different language there makes it more likely the
"installing" is a one-off activity.

I don't see that changes things at all it just reflects what is in
Subsec (1). The act of installing results in an ongoing installation. It
is no different to many other offences that do not stop once the initial
act is committed. Of course the only difficulty with an ongoing unused
installation is who to prosecute.

If it were not the case that the installation was considered to be
ongoing, the whole offence of installing would be rather pointless.

Jeff

[Roland Perry]

Post by Jeff

Post by Roland Perry
363(3) A person with a television receiver in his possession or under
       his control who
 (a) intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or
 (b) knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person
     intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
       is guilty of an offence.
The slightly different language there makes it more likely the
"installing" is a one-off activity.

I don't see that changes things at all it just reflects what is in
Subsec (1). The act of installing results in an ongoing installation.
It is no different to many other offences that do not stop once the
initial act is committed. Of course the only difficulty with an ongoing
unused installation is who to prosecute.
If it were not the case that the installation was considered to be
ongoing, the whole offence of installing would be rather pointless.

I expect the act of installing being an offence is supposed to be a
chilling effect on the installers, who might refuse to do it unless the
householder could show they had a licence.

Just like there may be a law which says a gun shop can't sell a weapon
to someone unless they are happy the customer has a firearms
certificate. It would be that act of selling which was an offence, not a
duty to keep checking with the customer if they still owned it and still
had a licence.

[Norman Wells]

Post by Roland Perry

Post by Jeff

 363(3) A person with a television receiver in his possession or under
        his control who
   (a) intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection
(1), or
   (b) knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another
person
      intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,
         is guilty of an offence.
 The slightly different language there makes it more likely the
"installing" is a one-off activity.

I don't see that changes things at all it just reflects what is in
Subsec (1). The act of installing results in an ongoing installation.
It is no different to many other offences that do not stop once the
initial act is committed. Of course the only difficulty with an
ongoing unused installation is who to prosecute.
If it were not the case that the installation was considered to be
ongoing, the whole offence of installing would be rather pointless.

I expect the act of installing being an offence is supposed to be a
chilling effect on the installers, who might refuse to do it unless the
householder could show they had a licence.

Again, not so. Dealers have a general exemption in Section 363 of the
Communications Act 2003:

"(5) Subsection (1) is not contravened by anything done in the course of
the business of a dealer in television receivers solely for one or more
of the following purposes—
(a) installing a television receiver on delivery;
(b) demonstrating, testing or repairing a television receiver."

Post by Roland Perry
Just like there may be a law which says a gun shop can't sell a weapon
to someone unless they are happy the customer has a firearms
certificate. It would be that act of selling which was an offence, not a
duty to keep checking with the customer if they still owned it and still
had a licence.

There's no need to use analogies when we have the actual legislation we
can read..

[Norman Wells]

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by Clive Page
I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence

My son had a droid turn up. He was more polite than me, let him in,
and showed him the lack of TV...

I informed TV licencing after my father died, they sent a refund and a
letter confirming cancellation.
Then after 6 months they sent another letter saying "Something has
changed at $ADDRESS" given that nothing had changed I ignored it, maybe
Capita believe in reincarnation?  They send another letter most months,
the TV sits in the lounge unplugged from mains, unplugged from the
aerial, the screen facing the wall.

Why then do you keep it?

[RustyHinge]

Post by Norman Wells

Post by Andy Burns

Post by Vir Campestris

Post by Clive Page
I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence

My son had a droid turn up. He was more polite than me, let him in,
and showed him the lack of TV...

I informed TV licencing after my father died, they sent a refund and a
letter confirming cancellation.
Then after 6 months they sent another letter saying "Something has
changed at $ADDRESS" given that nothing had changed I ignored it,
maybe Capita believe in reincarnation?  They send another letter most
months, the TV sits in the lounge unplugged from mains, unplugged from
the aerial, the screen facing the wall.

Why then do you keep it?

On the basis of 'may cumminandhi even if I never use it'. I suspect.

[Roland Perry]

Post by Vir Campestris
But isn't there a protection from harassment act or suchlike? Someone
here will know better than I.
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_from_Harassment_Act_1997>

I drafted some of the more recent amendments to that, but it's not
really intended to address mis-informed corporate creditors, rather than
stalkers.

[David McNeish]

Post by Clive Page
And I'm just wondering: does this letter constitute libel, or do I have to make it public in some way for that to be possible?

Even if they sent it to a third party, what's libellous about telling
them your address doesn't have a TV licence?

[Jeff Layman]

Post by Clive Page
I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence, fortunately. And a record in my bank account of having paid it as recently as April 2022 when the previous licence was due for renewal. Despite this the shower who do TV Licensing (is is still Messrs Crapita? that might explain quite a lot) keeps on sending me letters saying that I haven't paid. The latest is in a red envelope and is headed
"You are now breaking the law if you watch TV at this address".
This is obviously not true. They don't provide any way of contacting them such as an email address or a postal address, only a non-free telephone number which I will not use as it is their mistake and I don't see why I should pay for a call to correct it.
If I don't respond then I guess there may be a visit from some droid, which is what they are threatening. That would no doubt cost them a lot of money. I am tempted to just leave it so that happens.
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to have a proper postal address on it somewhere - all is says is "Scott Robson, Enforcement Manager, Oxford" with no company registered address on it anywhere and no postcode. Surely this cannot be legal?
And I'm just wondering: does this letter constitute libel, or do I have to make it public in some way for that to be possible?

This is what the section on "Accuracy" at TV LIcensing's Privacy Policy
(https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/privacy-security-policies) states:

"*What the law says, and what it means for TV Licensing and your data*

Your personal data must be kept accurate and up to date, with every
reasonable step taken to ensure that inaccuracies are erased or
rectified. This means that if a mistake or an error is discovered, by
you or by us, we will put it right.

*How accurate is the data held on our systems?*

We will take all appropriate measures to make sure our records are
correct. You can ask us to update any personal data if you think it’s
wrong, out of date, or incomplete.

Please help us keep your personal data up to date. For example, let us
know if you move, if your email address or phone number changes, if your
surname changes or has been misspelled, or if your postcode is wrong.

If your details have changed, the easiest way to let us know is to
update your details (NB these three words are a hyperlink to
<https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/cs/update/multiple-changes/index.app>) on
our website.

You can also view, check and download your TV Licence. (this is a
hyperlink to
<https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/cs/update/your-licence/index.app?authorizationFilterPageName=authorization-view>)

Alternatively, you can let us know about changes by calling 0300 790
6131 or writing to TV Licensing, Darlington DL98 1TL, giving us the
details we currently hold on you, together with the correct ones."

Also see the section headed "How you can contact us" at
<https://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/cs/contact-us/index.app>, and note the
complaints section at the bottom.

If you can get to a phone or mobile phone with free calls, use that to
phone the 0300 number. Failing that, if you have to write to them at the
Darlington address, include a bill for a second class stamp, and see how
they respond.

[[e-mail]]

I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence, fortunately. And a record in my bank account of having paid it as recently as April 2022 when the previous licence was due for renewal. Despite this the shower who do TV Licensing (is is still Messrs Crapita? that might explain quite a lot) keeps on sending me letters saying that I haven't paid. The latest is in a red envelope and is headed
"You are now breaking the law if you watch TV at this address".
This is obviously not true. They don't provide any way of contacting them such as an email address or a postal address, only a non-free telephone number which I will not use as it is their mistake and I don't see why I should pay for a call to correct it.
If I don't respond then I guess there may be a visit from some droid, which is what they are threatening. That would no doubt cost them a lot of money. I am tempted to just leave it so that happens.
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to have a proper postal address on it somewhere - all is says is "Scott Robson, Enforcement Manager, Oxford" with no company registered address on it anywhere and no postcode. Surely this cannot be legal?

They don't want people telling them they don't have a TV.

And I'm just wondering: does this letter constitute libel, or do I have to make it public in some way for that to be possible?
--
Clive Page

I didn't have a TV in the late 1970's until my parents gave me their old B&W for Xmas , having bought a colour set.

TV licensing had been writing for quite a while saying I needed a license.

I went out and bought a license in the New Year as soon as I got back home.

Not long after a TV Licensing Jobsworth visited unannounced. He asked if I had a TV, I said yes, could he come - yes of course. He was rubbing his hands with glee when he spotted the TV switched on in the lounge, so he asked if I had a license. I handed him the one I had just bought. He furiously added my flat number to the address (which I deleted) and stormed off deeply frustrated with some of my advice about sex and travel. Still makes me smile.

[Ben]

I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence, fortunately. And a record in my bank account of having paid it as recently as April 2022 when the previous licence was due for renewal. Despite this the shower who do TV Licensing (is is still Messrs Crapita? that might explain quite a lot) keeps on sending me letters saying that I haven't paid. The latest is in a red envelope and is headed
"You are now breaking the law if you watch TV at this address".
This is obviously not true. They don't provide any way of contacting them such as an email address or a postal address, only a non-free telephone number which I will not use as it is their mistake and I don't see why I should pay for a call to correct it.
If I don't respond then I guess there may be a visit from some droid, which is what they are threatening. That would no doubt cost them a lot of money. I am tempted to just leave it so that happens.
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to have a proper postal address on it somewhere - all is says is "Scott Robson, Enforcement Manager, Oxford" with no company registered address on it anywhere and no postcode. Surely this cannot be legal?
And I'm just wondering: does this letter constitute libel, or do I have to make it public in some way for that to be possible?
--
Clive Page

I just ignore the letters completely.

If they visit you, refer them to Arkell vs. Pressdram.

They have no powers of entry although they try to make it seem like they do.

FYI all convictions happened when naive people *invited* them in and confessed to watching live broadcasts without a license.

[The Todal]

Post by Ben

I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence, fortunately. And a record in my bank account of having paid it as recently as April 2022 when the previous licence was due for renewal. Despite this the shower who do TV Licensing (is is still Messrs Crapita? that might explain quite a lot) keeps on sending me letters saying that I haven't paid. The latest is in a red envelope and is headed
"You are now breaking the law if you watch TV at this address".
This is obviously not true. They don't provide any way of contacting them such as an email address or a postal address, only a non-free telephone number which I will not use as it is their mistake and I don't see why I should pay for a call to correct it.
If I don't respond then I guess there may be a visit from some droid, which is what they are threatening. That would no doubt cost them a lot of money. I am tempted to just leave it so that happens.
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to have a proper postal address on it somewhere - all is says is "Scott Robson, Enforcement Manager, Oxford" with no company registered address on it anywhere and no postcode. Surely this cannot be legal?
And I'm just wondering: does this letter constitute libel, or do I have to make it public in some way for that to be possible?
--
Clive Page

I just ignore the letters completely.
If they visit you, refer them to Arkell vs. Pressdram.
They have no powers of entry although they try to make it seem like they do.
FYI all convictions happened when naive people *invited* them in and confessed to watching live broadcasts without a license.

In case anyone is tempted to waste their time searching for an imaginary
case called Arkell vs Pressdram which, they hope, gives them a right to
have a TV without a licence, the words "fuck off" don't require any
citing of case law.

[Ben]

I have a valid TV Licence: an actual printed licence, fortunately. And a record in my bank account of having paid it as recently as April 2022 when the previous licence was due for renewal. Despite this the shower who do TV Licensing (is is still Messrs Crapita? that might explain quite a lot) keeps on sending me letters saying that I haven't paid. The latest is in a red envelope and is headed
"You are now breaking the law if you watch TV at this address".
This is obviously not true. They don't provide any way of contacting them such as an email address or a postal address, only a non-free telephone number which I will not use as it is their mistake and I don't see why I should pay for a call to correct it.
If I don't respond then I guess there may be a visit from some droid, which is what they are threatening. That would no doubt cost them a lot of money. I am tempted to just leave it so that happens.
I would have thought that a threatening letter of this form ought to have a proper postal address on it somewhere - all is says is "Scott Robson, Enforcement Manager, Oxford" with no company registered address on it anywhere and no postcode. Surely this cannot be legal?
And I'm just wondering: does this letter constitute libel, or do I have to make it public in some way for that to be possible?
--
Clive Page

FWIW back when I was a student staying in student dorms at university we used to be harassed by such letters and visits from Crapita inspectors. Foreign students, ignorance of the nuance of "receiving live broadcasts" vs. just having a TV with a games console attached, were easy pickings for said inspectors. I would say the majority of foreign students I spoke to assumed you needed a license for having a TV, period.

They really are foul vultures, preying on ignorance and people's inclination to comply with official-looking letters and people.

I believe the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation is unique in being a media company sponsored by taxes.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Ben
I believe the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation

That's a peculiar name for the TV propaganda wing of the Tory party.

Post by Ben
is unique in being a media company sponsored by taxes.

That is not even remotely true. A great many countries have
state-sponsored broadcasting organisations, and many of those
are funded directly from general taxation, unlike the BBC.

[Ben]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben
I believe the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation

That's a peculiar name for the TV propaganda wing of the Tory party.

I wouldn't say the BBC is a propaganda wing of the Tory party, because at times the relationship between them and the incumbents have been fraught. It is probably more accurate to say the BBC has their own agenda which is funded by taxes. The Bolshevik term applies because of its Socialist funding structure and (some may argue) perceived brainwashing in line with said agenda.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben
is unique in being a media company sponsored by taxes.

That is not even remotely true. A great many countries have
state-sponsored broadcasting organisations, and many of those
are funded directly from general taxation, unlike the BBC.

Oh, a media company of that sort. Can you please name another such company in another country with relatively liberal press freedoms (c.f. Press Freedom Index)?

Whoever controls the purse strings (or the legislation that controls the purse strings), pulls the strings.

https://www.acton.org/publications/transatlantic/2020/03/12/challenging-monopolies-bbc

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Ben

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben
I believe the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation

That's a peculiar name for the TV propaganda wing of the Tory party.

I wouldn't say the BBC is a propaganda wing of the Tory party, because
at times the relationship between them and the incumbents have been
fraught. It is probably more accurate to say the BBC has their own
agenda which is funded by taxes. The Bolshevik term applies because of
its Socialist funding structure and (some may argue) perceived
brainwashing in line with said agenda.

But the BBC's agenda (certainly the news department) is pro-Tory.
Are you calling the Tories "socialist"?

Post by Ben

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben
is unique in being a media company sponsored by taxes.

That is not even remotely true. A great many countries have
state-sponsored broadcasting organisations, and many of those
are funded directly from general taxation, unlike the BBC.

Oh, a media company of that sort. Can you please name another such
company in another country with relatively liberal press freedoms
(c.f. Press Freedom Index)?

The top 5 countries in the Press Freedom Index are Norway, Denmark,
Sweden, Estonia, and Finland. Every single one of those countries
has a state-owned/state-controlled TV broadcaster. I stopped looking
after the top 5 because it's now your turn to explain why your claims
are so utterly divorced from reality.

Post by Ben
Whoever controls the purse strings (or the legislation that controls
the purse strings), pulls the strings.

So you agree the Tories control the BBC.

[Ben]

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben
I believe the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation

That's a peculiar name for the TV propaganda wing of the Tory party.

I wouldn't say the BBC is a propaganda wing of the Tory party, because
at times the relationship between them and the incumbents have been
fraught. It is probably more accurate to say the BBC has their own
agenda which is funded by taxes. The Bolshevik term applies because of
its Socialist funding structure and (some may argue) perceived
brainwashing in line with said agenda.

But the BBC's agenda (certainly the news department) is pro-Tory.
Are you calling the Tories "socialist"?

No, it's the funding of a monopoly by taxes that is socialist.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben
is unique in being a media company sponsored by taxes.

That is not even remotely true. A great many countries have
state-sponsored broadcasting organisations, and many of those
are funded directly from general taxation, unlike the BBC.

Oh, a media company of that sort. Can you please name another such
company in another country with relatively liberal press freedoms
(c.f. Press Freedom Index)?

The top 5 countries in the Press Freedom Index are Norway, Denmark,
Sweden, Estonia, and Finland. Every single one of those countries
has a state-owned/state-controlled TV broadcaster. I stopped looking
after the top 5 because it's now your turn to explain why your claims
are so utterly divorced from reality.

My mistake.

The Press Freedom of a country is not measured by the independence or quality of a single broadcaster.

Nevertheless the use of a television has far exceeded just watching the BBC, who are the main beneficiaries of the license.

This is even before we consider the toxic collection practices of the TV license.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben
Whoever controls the purse strings (or the legislation that controls
the purse strings), pulls the strings.

So you agree the Tories control the BBC.

Whoever controls the BBC is the incumbent who may scupper the funding of the BBC by cancelling the TV license.

[Jon Ribbens]

Post by Ben

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben
I believe the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation

That's a peculiar name for the TV propaganda wing of the Tory party.

I wouldn't say the BBC is a propaganda wing of the Tory party, because
at times the relationship between them and the incumbents have been
fraught. It is probably more accurate to say the BBC has their own
agenda which is funded by taxes. The Bolshevik term applies because of
its Socialist funding structure and (some may argue) perceived
brainwashing in line with said agenda.

But the BBC's agenda (certainly the news department) is pro-Tory.
Are you calling the Tories "socialist"?

No, it's the funding of a monopoly by taxes that is socialist.

So it's "socialist" funding of a right-wing news organisation. Cunning.

Post by Ben

Post by Jon Ribbens
The top 5 countries in the Press Freedom Index are Norway, Denmark,
Sweden, Estonia, and Finland. Every single one of those countries
has a state-owned/state-controlled TV broadcaster. I stopped looking
after the top 5 because it's now your turn to explain why your claims
are so utterly divorced from reality.

My mistake.
The Press Freedom of a country is not measured by the independence or
quality of a single broadcaster.
Nevertheless the use of a television has far exceeded just watching
the BBC, who are the main beneficiaries of the license.

They're the only beneficiaries, as far as I'm aware. And there have
been non-BBC television channels for well over sixty years, so the
fact that there are other uses of TVs is not exactly new.

Post by Ben
This is even before we consider the toxic collection practices of the TV license.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben
Whoever controls the purse strings (or the legislation that controls
the purse strings), pulls the strings.

So you agree the Tories control the BBC.

Whoever controls the BBC is the incumbent who may scupper the funding
of the BBC by cancelling the TV license.

Only if they actually threaten to do so.

I must admit I don't understand why it wouldn't be fine and indeed
eminently sensible to simply abolish the licence fee and fund the
BBC via a government grant that is the same amount as the licence
fee income. No more threatening letters for the public, and the
BBC would get more money since it would no longer be paying the
costs of collecting the licence fee.

[JNugent]

Post by Ben

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben
I believe the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation

That's a peculiar name for the TV propaganda wing of the Tory party.

I wouldn't say the BBC is a propaganda wing of the Tory party, because
at times the relationship between them and the incumbents have been
fraught. It is probably more accurate to say the BBC has their own
agenda which is funded by taxes. The Bolshevik term applies because of
its Socialist funding structure and (some may argue) perceived
brainwashing in line with said agenda.

But the BBC's agenda (certainly the news department) is pro-Tory.
Are you calling the Tories "socialist"?

No, it's the funding of a monopoly by taxes that is socialist.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben
is unique in being a media company sponsored by taxes.

That is not even remotely true. A great many countries have
state-sponsored broadcasting organisations, and many of those
are funded directly from general taxation, unlike the BBC.

Oh, a media company of that sort. Can you please name another such
company in another country with relatively liberal press freedoms
(c.f. Press Freedom Index)?

The top 5 countries in the Press Freedom Index are Norway, Denmark,
Sweden, Estonia, and Finland. Every single one of those countries
has a state-owned/state-controlled TV broadcaster. I stopped looking
after the top 5 because it's now your turn to explain why your claims
are so utterly divorced from reality.

My mistake.
The Press Freedom of a country is not measured by the independence or quality of a single broadcaster.
Nevertheless the use of a television has far exceeded just watching the BBC, who are the main beneficiaries of the license.

They are the *only* beneficiaries of the BBC Tax (which is officially
called the "TV Licence").

Some may point to S4C, but it's only the BBC's "share" of that which is
paid for by the BBC Tax.

Post by Ben
This is even before we consider the toxic collection practices of the TV license.

Post by Jon Ribbens

Post by Ben
Whoever controls the purse strings (or the legislation that controls
the purse strings), pulls the strings.

So you agree the Tories control the BBC.

Whoever controls the BBC is the incumbent who may scupper the funding of the BBC by cancelling the TV license.