No TV so No Licence but still getting final demand notices

I have TV but it's not connected to anything but PlayStation. Do I have to pay the license anyway?
 
Time said:
You should have let him take you to court. They would have soon backed down.
Click to expand...
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.
 
DannyL said:
I have TV but it's not connected to anything but PlayStation. Do I have to pay the license anyway?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 

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:


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

There is no need to sign their junk letters.
 
Leo said:
Ah, where did I say whether an aerial was involved or not?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
An aerial is an apparatus.

Not sure what you mean by: "capable of being conveniently used for any other purpose"
 
Its from the earlier act.


So therefore (my assumption) anything that can be used for another purpose, may not be under the scope of the act.
 
Columbo from An Post will concede these points. It needs a proper court judgement to really clarify the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register