Congestion Charge

Richard Goodman said:

It's not really the same. Although TV licensing are a nuisance, they can't prosecute you if you
really don't have a set. On the other hand you can become liable for certain fines and penalties
merely by being the registered keeper of a vehicle. If you were not the true keeper/owner at the
relevant time then you'd better make your representations about it in time if you want to avoid
having to pay the penalty (plus the additional penalties and costs of late payment).

There was something I heard recently that said if you sold a car, until the DVLA had registered the
change of owner you were still responsible for it as the registered keeper

Tony

davebee said:

Richard Goodman said:

It's not really the same. Although TV licensing are a nuisance, they can't prosecute you if
you really don't have a set. On the other hand you can become liable for certain fines and
penalties merely by being the registered keeper of a vehicle. If you were not the true
keeper/owner at the relevant time then you'd better make your representations about it in time
if you want to avoid having to pay the penalty (plus the additional penalties and costs of
late payment). Rich

So you are saying that theorectically I could be sent fines for driving offences despite the fact
I don't own a car and am not even the holder of a driving lciense, and have never driven a car in
my life and only been inside one a handful of times. Of course if I told them that they would then
sue me for driving without a license, insurance etc etc!!!!! ;-)

You're not the OP, are you? If you've never owned a car or have a driving license you're not going
to be on the DVLA database so you're not going to get a letter saying you've not paid the congestion
charge, are you?

The OP had sold the car that what then spotted in the congestion charge area without the charge
being paid. Different story.
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "I've just learned about his illness. Let's hope it's nothing
trivial." - Irvin S. Cobb www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

Quoted message said:

I just braced myself for a visit from the detector van (do they still use them) and prepared for a
debate on whether a monitor was a TV receiver or not. I've not been visited and I've been here 10
years now. It could be because my house is a bit off the beaten track.

According to the lone anti-licence fee protestor I chatted to outside the BBC in Manchester you can
use a TV as a monitor (e.g. for your playstation/CCTV as long as it isn't tuned in or used to watch
TV so unfortunately no fun arguments will be coming your way (unless you've got aTV card in your
computer...)

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.comOpen ↗).
Version: 6.0.596 / Virus Database: 379 - Release Date: 26/02/2004

Tony Raven said:

Richard Goodman said:

It's not really the same. Although TV licensing are a nuisance, they can't prosecute you if you
really don't have a set. On the other hand you can become liable for certain fines and penalties
merely by being the registered keeper of a vehicle. If you were not the true keeper/owner at the
relevant time then you'd better make your representations about it in time if you want to avoid
having to pay the penalty (plus the additional penalties and costs of late payment).

There was something I heard recently that said if you sold a car, until the DVLA had registered
the change of owner you were still responsible for it as the registered keeper

Nah, as long as you send of the form on the day, you're OK. If you have limited confidence in the
civil servic &| greater than normal paranoia, you might want to send it recorded...

Quoted message said:

davebee said:

Richard Goodman said:

It's not really the same. Although TV licensing are a nuisance, they can't prosecute you if
you really don't have a set. On the other

hand

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you can become liable for certain fines and penalties merely by

being

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the registered keeper of a vehicle. If you were not the true keeper/owner at the relevant
time then you'd better make your representations about it in time if you want to avoid
having to pay

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

penalty (plus the additional penalties and costs of late payment). Rich

So you are saying that theorectically I could be sent fines for driving offences despite the
fact I don't own a car and am not even the holder of a driving lciense, and have never driven a
car in my life and only been inside one a handful of times. Of course if I told them that they
would then sue me for driving without a license, insurance etc etc!!!!! ;-)

For some reason davebee's response hasn't appeared directly on my newserver, but anyway, insurance
matters aside yes, that is a fact. Under the Road Traffic Act 1991, the owner of a vehicle is liable
for the penalty charge when a Penalty Charge Notice is issued to a vehicle. The Act says the owner
is presumed to be the registered keeper. So if for some reason someone registers you as the keeper
of a vehicle, with or without your knowledge or consent (and we have had clients who have claimed it
has been done without their knowledge and consent) you will be faced with a powerful presumption
that you are the owner and therefore liable in law for the payment of any penalty charges that have
been incurred on that vehicle. That presumption can be rebutted, but only by making representations
to the effect that you are not the owner - and the burden of proof will be on you. If you fail to
make representations, you could find yourself liable for charges running into the £00's or £000's,
which has actually happened to clients of ours who for whatever reason did not deal with the various
notices which were sent until they had bailiffs knocking at their doors. Then it is just hell and
very time consuming to try and get them out of liability at that stage.

Rich

Mark Thompson said:

According to the lone anti-licence fee protestor I chatted to outside the BBC in Manchester you
can use a TV as a monitor (e.g. for your playstation/CCTV as long as it isn't tuned in or used to
watch TV so unfortunately no fun arguments will be coming your way (unless you've got aTV card in
your computer...)

What's the situation if you view on-line rather than with an aerial?

Tony

JohnB said:

i'm going through the same. I'm now on my 7th letter from them since last March, all with varying
degrees of threat.

It's odd. They have phases of being agressive, then go silent for years. The last time they were
pestering me it got as far as them sending me a letter which said in big red letters, visible from
outside teh envelope "We have reason to believe you may be comitting an offence". I have to say
that's the only time I've actually yelled at them down the phone.

regards, Ian SMith
--
|\ /| no .sig
|o o|
|/ \|

JohnB said:

I have been waiting for their 'Enforcement Team' to arrive with gleeful anticipation as I hope to
be playing a DVD film at the time, and to be able to say, "Hang on a sec.... <call into sitting
room> Children, can you turn that down please", then ask him what he wants ;-)

Remember that there are many bogus officials out there. If anyone comes to the door, be sure to
check their ID thoroughly - phone up to validate it if you are unsure, and don't use any phone
numbers on their card - they might be bogus too.

for instance:

west-midlands.police.ukbogus officials.shtmlOpen ↗

<cite> Most callers are probably quite genuine, but some are not.

They could be confidence tricksters or thieves. That's why it's important to take precautions when
people call at your home.

...

Bogus 'officials' may be smartly dressed and claim to be from the council, gas board, health
authority or other organisation. Their real purpose is to talk their way into your home to see what
they can steal.

If you don't know the caller, ask to see their identity card. Check it carefully, and keep the chain
on while you do this. Genuine callers won't mind if you close the door while you do this.

...

If you're still not sure, ask the caller to come back later. You can then check their story by
phoning the organisation or company they claim to represent. Look up the number in your own
telephone directory. Don't rely on the telephone number on their card - it may be the number of a
crook's partner.

<cite>

;-)

--
Alan J. Wylie wylie.me.ukwylie.me.ukOpen ↗ "Perfection [in design] is achieved not when there is nothing
left to add, but rather when there is nothing left to take away." -- Antoine de Saint-Exupery

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:03:24 -0000, "Mark Thompson"
<[email hidden] (change warm for hot)> wrote (more
or less):

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I just braced myself for a visit from the detector van (do they still use them) and prepared for
a debate on whether a monitor was a TV receiver or not. I've not been visited and I've been here
10 years now. It could be because my house is a bit off the beaten track.

According to the lone anti-licence fee protestor I chatted to outside the BBC in Manchester you can
use a TV as a monitor (e.g. for your playstation/CCTV as long as it isn't tuned in or used to watch
TV so unfortunately no fun arguments will be coming your way (unless you've got aTV card in your
computer...)

No - because you /own/ the tuner in the TV, even if you're not actively using it.

Owning a monitor need not mean you own a TV /tuner/.

But owning a tv means you certainly /do/. Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗
Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗ Smalltalk links (harvested from
comp.lang.smalltalk) html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 23:28:44 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

Mark Thompson said:

According to the lone anti-licence fee protestor I chatted to outside the BBC in Manchester you
can use a TV as a monitor (e.g. for your playstation/CCTV as long as it isn't tuned in or used to
watch TV so unfortunately no fun arguments will be coming your way (unless you've got aTV card in
your computer...)

What's the situation if you view on-line rather than with an aerial?

Depends on what you mean by 'on-line'

If you have a satellite receiver / cable box which connect to a TV, the tv has a tuner in it.
(Whether or not you connect it to an aerial)

If you connect the satellite receiver/cable box to a monitor & speakers via S-Video or something, do
the satellite receiver or cable box count as tv receivers, I wonder. (I suspect they do, mind you.)

There is another definition of 'on-line' of course - If you download material from the BBC's
website and view on a PC (and don't possess a radio or tv tuner of any kind, presumably you don't
need a licence.

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗ Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

"Gawnsoft" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

No - because you /own/ the tuner in the TV, even if you're not actively using it.

Owning a monitor need not mean you own a TV /tuner/.

But owning a tv means you certainly /do/.

It's not the ownership of a tuner that counts. What counts is the _use_ of TV equipment to receive
broadcasts. There will be a reasonable presumption that if a set is connected to an aerial and the
channels are tuned in that you have so used it, so if you get a visit from TV licensing, are foolish
enough to let them in and turn your TV on, and it displays a broadcast channel you will be done even
if you say "but I only use it for video games". If, on the otherhand, they switch it on and see
nothing but an interference pattern on all the channels and it isn't plugged into an aerial, you
might well be able to succeed in arguing that you don't actually use it to receive TV broadcasts.

Rich

In article <[email hidden]>, Richard Goodman

Quoted message said:

If, on the otherhand, they switch it on and see nothing but an interference pattern on all the
channels and it isn't plugged into an aerial, you might well be able to succeed in arguing that
you don't actually use it to receive TV broadcasts.

In an earlier life I was a TV Dealer. Unless the law has been changed if the receiving apparatus is
"capable" of reception of transmissions a licence is required. This applies to TV sets, videos and
tuner cards for pc's - dealers retailing these products are required by law to return the name and
address of the purchaser.

A classic case was of the village in Northumberland (?) where it was only possible to receive ITV
signals - the powers that be decreed that a licence was still needed because the "apparatus was
capable of reception".

The law may have changed but if it has it will probably have become more onerous and harder to
understand.

hth

--
A T (Sandy) Morton on the Bicycle Island In the Global Village millport.netmillport.netOpen ↗

Sandy Morton said:

In article <[email hidden]>, Richard Goodman

Quoted message said:

If, on the otherhand, they switch it on and see nothing but an interference pattern on all the
channels and it isn't plugged into an aerial, you might well be able to succeed in arguing that
you don't actually use it to receive TV broadcasts.

In an earlier life I was a TV Dealer. Unless the law has been changed if the receiving apparatus
is "capable" of reception of transmissions a licence is required. This applies to TV sets, videos
and tuner cards for pc's - dealers retailing these products are required by law to return the name
and address of the purchaser.

A classic case was of the village in Northumberland (?) where it was only possible to receive ITV
signals - the powers that be decreed that a licence was still needed because the "apparatus was
capable of reception".

The law may have changed but if it has it will probably have become more onerous and harder to
understand.

Richard is right. Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 it is an offence to:

"... install or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under the authority of a licence in
that behalf granted by the Postmaster General ...".

although a TV set is not actually defined until the the Wireless Telegraphy [Television Licence
Fees] Regulations [1997]:

"... such apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving television programme services, as
defined by section 2.--(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1990, whether or not the apparatus is installed
or used for other purposes."

The key is the phrase in the Act and Regulations is "installed and used for" which means that if it
is not installed _and_ used for watching broadcast TV programmes (which are widely defined to
include satellite and cable but curiously not Teletext) you are in the clear. It is up to the
inspectors to prove that you were using it and not for you to prove you weren't.

The most usual proof is self confession but detector vans or observing it switched on and receiving
a broadcast programme are also proof of use. If it is switched off they cannot ask you to switch it
on so they can check - that one was thrown out in a 1991 Court case.

Tony

Gawnsoft said:

If you have a satellite receiver / cable box which connect to a TV, the tv has a tuner in it.
(Whether or not you connect it to an aerial)

UK Satellite you need a license, European satellite (eg Astra 1G) you don't

Quoted message said:

If you connect the satellite receiver/cable box to a monitor & speakers via S-Video or
something, do the satellite receiver or cable box count as tv receivers, I wonder. (I suspect
they do, mind you.)

Yes they do. Its the use that matters, not the tuner

Quoted message said:

There is another definition of 'on-line' of course - If you download material from the BBC's
website and view on a PC (and don't possess a radio or tv tuner of any kind, presumably you don't
need a licence.

As with satellite, if its a UK on-line programme live you do. If its archive material or overseas
you do not

Tony

"Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Richard is right. Under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1949 it is an offence

to:

Quoted message said:

"... install or use any apparatus for wireless telegraphy except under the authority of a licence
in that behalf granted by the Postmaster General

...".

Quoted message said:

although a TV set is not actually defined until the the Wireless

Telegraphy

Quoted message said:

[Television Licence Fees] Regulations [1997]:

"... such apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving

television

Quoted message said:

programme services, as defined by section 2.--(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1990, whether or not the
apparatus is installed or used for other

purposes."

Quoted message said:

The key is the phrase in the Act and Regulations is "installed and used

for"

Quoted message said:

which means that if it is not installed _and_ used for watching broadcast

TV

Quoted message said:

programmes (which are widely defined to include satellite and cable but curiously not Teletext)
you are in the clear. It is up to the inspectors

to

Quoted message said:

prove that you were using it and not for you to prove you weren't.

The most usual proof is self confession but detector vans or observing it switched on and
receiving a broadcast programme are also proof of use. If

it

Quoted message said:

is switched off they cannot ask you to switch it on so they can check -

that

Quoted message said:

one was thrown out in a 1991 Court case.

Weell... the key phrase would seem to be "install _or_ use", which is certainly not 'capable' but
also somewhat more onerous than install _and_ use. But in practice I've certainly not seen or heard
of any prosecutions merely for installing. It's use that will get you. In any event, there also has
to be a question over what constitutes 'installing' - I would be inclined to argue, were I to be
faced with prosecution on the point, that "installing" means more than plugging a set in and
switching it on - it also requires the connection of an aerial and tuning to the signals. But of
course the safest option and the general advice if you really want to use an unlicensed set for
video games and DVDs only is to render it incapable of reception.

Rich

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:41:31 -0000, "Tony Raven"
<[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

The key is the phrase in the Act and Regulations is "installed and used for" which means that if it
is not installed _and_ used for watching broadcast TV programmes

Except the text of the act you quoted said installed /OR/ used for. NOT installed /AND/ used for.

Big difference in meaning.

In the text of the act, installation is all that's needed.

Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: gawnsoft.co.srgawnsoft.co.srOpen ↗ Symbian/Epoc wiki: html.dnsalias.nethtml.dnsalias.netOpen ↗
Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) html.dnsalias.netsmalltalkOpen ↗

Gawnsoft said:

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 19:41:31 -0000, "Tony Raven" <[email hidden]> wrote (more or less):

Quoted message said:

The key is the phrase in the Act and Regulations is "installed and used for" which means that if
it is not installed _and_ used for watching broadcast TV programmes

Except the text of the act you quoted said installed /OR/ used for. NOT installed /AND/ used for.

Big difference in meaning.

In the text of the act, installation is all that's needed.

My mistake but still not that big a difference. It has to be installed for receiving broadcasts, not
simply installed. If its not connected to an aerial and not tuned in to any broadcasts it hasn't
been installed for receiving broadcasts.

Tony

Richard Goodman said:

Weell... the key phrase would seem to be "install _or_ use", which is certainly not 'capable' but
also somewhat more onerous than install _and_ use. But in practice I've certainly not seen or
heard of any prosecutions merely for installing. It's use that will get you. In any event, there
also has to be a question over what constitutes 'installing' - I would be inclined to argue, were
I to be faced with prosecution on the point, that "installing" means more than plugging a set in
and switching it on - it also requires the connection of an aerial and tuning to the signals. But
of course the safest option and the general advice if you really want to use an unlicensed set for
video games and DVDs only is to render it incapable of reception.

Whoops, you're right. There has been a test case many years ago that I remember and as long as it is
not connected to an aerial (and I think there was not aerial in the test case) and not tuned into
any broadcast channels you are OK. However it is up to the inspectors to prove that and they cannot
simply walk in, switch your set on and check it without your permission. They have to have observed
it being used or picked it up with a detector van.

Tony

Ian Smith <[email hidden]>typed

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 20:25:19 +0000, JohnB <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

i'm going through the same. I'm now on my 7th letter from them since last March, all with
varying degrees of threat.

Quoted message said:

It's odd. They have phases of being agressive, then go silent for years. The last time they were
pestering me it got as far as them sending me a letter which said in big red letters, visible from
outside teh envelope "We have reason to believe you may be comitting an offence". I have to say
that's the only time I've actually yelled at them down the phone.

I had an inspector visit.

"Do come in and have a look at my Non-TV." I said.

He went no further than the doorstep as it seem obvious to him I had no TV.

--
Helen D. Vecht: [email hidden] Edgware.

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 17:14:21 +0000, [email hidden] (Alan J. Wylie) wrote: <snip>

Quoted message said:

If you don't know the caller, ask to see their identity card. Check it carefully, and keep the
chain on while you do this. Genuine callers won't mind if you close the door while you do this.

...

If you're still not sure, ask the caller to come back later. You can then check their story by
phoning the organisation or company they claim to represent. Look up the number in your own
telephone directory. Don't rely on the telephone number on their card - it may be the number of a
crook's partner.

Just popping out of lurkdom to comment on this.

If you want to really be sure, when the TV license bloke calls, keep him waiting on the doorstep
whilst you phone the TV license organisation and ask them to describe the man on your doorstep who
is claiming to be an inspector. After all, a name can be faked as well as a phone number. Supposing
they have just scanned a real ID? Of course, if they protest about this, call the police. I despise
the presumption of guilt that comes with being TV-free. It is only fair to reflect this presumption
back upon them. Assume they are a con-man/burglar until they prove otherwise.

Give the inspector as weird a time as possible. Think Royston Vasey. Insist they remove shoes before
entering and make them wear plastic bags over their socks. Place newspaper down for them to step on
as they inspect your house. Carry a spray bottle and cloth and clean anything they touch. Be polite,
but be weird. Have a little fun. :-)

ObBike. Someone was talking about hills up to their house. I have a 500m long, 150m high climb to
get to my house. And this is relatively flat for round here!
--
Matt K Dunedin, NZ