Latest news with #ITVHub
Wales Online
4 days ago
- Wales Online
'I thought I'd beaten the TV licence system, then I received a letter'
'I thought I'd beaten the TV licence system, then I received a letter' Lee Stuart thought he's answered all a TV licensing inspector's questions and wouldn't need a licence, then he found himself in court - here's what happened next Lee Stuart (Image: Colin Lane/Liverpool Echo ) A man is celebrating after a court case about his TV licence was dismissed. Lee Stuart applied for a TV licence when he moved into his property, but cancelled it later as he only watched online streaming platforms and never any live television. Guidance on the TV Licensing website says that viewers are required to have a licence to watch or record live TV on any channel or device, including live programming streamed online via services such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, and Amazon Prime Video. A licence is also required for using BBC iPlayer, the Liverpool Echo reports. A TV Licensing spokesperson said: "If a property we believe should be licensed is unlicensed, letters are sent to that address advising of the requirement for a TV Licence if the occupant watches live TV or other licensable content. "This stops for one year when the occupant declares they don't need a licence, when letters will resume to check if circumstances have changed." Last September a TV Licensing inspection officer visited Mr Stuart. Don't miss a court report by signing up to our crime newsletter here "I told him I didn't pay for a TV licence because I didn't think I needed one because I don't watch live TV," Mr Stuart said. Article continues below "I don't even have an aerial installed in my TV, and I invited him to do his checks. He was a bit apprehensive, but he looked at everything and asked me what I used the TV for. "So I told him I just watch Netflix and Amazon Prime through the PlayStation, and he asked me if I used BBC iPlayer and I said, 'no'." Mr Stuart said the officer then confirmed he wasn't breaching the television licensing requirements. He said the officer also documented their conversation and also read back the main points, including that no live TV was being watched and no BBC iPlayer account was used. "It was official, and I agreed with what he had said, so when I was presented with the big white signature box, I just signed it, and then he left. To be honest, I was really made up with myself, thinking I'd beaten the system and proved I didn't need a licence." Then, in January this year, Mr Stuart received a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN), covering people who are alleged to have watched TV without a licence. "It said if I pleaded not guilty, the fine would be larger and I may have to pay court costs. So I'm not sure what's going on at this point. "I look through it all and at the back was the inspector's statement. Straight away I clock the question, 'May I come in to inspect the TV receiver?' and it said 'no' in the answer box, so that was wrong because I did. "The next point was saying I admitted to watching the news last week. So I've refused him entry and then admitted on the step I watched live news last week? It didn't make any sense." Mr Stuart decided to contest the notice and represent himself in court. He said: "I can see why people just accept it, but I knew I was innocent and I wasn't paying for a TV licence that I didn't need so I fought it." "I'll be totally honest, I was surprised by the outcome and I thought it might be good to share my experience." Sefton Magistrates court dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence. A TV Licensing spokesperson said: "This was reviewed by TV Licensing following the court hearing in April, 2025, as is standard practice, and no failings were highlighted." The spokesperson said the officer and Mr Stuart gave credible testimony in person but that the magistrates could not find the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mr Stuart, who was satisfied with the outcome at first then received a further letter from TV Licensing advising of the licence requirement. He has now submitted a formal complaint and a No Licence Needed (NLN) declaration. Article continues below He added: "The form asks at the end, 'What outcome do you want from this?' and I just put 'All I want is to be left alone, but an apology wouldn't go amiss'." TV Licensing confirmed it had now received Mr Stuart's NLN declaration.
Daily Mirror
4 days ago
- Daily Mirror
Man thought he'd beaten the TV licence system - then a letter turned up
Lee Stewart cancelled because he did not watch any live television but after a conversation with a TV Licence inspection officer Lee was shocked to find he was facing a hefty fine A man is celebrating after a court case about his TV licence was thrown out by magistrates. Lee Stewart decided to cancel his TV licence because he did not watch any live television. However after a conversation with a TV Licence inspection officer, where he explained that he did not watch live telly, Lee was shocked to find a letter saying he was in breach of licence requirements and was facing a hefty fine. A license is needed to watch or record live TV, including live programmes streamed fro sites like ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, or Amazon Prime Video. You also need a license to watch BBC iPlayer. Mr Stuart was visited by a TV Licensing inspection officer in September last year. He said he saw the visit as an opportunity to explain his viewing habits in person. He said: 'I told him I didn't pay for a TV licence because I didn't think I needed one because I don't watch live TV." 'I don't even have an aerial installed in my TV, and I invited him to do his checks. He was a bit apprehensive, but he looked at everything and asked me what I used the TV for. "So I told him I just watch Netflix and Amazon Prime through the PlayStation, and he asked me if I used BBC iPlayer and I said, 'no'.' Mr Stuart said the officer confirmed he was not in breach of licensing requirements following the inspection, the Liverpool Echo reports. Mr Stuart, from Kirkby, described how the officer documented their conversation and read back the main points, including that no live TV was being watched and no BBC iPlayer account was used. He added: 'It was official, and I agreed with what he had said, so when I was presented with the big white signature box, I just signed it, and then he left. To be honest, I was really made up with myself, thinking I'd beaten the system and proved I didn't need a licence.' However, in January this year, Mr Stuart received a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN), which covers those who are alleged to have watched TV without a licence. Lee explained: 'It said if I pleaded not guilty, the fine would be larger and I may have to pay court costs. So I'm not sure what's going on at this point. 'I looked through it all, and at the back was the inspector's statement. Straight away I clocked the question, 'May I come in to inspect the TV receiver?' and it said 'no' in the answer box, so that was wrong because I did. 'The next point was saying I admitted to watching the news last week. So I've refused him entry and then admitted on the step I watched live news last week? It didn't make any sense.' Mr Stuart chose to contest the notice and represented himself at Sefton Magistrates Court. He said: 'I can see why people just accept it, but I knew I was innocent and I wasn't paying for a TV licence that I didn't need so I fought it.' "I'll be totally honest, I was surprised by the outcome and I thought it might be good to share my experience.' The court dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence. A TV Licensing spokesperson said: 'This was reviewed by TV Licensing following the court hearing in April 2025 as is standard practice, and no failings were highlighted.' The spokesperson added that while both the officer and Mr Stuart gave credible in-person testimony, the magistrates could not find the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mr Stuart, initially pleased with the outcome, later received a further letter from TV Licensing advising of the licence requirement. He has since submitted a formal complaint and a No Licence Needed (NLN) declaration. He added: 'The form asks at the end, 'What outcome do you want from this?' and I just put 'All I want is to be left alone, but an apology wouldn't go amiss'.' TV Licensing confirmed it has now received Mr Stuart's NLN declaration. A TV Licensing spokesperson said: 'If a property we believe should be licensed is unlicensed, letters are sent to that address advising of the requirement for a TV Licence if the occupant watches live TV or other licensable content. This stops for one year when the occupant declares they don't need a licence, when letters will resume to check if circumstances have changed.'
