/ Best time to buy a TV license?
When you have a TV.
although this being ukc, someone will be along shortly, to call me a complete idiot, give you an answer totally apposite to mine then insist 3 pebble slab is an e1. (its not its vs+ hvs-)
It makes no difference, but for the first 6 months you'll pay more
From the TV licence website:
You'll usually pay for your first licence within six months, in instalments of around £24 per month. (If we have to spread the cost into four or five monthly instalments, each payment may be slightly higher). From then on, you pay for your licences in 12 monthly instalments of just over £12 - six before your licence is due and six afte
5.37am on an odd day of the month when that month has a blue mean in it.
mildly more serious, the price increases are april (if its happening this year) so buying prior to that may be cheaper.
If you buy it now it will run out on 1 Jan 2014 but if you wait until 1 Feb it will run out 1 Feb 2014. Don't buy your first licence at the end of the month.
(Based on my recollection only)
> mildly more serious, the price increases are april (if its happening this year) so buying prior to that may be cheaper.
It's not happening this year, or next. Licence fees are frozen until 2016.
The point is the letters arrive and have begun to highlight more and more that i should get a licence and the consequences of not doing. Up to and including a presumably pleasant gentleman coming to my house and searching for unlicensed television equipment.
Despite contacting them on numerous occasions and explaining the situation the letters arrive like clockwork. Iím beginning to think they donít believe me. Anyone had this situation before that could offer advice?
> Despite contacting them on numerous occasions and explaining the situation the letters arrive like clockwork. Iím beginning to think they donít believe me. Anyone had this situation before that could offer advice?
Maybe they do believe you and think you need a licence. If you're watching Sky TV, you probably do need a licence.
A friend of mine was in a similar position, he was taken to court and their arguememnt was that he has the ability to watch tv even thou he may chose not to. lucky enough the judge was lenient and let him of just saying he needs to buy a licence within the next 5 days.
There's a link (in the letters) to an online form that you can fill in stating that you don't need one. I resisted doing this for about 3 years partly because I objected to being asked to justify not needing a licence (surely that should be the presumption), and partly because I wanted to see how long it would take for them to actually do anything. The letters get increasingly threatening, but nobody bothered to come round in person, and even if they had, they have no authority to enter your house.
After I filled in the online form, I didn't hear anything for about 5 years, when they asked me to confirm that I no longer needed one.
Best thing is to fill in the form, and failing that just ignore them; no reason to find the letters threatening if you are doing nothing wrong.
Do what I did and ignore them. You don't need to let them in unless accompanied by a cop.
That's quite funny because I used to be a bit of a pedant on here. I gave it up though, as I had better things to do.
found my tv worked just fine without one in my student days?
now i'm all grown up and responsible i found out that you can get out of this paying extra for 6 months bollo by paying quarterly.
think it cost an extra pound or two over a year but definitely not 6 months bloody payments!
I could be very wrong, but I understood that you need a licence if you have equipment capable of receiving a signal.
You have stated that you have such equipment, so ,if that is correct, then you should dispose of the TV to be legal.
(Waits to be corrected.......)
Here's your correction from the tvlicence website
You need to be covered by a valid TV Licence if you watch or record TV as it's being broadcast. This includes the use of devices such as a computer, laptop, mobile phone or DVD/video recorder.
Merely owning a Tv is not sufficient.
> Licence fees are frozen until 2016.
Is that because of the bad weather? It's not going to last that long is it, they said on the radio the weekend would be nice.
Cut and pasted from the website of TV licence rules-
The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.
You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch Ďcatch upí services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.
Re: the constant stream of letters people without a license receive. As an ex-postie I know they get sent to all registered addresses on the royal mail database that doesn't have a license on the tv database. They rotate the letters to make them seem as " they are onto you" but I had them sent to a near derelict house on my round for several years despite it being empty.
I don't have a license because I don't watch live tv as it is broadcast, I did have a telly to watch DVDs on but it wasn't connected to an arial. They send me letters on a regular basis and for the first year or 2 collectors would knock on my door a couple of times a year then post a vaguely threatening card saying they had called. If they had ever called when i was in I would have shown them that my telly couldn't receive live programmes.
Most people without a license are trying to dodge paying so they treat everyone in the same way, try not to be offended and just ignore them.
> I could be very wrong, but I understood that you need a licence if you have equipment capable of receiving a signal.
> You have stated that you have such equipment, so ,if that is correct, then you should dispose of the TV to be legal.
> (Waits to be corrected.......)
See 18:32 above, I corrected myself.
> Cut and pasted from the website of TV licence rules-
> The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence if you watch or record television programmes, on any device, as they're being shown on TV. This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.
> You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch Ďcatch upí services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.
Though isn't there a moral obligation to pay the licence if you use the iplayer (or any of the BBC's services, I suppose)?
> Though isn't there a moral obligation to pay the licence if you use the iplayer (or any of the BBC's services, I suppose)?
Does the BBC have a moral obligation to give licence fe payers a dividend from its commercial activities which include Dave, BBC world wide and the sale of programmes paid for by LF payers?
> Do what I did and ignore them. You don't need to let them in unless accompanied by a cop.
And they have a search warrant.
Even then it is not TV Licensing policy to force entry (imagine the scandal) so if you are in the East wing or whatever....
An odd story.
I attended a TV licence hearing last year for research purposes.
There were several cases where the defendant had, since the visit, bought a licence or started a payment plan. In these cases the (lay) prosecutor asked that the case be adjourned until the next scheduled hearing to check the defendant's good faith. There were also a number of cases where the case was withdrawn because the defendant had obviously kept up with their payments/not refunded the licence.
The Magistrates/district judge have no power to order anyone to purchase a licence (or else or otherwise) this is is evidenced by the typically twisted TVL line "you could face a fine of £1000 and you will still need to buy a TV licence".
Also the average fine issued on the day I attended was £65 +£35 (costs) + £15 (victim surcharge), make of that what you will.
The answer for a 'cheapscate' as I posted before, If you only watch catch up TV you need not buy a licence. A little bit of oganisation and forward thinking problem solved.
Here again are the rules Cut and PASTED from the website of TV licence rules so there is no argument-
"The law states that you need to be covered by a TV Licence IF you watch or record television programmes, on any device, AS they're being shown on TV.
This includes TVs, computers, mobile phones, games consoles, digital boxes and Blu-ray/DVD/VHS recorders.
(for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch ĎCATCH UP í services like BBC iPlayer or 4oD.)"
Well, what would happen first is that the TV license guy would have to go to court and get a court order before he could get a warrant, and in order to get the court order he would need evidence to justify it, and as far as I'm aware 'he looks like a wrong'un' is not sufficient in court.
The only people who ever get a search by the TV license people are fools who DO watch TV and have it visible from a window or something.
This is a more interesting question. We don't have a TV license as we don't watch broadcast TV. I do make plenty of use of iplayer and various BBC services though, and there was a point where I was going to buy a TV license just to help support what is a world class media organisation.
Unfortunately then the TV license people started their harassment campaign, so now they can get stuffed. They really are one of the scummiest organisations you can have the misfortune to deal with. If you actually notify them that you don't need a TV license they'll send someone round just in case you are a massive liar, and then they'll wait about 6 months and start their letter campaign again anyway. Even during that period they send you helpful reminders just in case you've bought a TV and 'forgotten' to get a license.
Their letters are carefully constructed to be as intimidating and threatening as possible without actually overstating their powers or your obligations (both of which are not very extensive) in black and white. I wonder how many vulnerable or poorly informed people have been tricked or bullied in to paying for something they don't need over the years?
I'm amazed at the number of people who cheerfully let these weasels in. The police don't do casual searches of your house just in case you're a criminal, the fishing license guys don't drop by to check that your garage isn't full of fish and even your landlord needs a formal process to come and look at his own property, and yet this commercial organisation demands unannounced access to people's houses and most people let them have it!
Could not agree more.
I would just point out that the number of SWs issued is minuscule a handful every year and reserved for special cases who have "annoyed" TV licensing in some way two I know of ar filming the inspector and putting the video on you tube and writing sarcy anonymous withdrawal of implied right of access letters
Elsewhere on the site
Perhaps the perfect Xmas gift for the climber in your life... Wild Country's Crack School has two of the worlds best crack... Read more
Tonight's Friday Night Video features the Norwegian town of Rjukan, once believed to be the home of the world's tallest... Read more
With four photos in this week's top ten, and a UKC gallery of stunning images we thought it was time we had a chat with... Read more
Rock shoes stink – let’s face it. Boot Bananas are the perfect way to fight the funk and keep them fresh. They help... Read more
F ounded in 1993, Mountain Hardwear are a pretty young mountaineering clothing and equipment manufacturer but are also one of... Read more