# Tv License - Court summons



## EmmaJane (2 Oct 2008)

Hi all, 

I was renting my apt out for the last year, and they never renewed the tv license. 

Now the girls that was living her, has gone travelling to Australia for the next year with her bf.

I recieved a letter today in the post for her, registered, so i text her, and she advices to open it, so we see that its a letter stating she has been called to court for a summons for no tv license. 

Im technically the owner of the apt, and the tv, so i went out and got 1 asap. 

Ive sent a letter to the main place in dub, with the ref # of the license etc.

Does this mean she doesnt have to go to the court date now, now that i have purchased the up to date tv license? 

Has anyone any advice, as its her name on the summons, she cannot come back from her travells as it would cost her a fortune.

Any advice would be great. thanks.


----------



## csirl (2 Oct 2008)

*Re: Tv License*

The occupiers, not the owners, are responsible for buying the TV license.

From the An Post website - terms and conditions in TV license section:



> Any person in occupancy at an address where a television set is held is legally responsible for the licensing of the television set regardless of ownership of either the premises or the set itself.


 
Buying a TV license now does not wipe out the offence of not having one in the past, so the summons is still in effect. If she cannot attend, maybe she should hire a solicitor to appear on her behalf.


----------



## elcato (2 Oct 2008)

*Re: Tv License*

If its her name on the summons then she is liable for the court appearance. You could turn up yourself and explain the circumstances and that you have purchased the license since but at the end of the day it's her fault for not getting one when presumably she got a warning to do so. I'm not certain but I think non-appearance will just give her a (possibly higher) fine than if she appeared as opposed to an bench warrant so it will mean she will be liable to pay the fine when she gets back. I base this on experience of parking fines many moons ago which I think is the same today.


----------



## Celtwytch (2 Oct 2008)

*Re: Tv License*



csirl said:


> The occupiers, not the owners, are responsible for buying the TV license.


 
For this very reason, my landlord did not put a TV in the apartment I rented a few years ago.  

I'm curious as to how the summons came in the renter's name in the first place.  Did she give her name to a TV licence inspector or something?


----------



## Caveat (2 Oct 2008)

*Re: Tv License*



Celtwytch said:


> For this very reason, my landlord did not put a TV in the apartment I rented a few years ago.


 
This may not have been sufficient for you to have been exempt. 

AFAIK, the ability to receive a signal (e.g. if the apartment had an aerial socket + aerial) is enough to warrant a requirement for a license.


----------



## Diziet (2 Oct 2008)

*Re: Tv License*



Caveat said:


> This may not have been sufficient for you to have been exempt.
> 
> AFAIK, the ability to receive a signal (e.g. if the apartment had an aerial socket + aerial) is enough to warrant a requirement for a license.



I think you have misinterpreted the regulations. The presence of an aerial does not mean that you have equipment capable of receiving a signal. You would not, for example, be able to just plug a monitor into it and watch TV. You need a TV receiver for that, which is what the regulations cover. In many areas, a TV with a small portable antenna is enough anyway. Conversely, ownership of a small portable aerial does not mean you need a license! The equipment needs also to be capable of letting you watch the said received signal. 

In other words, if you don't have a TV (or TV card, or VHS recorder with monitor or some such permutation) then you don't need a license.


----------



## Caveat (2 Oct 2008)

Fair enough - maybe I stand corrected then.

I didn't think it was quite as simple as no TV= no license requirement though.


----------



## Celtwytch (2 Oct 2008)

Caveat said:


> Fair enough - maybe I stand corrected then.
> 
> I didn't think it was quite as simple as no TV= no license requirement though.


 
It really is that simple - for the moment, at least.  According to An Post's website: _Any premises with a television needs a TV Licence.  _There is no mention of a premises being wired to accept TV signals needing a licence.  Mind you, they may need to change their wording to take account of the increasing amount of gadgets that allow you to watch TV!  Anyways, in my case, the landlord was leaving it to his tenants to decide what they wanted to do.  I bought my own TV - and my own licence.

Oh, I found this on the An Post site too, which is relevant to this discussion:

_Any person in occupancy at an address where a television set is held is legally responsible for the licensing of the television set regardless of ownership of either the premises or the set itself._


----------



## starlite68 (2 Oct 2008)

Caveat said:


> Fair enough - maybe I stand corrected then.
> 
> I didn't think it was quite as simple as no TV= no license requirement though.


 of course its that simple..thats why its called a TV licence, if you dont have a TV you dont need a licence.......would you need a dog licence if you did,nt have dog?


----------



## nuac (2 Oct 2008)

Ask at any An Post office for the number of the An Post official in the area dealing with TV licences.   Contact that official and explain the situation.

Do not leave it until the morning of the court.    Whoever is prosecuting for An Post - in most areas it is the local State Solicitor - will probably have a list of cases to deal with and may not have time to discuss it with you.    In any case (s)he may have to refer the query to the An Post official involved.


----------



## maturin (2 Oct 2008)

>> I didn't think it was quite as simple as no TV= no license requirement though. 			 		 	 	 
> It really is that simple - for the moment, at least.  According to An Post's website: _
> Any premises with a television needs a TV Licence.  _There is no mention of a
> premises being wired to accept TV signals needing a licence.

I'm not sure that is correct. A neighbour who doesn't have a TV but did have a roof aerial was visited by license inspectors. He was informed that he needed a license since the aerial was capable of receiving a TV signal! He appealed without success. Eventually he took down the aerial rather than pay the license.

I did a quick google search and found the following from Seanad debates:

"Recently I was advised that a school, which does not have a television, was being pressured to obtain a TV licence. The reason was there was a broken piece of aerial protruding from the roof of the school; at one time the school had a licence. However, under the legislation, the holding of an aerial or part of a receiver or even a monitor or screen requires a TV licence."  - Seanad Éireann - Volume 137 - 24 June, 1993

It does seem bizarre.


----------



## csirl (2 Oct 2008)

The summons is for the former tenant, not the landlord, so I'm not sure why the landlord needs to be involved other than informing the former tenant of the summons. Its up to the former tenant to make arrangements for court. If they are not represented in court, I doubt it would be struck out - as a previous poster said, they'd likely get a larger fine than if they turned up and apologised. 

I think the OP - probably trying to be helpful, is getting too involved in this. I would strongly advise the OP against turning up at court. Its not the OPs responsibility to look after the legal affairs of a former tenant or inform a court of the tenants excuses and I very much doubt that a Judge would be willing to listen to a 3rd party anyway - they are only interested in the person summonsed or a legal professional acting under instruction.

Just pass the summons onto the former tenant and leave it at that.


----------



## MandaC (2 Oct 2008)

csirl said:


> The summons is for the former tenant, not the landlord, so I'm not sure why the landlord needs to be involved other than informing the former tenant of the summons. Its up to the former tenant to make arrangements for court. If they are not represented in court, I doubt it would be struck out - as a previous poster said, they'd likely get a larger fine than if they turned up and apologised.
> 
> I think the OP - probably trying to be helpful, is getting too involved in this. I would strongly advise the OP against turning up at court. Its not the OPs responsibility to look after the legal affairs of a former tenant or inform a court of the tenants excuses and I very much doubt that a Judge would be willing to listen to a 3rd party anyway - they are only interested in the person summonsed or a legal professional acting under instruction.
> 
> Just pass the summons onto the former tenant and leave it at that.



This is totally correct.  The summons is not in the landlords name, if the TV Licence people want to pursue the landlord, it starts again with the inspector calling to the house, etc, which they are now not going to do, as there is a TV Licence in place.  

However, for the person with the summons, which is now deemed received as signed for, perhaps they should either write a letter from Australia, confirming that they are away, or ask someone else to turn up at the court for them.


----------

