# No TV so No Licence but still getting final demand notices



## Peter54

I no longer have television in my home due to financial difficulties. I could not afford the TV Licence nor could I afford to keep a TV channel package.

I keep getting final demand letters about the licence.

Any idea please what the procedure is to 'prove' I don't have a TV when the licence person comes knocking?


----------



## Magpie

Peter54 said:


> I no longer have television in my home due to financial difficulties. I could not afford the TV Licence nor could I afford to keep a TV channel package.
> 
> I keep getting final demand letters about the licence.
> 
> Any idea please what the procedure is to 'prove' I don't have a TV when the licence person comes knocking?



You don't have to prove you don't have one, they have to prove you do. Write a letter stating you have no need of a license as you have no equipment, and any further demands for payment will be deemed as harassment and forwarded to the relevant authorities.


----------



## Sandals

A family member (nun living alone) was forced into getting a TV licence after repeatedly called on by "some sort of a person". There was an old dish on the side of the house. No TV in the house. However bought TV licence as didnt know at the time what to do and then decided to buy a TV and needless to say it has become well used, in fact just got a saorview box installed.


----------



## callybags

I'm sure I read somewhere that with a second or final demand for the license comes a Statutory Declaration Form where you can effectively swear on oath that you don't have a tv.

But I can't find anything on it so could be completely wrong.


----------



## roker

I got caught once because I still had an aerial installed on the chimney, (it was capable of receiving a signal they said)


----------



## martindfs

so if i dont have soarview unit do i have to pay the licence next year?   aerials will be obsolete from 21st october so where do i stand


----------



## jhegarty

You don't need a TV license for an aerial.


----------



## ajapale

jhegarty said:


> You don't need a TV license for an aerial.


Are you sure about that?
*TV License - Court summons*


----------



## Dermot

If you have no TV you do not need a license. Do not allow yourself to be bullied into purchasing one if you have no Tv


----------



## Time

jhegarty said:


> You don't need a TV license for an aerial.





ajapale said:


> Are you sure about that?
> *TV License - Court summons*



This point has not been properly tested in the courts. 
An Post will always maintain you do but the law as it stands says otherwise.

Appealing to An Post is not going to yield a proper answer, the only way An Post are going to stop saying this is for them to lose in court on this point. So far people are reluctant to take them on.


----------



## shesells

The 2009 Broadcasting Act only mentions televisions. I was under the impression that it was any device capable of receiving a signal but having scanned the appropriate parts of the Act (sections 142-149) I can't see anything to back that up.


----------



## Time

> The 2009 Broadcasting Act only mentions televisions.



Indeed that is the case but An Post don't share that viewpoint.


----------



## Omega

I was threatened with legal action a few years ago for having an aerial on the roof (there was no TV) and I was forced, through gritted teeth, to buy a license *for the aerial* after a long conversation with a very stroppy employee in An Post. I got absolutely nowhere with him, even after inviting him to send someone to the house anytime to check for televisions. He was absolutely adamant that under the 1926 Act (at the time) an aerial was required.


----------



## Time

You should have let him take you to court. They would have soon backed down.


----------



## jhegarty

If aerials required a license then you would need one for any coat hangers in your house and possibly your fillings.


----------



## AlbacoreA

martindfs said:


> so if i dont have soarview unit do i have to pay the licence next year?   aerials will be obsolete from 21st october so where do i stand



Why will aerials be obsolete?


----------



## martindfs

AlbacoreA said:


> Why will aerials be obsolete?


 
with saorview its digital so no need for an aerial. is it if you have a tv you need a licence???


----------



## Bronte

It looks like once An post decide to target you they will not rest until it's proved in court. Don't be afriad of goign to court. I have a sibling who went into the District Court, she just spoke honestly and the judge was very nice and threw out the case. (In that case it was the responsibility of the owner to have the licence, not the lodger).  Everybody else who didn't show up (mostly everybody) got a fine.

If the rule is TV = licence then you are can not be fined as you have no TV.


----------



## BOXtheFOX

callybags said:


> I'm sure I read somewhere that with a second or final demand for the license comes a Statutory Declaration Form where you can effectively swear on oath that you don't have a tv.
> 
> But I can't find anything on it so could be completely wrong.


 
Why should a person be forced to sign a statutory declaration?


----------



## AlbacoreA

martindfs said:


> with saorview its digital so no need for an aerial. is it if you have a tv you need a licence???



How do you think you recieve saorview?

http://www.saorview.ie/equipment/


----------



## DannyL

I have TV but it's not connected to anything but PlayStation. Do I have to pay the license anyway?


----------



## AlbacoreA

yes "TV" licence. 

If you had a monitor only then you wouldn't.


----------



## Woodie

Time said:


> You should have let him take you to court. They would have soon backed down.


This whole area is heartless.  Friend (disabled) was entitled to free license but was unaware of how to get it until he got outside help.  Was approved for the license but while waiting got a summons for no license.  Court did not consider his written submission and duly fined him, plus he had to buy a license while he waited for the wheels of government to get around to issuing him with the license he was entitled to.  Ended up with two licenses and would not refund the second one!
Fair does not come into it, if you have any equipment they will hound you.  Friend no longer with us, not blaming this but the stress it caused was criminal.


----------



## Magpie

DannyL said:


> I have TV but it's not connected to anything but PlayStation. Do I have to pay the license anyway?



Not if it isn't capable of picking up a signal you don't. The key is having equipment that can pick up a tv signal, whether you watch it or not. If you can't get tv though, no license needed. 
For example if you have a tv with a dvd player which has been rendered incaple of picking up live tv, no license needed.


----------



## Protocol

martindfs said:


> with saorview its digital so no need for an aerial. is it if you have a tv you need a licence???


 
*This is totally incorrect.*

The Saorview ads on TV mustn't be working.

Saorview is Digital Terrestial Television, received from the exact same masts as before by the same aerials.

Read the first line here:

http://www.saorview.ie/equipment/


----------



## Protocol

martindfs said:


> so if i dont have soarview unit do i have to pay the licence next year? aerials will be obsolete from 21st october so where do i stand


 
*Again, this is totally incorrect.*

Indeed, the opposite is the case, as more rooftop aerials may be required.

I myself may have to get one installed to receive DTT.


----------



## so-crates

Ring your local tv licence office, give them your name and address and state that you do not have any television reception equipment. I did it a couple of years ago, it doesn't entirely stop them but the harrassment did ease within the year. The hard part is trying to work out which is your "local" tv licence office. Being in Carlow my first guess was Waterford ... no, second guess was Dublin .... no - turns out it was Birr


----------



## Leo

Omega said:


> I was threatened with legal action a few years ago for having an aerial on the roof (there was no TV) and I was forced, through gritted teeth, to buy a license *for the aerial* after a long conversation with a very stroppy employee in An Post. I got absolutely nowhere with him, even after inviting him to send someone to the house anytime to check for televisions. He was absolutely adamant that under the 1926 Act (at the time) an aerial was required.


 
That was inded the case prior to the 2009 act which cleared this up. Previously all they needed was to show the presence of an apparatus capable of receiving a TV signal to require a license. As stated in a previous post, the 2009 cleared this up to include the term 'television set', but you should be aware, the definition of a set in the act is:



> “ television set ” means any electronic apparatus capable of receiving and exhibiting television broadcasting services broadcast for general reception (whether or not its use for that purpose is dependent on the use of anything else in conjunction with it) and any software or assembly comprising such apparatus and other apparatus;


 
It was reported at the time that this wording was added to that people watching TV on PCs, laptops, etc would fall under the act.


----------



## AlbacoreA

If that was true it means everyone not using a PC or Laptop for TV (and with no other devices) is also included aswell.


----------



## Peter54

They sent me out a declaration declaring that I do not possess a TV, which I had to sign.  Hopefully this will be the end of the letter writing and I will hear no more.


----------



## Leo

AlbacoreA said:


> If that was true it means everyone not using a PC or Laptop for TV (and with no other devices) is also included aswell.


 
That was the point!


----------



## AlbacoreA

Leo said:


> That was the point!



Really? you didn't mention that group, you mention the group using computers to view TV without an aerial which is entirely different.


----------



## Leo

AlbacoreA said:


> Really? you didn't mention that group, you mention the group using computers to view TV without an aerial which is entirely different.


 
Ah, where did I say whether an aerial was involved or not?


----------



## Time

Peter54 said:


> They sent me out a declaration declaring that I do not possess a TV, which I had to sign.  Hopefully this will be the end of the letter writing and I will hear no more.



There is no need to sign their junk letters.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Leo said:


> Ah, where did I say whether an aerial was involved or not?



You said the act was changed to include people watching TV on a computer. I simply made the point that definition includes all computers even those not used for watching TV. You feel you implied that, I felt it needed emphasis. If you're still not happy, may I suggest street countdown as an outlet.


----------



## Leo

OK, so now I didn't mention aerials...getting hard to keep up!

The act itself is clear enough. If anyone has questions, take a quick read.


----------



## AlbacoreA

You could argue apparatus includes aerials  as its " includes any part of such apparatus". 
Likewise you could argue it excludes computers as it is "capable of being conveniently used for any other purpose".


----------



## Leo

An aerial is an apparatus. 

Not sure what you mean by: "capable of being conveniently used for any other purpose"


----------



## AlbacoreA

Its from the earlier act. 



> ...the expression “apparatus for wireless telegraphy” means apparatus for sending and receiving or for sending only or for receiving only messages, spoken words, music, images, pictures, prints, or other communications, sounds, signs, or signals by wireless telegraphy and includes any part of such apparatus and any article primarily designed for use as part of such apparatus and *not capable of being conveniently used for any other purpose*;...



So therefore (my assumption) anything that can be used for another purpose, may not be under the scope of the act.


----------



## Time

Columbo from An Post will concede these points. It needs a proper court judgement to really clarify the law.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Seems to me they make the assumption that everyone needs to pay it unless you sign a declaration you don't watch TV.


----------



## Time

Even then they still visit and continue to hound people.

Many simply pay to end the hassle.


----------



## Leo

AlbacoreA said:


> Its from the earlier act.


 
The wireless telegraphy piece is an ammendment to the existing Wireless Telegraphy acts and primarily relates the shipping/aviation comms systems and excludes what is classed under the Broadcasting Act as a 'television set'.

The requirement to hold a TV licence for any apparatus classed as a 'television set' is dealt with separately under the act.


----------



## AlbacoreA

For example?


----------



## Leo

Example of what? A TV set? If so, I already quoted that section above.


----------



## AlbacoreA

Where it excludes a 'television set' 

Or where the 2009 take precedence if that's the right word.


----------



## Leo

Part 13 deals specifically with Wireless Telegraphy. Section 180 specifies the previous Wireless Telegraphy and Broadcasting (Offences) Acts that Part 13 applies to. The Next two sections state the changes and the sections of the above acts these changes apply to. It includes:   


> A person who keeps, has in his or her possession, installs, maintains, works or uses any apparatus (other than a television set) in contravention of this section commits an offence and is liable...


 
TV licencing is covered under Part 9, only that section is relevant here.


----------



## AlbacoreA

That bit doesn't define what an apparatus is though, but does mention it. So I have to assume the earlier act where its defined is the legal definition for an apparatus. Though in section 143 it states 



> (3) On the passing of this Act section 5 of the Act of 1926 does not apply to television sets.



Which was the bit I was looking for. So in summary any commuter (or smart phone for that matter) is considered a TV. So a student or anyone with a computer that doesn't use it for TV and doesn't have a TV can be asked for a TV licence. I know a few people who don't have a TV, and just use a monitor and a computer to watch movies and streamed content from the web. Some I know use their mobile or tablet for the same thing. The only way you can get out of it, is to sign something to say you don't watch TV.


----------



## Leo

Apparatus isn't called out under the act, so just goes by the dictionary definition of the term.

That's what I was getting at, the reporting at the times said the wording was deliberately chosen so effectively anyone with a PC, smartphone, etc., would be forced to pay.


----------



## Time

What have the courts said on the subject?


----------



## Time

Are you televisions visible from the front windows etc? The inspector has to see the televisions and speak to someone. If there is nothing visible from outside and there is no one there, I would not bother until you returned to Ireland.


----------



## Time

Your free to air sky will still work.


----------



## Time

If you can pick up any stations you are liable. The thing is they will back date your licence if you decide to leave it until you return, so there may be no advantage in renewing late.


----------



## Draigean

Peter54 said:


> I no longer have television in my home due to financial difficulties. I could not afford the TV Licence nor could I afford to keep a TV channel package.
> 
> I keep getting final demand letters about the licence.
> 
> Any idea please what the procedure is to 'prove' I don't have a TV when the licence person comes knocking?



I used to write back to them.  J Brady was the name on the end of their letters.

Eventually they sent someone out.  I told him on the doorstep that I'd no TV.  He said "grand".  That was it.  No biggie.


----------



## dub_nerd

I've just e-mailed the appropriate TV Licence office to tell them I won't have a TV as of the renewal date on the notice. I assume that's fair notice, and can be used as evidence that I told them (especially if I get reply).


----------



## dang

dub_nerd said:


> I've just e-mailed the appropriate TV Licence office to tell them I won't have a TV as of the renewal date on the notice. I assume that's fair notice, and can be used as evidence that I told them (especially if I get reply).



Hi dub_nerd. Just wondering if you have heard back from them? I have been having terrible trouble trying to prove to them I don't have a TV but they won't revisit the premises to check.


----------



## dang

Draigean said:


> I used to write back to them.  J Brady was the name on the end of their letters.
> 
> Eventually they sent someone out.  I told him on the doorstep that I'd no TV.  He said "grand".  That was it.  No biggie.




Hi Draigean, how did you manage to get someone to call out? I have been having terrible trouble trying to get them out. Originally the inspector said I had a TV when all I said was I watch TV on the Internet. Since then I have had letters of legal proceedings and now threatening with a summons to court. I have asked them numerous times to get the inspector to call out and see for themselves that I don't have a TV set that can access TV stations. Did J Brady get back to you and help?


----------



## Leo

dang said:


> I have asked them numerous times to get the inspector to call out and see for themselves that I don't have a TV set that can access TV stations.



If you do get them to call, make sure there are no aerials, satellite dishes, cable TV connections, etc. present. Also, if you have any kind of recognised TV set, even if it currently does not work, or is not connected to a aerial, cable or satellite, you must still have a licence, even if it is broken. Similarly, make sure any computer present does not have any connections for cable/aerial/satellite.

It'll all be immaterial when the broadcasting charge comes in in place of the TV licence, probably by the end of this year.


----------

