visit from tv licensing

NEWS... BUT NOT AS YOU KNOW IT

TV licence: Can inspectors visit your house and what are their rights?

Share this with

The TV licence fee has been increased for 2021, meaning it now costs £159 a year to watch television in your home.

The fee pays for the BBC – so even if you just watch iPlayer or online shows via BBC Three , you’re not exempt from the fee.

While old-fashioned fears about mysterious figures in vans searching for errant households are a figment of the imagination, TV licence inspectors are a very real thing.

Find out what to expect if a visiting officer comes to your door.

Can TV licence inspectors visit your house?

Inspectors can visit your house, although you’re likely to receive a letter before this point.

You can refuse to let an inspector in, but this might lead to them getting a court order – which means they would be allowed to enter by law without your permission.

According to the TV Licensing service, letters are sent to all homes that don’t have a TV Licence , and may get ‘progressively stronger’ if no reply is received.

The service takes into account the possibility that people may have forgotten to pay, or simply don’t watch television .

However, if the letters are ignored, inspectors may come to investigate the situation.

What happens when a TV licence inspector visits your house?

If an inspector visits your home, expect them to look for evidence of a television set up – and ask you about whether you use catch-up services like iPlayer.

They will check for TV-receiving equipment, and ask for a signature from you, confirming their notes.

Sorry, this video isn't available any more.

Visiting officers may interview an individual they suspect to have committed an offence under the Communications Act 2003, but only after they have cautioned that person.

The visit is likely to be quick, and they should ‘avoid threatening or intimidating behaviour’.

What are the rights of a TV Licence inspector?

TV Licence inspectors can’t visit your house when you’re not present unless they have a warrant from a magistrate (or a sheriff in Scotland).

In these cases, the visiting officers will be accompanied by the police.

In most cases however, the inspectors will show you two forms of ID on your doorstep, and enter the property only when given permission.

They have to ‘respect people’s rights to privacy and confidentiality ’, but they may wear a body camera during the process.

MORE : How much is the TV licence fee in 2021 and what happens if you don’t pay?

MORE : Simon Cowell ‘working on a few TV projects’ as X Factor’s future remains uncertain

Sign Up for News Updates

Get your need-to-know latest news, feel-good stories, analysis and more.

Privacy Policy

Get us in your feed

• Skip to main content
• Skip to main navigation
• Skip to search
• Skip to talk navigation

Advertisement

Anyone else receiving letters threatening visits from TV licensing?

Newcarforchristmas · 09/03/2024 14:34

I have a TV license as the kids occasionally watch live TV. I’ve always had a TV license and moved it with us when we moved house in Dec 2022. For most of the time living here I’ve received letters addressed to ‘The legal occupier’ stating that the address doesn’t have a TV license and every time I have logged on to check its still active, which is has been, and called them to explain the situation. They’re always a bit confused and say they can see my license on the system and it must be an error on their system but not to worry as an agent wouldn’t actually visit. I’ve just received another letter stating that an agent will be visiting on 15th March and I no longer believe they won’t attend. I can’t call them until Monday at which point I’m going to stress that they are not to send an agent to my property when I’ve had a license for years but is it only me? Anyone else having this issue? AIBU to demand they not send an agent? I know it wouldn’t take much for me to physically show them proof but why should I l? I’ve called them 6 or 7 times over this and I’m fed up of explaining it over and over again.

Am I being unreasonable?

168 votes. Final results.

If they do send someone (unlikely, but possible), you don't have to discuss anything with them or let them in. Just tell them politely to go away.

Just ignore them if they turn up ,they have no right to enter you property and you don't have to prove anything Fwiw they have been promising me a visit for years and nobodies turned up .

If you have a license, just ignore them.

Just send the TV-STASI away. They have no powers and are just bullies.

Maybe a visit would actually be helpful as they can see your licence and take you off the list?

What they all said. They're useless. I rang them after I married to inform them of a change of name. They said they couldn't change it on my say so because they could only do it on the authorisation of the person named on the licence. I reiterated that I was the person on the licence. They argued that I wasn't because I had a different name. I repeated that was my married name and wanted to change it. They said I couldn't because I wasn't the person named on the licence because the names were different. After about 5 mins of this, I said they could do what they liked. As far as I was concerned, I was calling to inform them of a change in my name. It was up to them what they did with that information. I'm afraid that, after that level of incompetence, I find it hard to take anything they say seriously. You know you have a licence. Just ignore it. As other's have said, they don't have the authority to enter your home and you don't have to speak with them.

Does your house have a name as well as a number? Is it number 20 and also "Something Cottage"? If so they have one address with a licence and one without. It's just a case or joining them up.

Let them come FGS and let them see the facts The last house we sold up a few years ago was empty for about 4 months and we went back to check at times on weekdays ad then one sunday we went back to dispose of the washing machine that we had left there. It was a Sunday in June, sunny day, very quiet - we had a big drive then 12 feet cy 6 foot high gates to the rear garden and car was parked there and the gates were open - up walked a man and introduced himself from tv licence - asked if we lived there - I explained we'd left and transferred tv licence to new address there was no tv/raio almost nothing in the house and said - "you are welcome to look" - he politely declined and as far as I recall no more letters, the new people moved in a couple of months afterwards.

Let them come round and see your garden 🤣

Zebrasinpyjamas · 09/03/2024 14:41

I had thought this, and I’m guessing this is what’s going to happen anyway. But me and my husband are at work on the 15th anyway, so will miss them unless they come in the evening and it makes me really cross that I would have to waste part, albeit a small part, of my evening proving my innocence at my address when I’ve already proved it over and over again. I know it’s ridiculous and this shouldn’t be the hill I choose to die on but it’s just so frustrating at this point!

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by MNHQ. Here's a link to our Talk Guidelines .

I knew it didn’t look right 😂 I’ll give that a go!

I had this happen once and realised that my address appeared twice on their database - imagine the address was 22a Example Street, they had that and also a listing for 22 a Example Street. I had called and told them and they promised to sort it out but then I had a card through the door saying they'd come to speak to me and would be back - however they evidently did sort it out behind the scenes as s/he never reappeared. I was quite disappointed; I'd fully intended in giving them what for about it.

Licence is correct. Like practice and practise, nouns are spelt with a c and verbs are spelt with an s. So they refer to themselves as TV licensing because they issue licences (an action so a verb). You have a licence (a thing so a noun). HTH 👍🏻

GreyCarpet · 09/03/2024 14:54

Why are you quoting me?

WatchandWaitorNot · 09/03/2024 14:58

Because you posted a snarky message designed to belittle the OP and in your moment of supercilious self righteousness failed to realise that you were wrong.

I used to get these all the time when I was in student digs. Have bought a licence now, as the kids enjoy their telly too much! TV Licensing makes a good living by threatening people with these letters. A lot of people pay up just to stop the letters arriving, even if they don't need a TV licence. This is a really good blog all about how to deal with them.

They won't come. I've had three years of those letters. The most exciting thing that's happened is that they sometimes send one in a red envelope instead of white so I know they're Serious This Time.

@GreyCarpet It's you that's got yourself muddled here. Reread what PP wrote. OP don't give it any headspace. Just crack on with your life.

Sadly, too many people rely on 'spell checkers' I don't give a f re spell checks as they are americans

I had one come round once not long after I'd moved in. I let him in and he saw I didn't have a TV (or any furniture) and seemed satisfied. Just print off the license or have a screenshot on your phone and let them waste their time by coming, if you're not in they can come back another day

OP spelt it license though. So the pp was right to correct it.p

Newsletters you might like

Discover Exclusive Savings!

Sign up to our Money Saver newsletter now and receive exclusive deals and hot tips on where to find the biggest online bargains, tailored just for Mumsnetters.

Log in to update your newsletter preferences.

You've subscribed!

Parent-Approved Gems Await!

Subscribe to our weekly Swears By newsletter and receive handpicked recommendations for parents, by parents, every Sunday.

marshmallowfinder · 09/03/2024 15:10

(Erroneous p appeared. Please ignore!)

DistinguishedSocialCommentator · 09/03/2024 15:05

I can’t believe you’re moaning about spelling when your own post is littered with spag errors.

marshmallowfinder · 09/03/2024 15:11

As your own post demonstrates, anyone can make a mistake so stop correcting people, this is a chat forum not an online school for teachers.

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

The TV licence fee scandal: why are 1,000 people a week being casually criminalised?

Each year, tens of thousands of UK citizens are charged with non-payment of their TV licence fee – from the man who missed payments while in hospital, to a woman with a brain injury who forgot to pay

I t was autumn 2020 when someone from TV Licensing knocked on Josiane’s door. She was on maternity leave with her daughter, who was born that January, and had recently moved into a flat of her own, having previously lived in shared accommodation. Her first thought was: “I don’t want to get Covid,” she remembers. “I was terrified of getting ill. I was a single parent, I didn’t have family around, what would happen to my baby?”

She had bought a TV two weeks earlier, but was unaware that she needed a licence for it. “It had always been in my rental agreement,” she says. I meet her in a cafe in Basildon, near her home, with her daughter, who has just turned four, and her boyfriend, Giuseppe. “Maybe people who were born here know these things,” she says, and Giuseppe chips in, “it’s not something they teach you when you move to the UK.”

TV Licensing’s prosecutions have targeted some shockingly vulnerable people. One man’s licence ran out while he was in hospital for 11 weeks, and despite renewing it as soon as he was discharged, he was prosecuted six days later. One woman with a brain injury was prosecuted when she forgot to pay. Many of the most egregious cases have been collated by the Evening Standard’s courts correspondent, Tristan Kirk , the Alan Bates of, not just TV licensing, but the entire Ministry of Justice, who refuses to let “conveyor belt justice” go. Kirk refers to the Single Justice Procedure (SJP), which was brought in for minor criminal offences in 2015 and replaces the open court – consisting of two or three magistrates, a legal adviser and a prosecutor – with one magistrate, often working from home, and one legal adviser. You cannot watch these proceedings, and often a magistrate will hand out identical fines for quite different offences. TV licence offences are just one area of injustice: campaigners against the procedure are also very sceptical about the punishments that were handed out during Covid.

Kirk describes cases that, honestly, if you’re a person who believes themselves to be living under the rule of law, will put hairs on your chest. “The one that always comes to mind was a woman with Down’s syndrome,” he says. “Greenwich council pleaded guilty on her behalf, because it manages her finances. Any prosecutor looking at that would think: ‘Hang on a minute, this woman doesn’t have control over her own finances. At the very least, we need to investigate more.’ But a prosecutor wasn’t involved. They can, as I understand it, log on to the system and look at the mitigation. But they don’t.”

Since the prosecutor is no longer at the hearing, all those mitigating circumstances – the mental health problems, the learning disabilities, the illness, which TV Licensing might once have heard, and maybe responded to with an application to adjourn – are now only seen by the magistrate, who can’t withdraw the case. “They could refer it to open court, but by and large they don’t,” Kirk says. “That’s where I see the big flaw in the system, you’ve got no prosecutor in the room or involved at all, and magistrates who don’t think they can do anything about it.”

A TV Licensing spokesperson said: “We will not prosecute anyone if we receive evidence that shows us there are significant reasons – such as mental health issues or severe financial hardship – why they could not obtain a licence.” You can sympathise with their predicament, even. By the time the mitigating circumstances come to light, if they ever do, under the SJP, the prosecutor is no longer involved.

I realise when I meet Josiane how sick I am of words such as “victim” and “vulnerable”, which seem to distribute responsibility evenly across unjust situations. Yes, she was the victim of a faceless and unresponsive bureaucracy, and technically, yes, as a migrant single parent, she was also vulnerable. But she is a robust and competent person and none of this situation was of her making.

The man who came to visit her from TV Licensing was reassuring, and advised her to use PayPoint, a system where you pay bills at a corner shop. It wasn’t convenient in the middle of a pandemic with a baby. “I told the BBC I wanted to set up a direct debit, and I got a confirmation email.” Only one payment was ever taken. “It’s one of those small bills, you don’t think too much about it. So I didn’t check after that.” Then in March 2021, she received a letter. It read “How do I appeal?” She thought: “Appeal what?”

Like nearly 1,000 people a week, 70% of them women, Josiane had been prosecuted for TV licence fee evasion. It is the most common crime in the country, apart from driving offences. A fifth of all criminal prosecutions brought against women are by TV Licensing, which has extraordinary explicit powers – it can apply for a warrant to search a property, for instance. It also has inferred powers: people generally accept their doorstep interrogation, even while legally licence-free people (those who only watch streaming services to which they’re subscribed, for instance) are under no obligation to do so.

Tara Casey, a lawyer for the Women’s Justice Initiative at charitable law practice Appeal was working on an ultimately successful campaign to prevent imprisonment for non-payment of council tax when she first became interested in TV licence prosecutions. Even though numbers dipped a little during Covid, “we are still looking at tens of thousands of women each year facing criminal charges for not paying their licence fee.” The gender disparity was so obvious that the BBC conducted reviews in 2017 and 2023; and now, “the disproportionality is getting worse,” says Casey.

Peter Jones, 43, is based in Tyne and Wear and is the lead author of a TV Licensing blog , which aims to “highlight the unjust persecution of legitimate non-TV users”. Accidentally or not, he says it’s built into the system that those with the least will be caught in the net. “Those on lower incomes – generally unemployed people, single-parent households, elderly people, those suffering illness or disability – are more likely to be at home during the day if a TV Licensing officer arrives to make inquiries. For that reason they are more likely to be interviewed under caution and face prosecution for alleged TV licence evasion.” Ninety per cent of single parents are women , which might go part of the way to explain the very pronounced gender bias. In another case, one submission of evidence for the prosecution of a woman in Bristol read: “I am suffering from severe depression, since the loss of my daughter in 2022. I have no family or friends.”

The BBC told a select committee in 2017 that every 1% reduction in licence fee evasion raised £40.5m in revenue, so there is an obvious financial motive to prosecute as a deterrent. The evasion rate has been steadily climbing since Covid and is now at 10.3%; the cost-of-living crisis can’t have helped. Jones points out that BBC revenue has actually increased despite this, because of a £1.50 rise in the licence fee in 2021. It might be an idea to ask the people who can afford it to pay more, rather than hound and make examples of those who can’t.

This is more or less what TV producer Peter Bazalgette suggested last month , replacing the “regressive” flat fee with a tax in which the wealthier paid more, whether they had a TV or not. Bazalgette and broadcaster Greg Dyke recently had a debate in which Bazalgette also floated the idea of a German system, in which businesses paid towards the public broadcaster, as a contribution to civic society.

The situation as it stands has that unmistakable tang of a public-private partnership where civic values have fallen through the cracks. Whatever you think of the BBC, it takes its responsibility as a public service pretty seriously. It’s hard to imagine, if it were drawing up a system from scratch, that it would want to be the Sheriff of Nottingham, flexing its might by prosecuting a woman with learning disabilities who sometimes forgets what she is meant to pay (as detailed in one SJP evidence submission from County Durham).

The government scrapped plans to decriminalise licence fee non-payment in 2021 and TV licensing has been outsourced to Capita for more than 20 years, which has targets on reducing the evasion rate in its contract. The contract, worth £456m, was renewed in July 2022 to run until 2027. Jones also notes that individual TV Licensing officers “receive bonuses for any TV licence sales they generate during their visits. They can only generate a sale, and thus earn a bonus, if they take a statement from the occupier of an unlicensed property. This means that there is a pecuniary advantage for individual officers to gather evidence of evasion whenever they can – be that by hook or by crook.”

TV Licensing denies that it has any incentive to prosecute: “Neither TV Licensing as a whole, nor individual visiting officers have any incentives to achieve a certain number of sales or prosecutions, take a certain number of records of interview, nor generate court income.”

None of that means the BBC is forced to prosecute. Dennis Reed is director of Silver Voices , a non-profit campaign group for the over-60s. In July 2020, free TV licences for the over-75s were scrapped. “We had lengthy negotiations with the BBC director-general and his top team,” Reed says, but “so far, no success.” As a result of a Silver Voices campaign, “loads of over-75s refused to pay,” he says. He estimates that between 200,000 and 250,000 over-75s have not paid their fees since the free licences were abolished – and as yet there have been no prosecutions. Reed thinks part of that is about optics. “What would that look like, if they took an 85-year-old with dementia to court?”, he says, but adds: “If they’ve brought in an unofficial amnesty, without asking who else is struggling, how ethical is that?”

Josiane’s experience distils a Kafkaesque facelessness, once the gears of justice have been set in motion: “I was talking to the BBC, saying I was happy to pay, happy to pay a penalty. Money was a problem, but going to court would be more expensive, so I was prepared to borrow the money. I got through to people, but they constantly said: ‘I’m sorry I can’t help you. Maybe you could raise this with your lawyer.’ I didn’t understand why we couldn’t solve it. I thought, maybe it’s my accent. Am I not assertive enough? Am I not clear enough? It makes you feel sad, if you can’t reason with people. Maybe speaking to a machine would have been better.”

Penelope Gibbs is director of Transform Justice , and says there are two clear criteria for any prosecution: “That it is in the public interest, and that there is evidence of a crime having been committed. You can’t determine the public interest without having information about the person who is suspected of the crime.” This is where the SJP comes in, and it’s catching hundreds of thousands of people, most of whom don’t respond. It varies according to the crime, but in some offences, non-response rates are as high as 75%, all of whom will then be found guilty. “It’s ludicrous,” Gibbs says. “They don’t even know if the person received the prosecution notice, it’s not even sent via registered post. They don’t know if that person has mental health problems, doesn’t speak English as a first language, whether they are homeless. They don’t know any of those things.”

Kirk has taken this up as a cause, and explains: “The system was set up in 2015, the numbers have ramped up over the past five years and they are vast. There were three-quarters of a million cases in 2019, and this year looks like it’s also running at that speed.”

Josiane, with the help of Appeal, eventually got the charges against her dropped. “Everything comes with a blessing,” she says, with a baffling focus on the bright side. “I have learned a lot from it. I have met a lot of good people.” Her boyfriend, Giuseppe, is more sceptical. “She can set up a direct debit but she doesn’t trust it. So every month, she has this PTSD response: ‘Have I paid my TV licence?’” It’s slightly more than every month, Josiane admits, ruefully. “Every time I see the logo I get a flashback.”

• BBC licence fee
• UK criminal justice

Most viewed

Privacy Overview

Google analytics.

Checkout using your account

Checkout as a new customer

Creating an account has many benefits:

• See order and shipping status
• Track order history
• Check out faster

Friendly Unbiased Advice

1500+ positive customer reviews

Numerous Payment Options

Fast safe and secure transactions

Tracked Worldwide Shipping

Trusted couriers with timed delivery

Trading with Integrity

Born in Britain since 2005

What To Do When The TV License Inspector Calls

The rules around TV licensing are old-fashioned and more complicated than you might imagine; in some cases, you need a license even if you don't have a tv, and in other cases, you can have a TV and not need a license. The key to deciding which camp you fall into is whether or not you watch terrestrial content as it is broadcast. If you do, the chances are you need a license. But in this age of catch-up, on-demand and Netflix, it's more likely than ever before that you can stay in touch with civilisation without needing a tv license at all. The TV License, currently set at £145.50 for colour and £49 for black and white (we said it was quite an old-fashioned system), is there to fund the BBC.

The beeb outsources the collection of the fee to third-party companies, including Capita. This, combined with the fact that one historically doesn't have a choice about whether to pay for the BBC, is why a lot of people object to paying the license fee. To be fair to the BBC, that £145.50 does include all live, online and radio content, so all told, it's not a bad deal, especially if you attend any of the free events, such as performances by the BBC Philharmonic Orchestra.

However, you can consume all of that lovely, lovely content without necessarily requiring a license. If you have a television set but it cannot receive live broadcasts, you don't need a license. So, if your TV isn't connected to an aerial, digital or cable service, you don't need a license. You may wish to pay for one anyway since you are still using BBC content, but you don't need one. Similarly, if you don't own a TV but do use iPlayer, radio and online content, you don't need a license, provided you don't watch live broadcasts from any terrestrial broadcaster, not just the BBC.

You don't need to buy a TV License if...

• * You don't own a TV set and don't watch live terrestrial TV broadcasts.
• * Your TV is used solely for watching catch-up and on-demand content.
• * You are over 75. You still need a license, but it's free.

You do need to buy a TV License if...

• * You watch live broadcasts of any type on any device.
• * You record live broadcasts of any type on any device.
• * You pay to watch TV as it is broadcast, for example, pay-per-view boxing.

What to do if TV Licensing comes to your home

So you've double-checked and are sure you don't require a license, but you still get letters from TV Licensing. Some of the letters may threaten you with a visit from enforcement officers. You can safely ignore these letters if you are sure you don't require a license, or you can respond and advise TV Licensing that you don't require a license (there's a section on the enclosed form for that).

However, you may find that TV Licensing wishes to conduct an inspection. They make a big play out of their spy gadgets that let them check in on who is watching live tv. That's fine; they can do that all day long, but what they can't do is enter your home. Under no circumstances (even if you are illegally watching TV, not that we'd ever condone that) do you have to let inspectors into your home. A number of people have taken to recording enforcement office visits and posting the footage online to instruct others on how to handle similar situations.

The easiest way to get rid of a TV Licensing inspector is to tell them that you revoked their implied right of access. The implied right of access is there so that people with legitimate reasons to enter your property, such as delivery men or milkmen, can do so without fear of prosecution. Withdrawing this implied right confirms that you are not prepared to allow them into your home or to call at your door and that you've done your homework on your rights as an occupier.

They know that if they continue to visit your property after you've revoked their implied right of access, you will be well placed to sue for trespass and/or harassment. You can also do this by writing a letter to TVL, but to do so, you'll need to confirm your own name and address, which is not something everyone is comfortable with.

You need a TV licence to watch Netflix — and you risk fines of £1,000 for not having one

As Netflix increasingly broadcasts live events, like the Chris Rock comedy special and upcoming boxing match between Mike Tyson and Jake Paul, it's no longer exempt from the TV licence fee

By Aaron Brown

Published: 26/04/2024

By offering live broadcasts, Netflix will add an extra £169.50 to subscribers' costs

• A valid TV licence is required to watch live television on any platform
• For years, Netflix was exempt as it only offered on-demand shows and films
• But the streamer has been experimenting with live broadcasts
• It plans to stream a boxing match between Jake Paul and Mike Tyson in July
• This means it's considered the same as platforms like Sky TV and Virgin Media
• Disney+, Prime Video, and Apple TV+ have also experimented with live content
• TV licence rose to £169.50 earlier this month, an increase of 6.6%

Don't Miss

Minister leaves audience speechless by asking if rwanda and congo are different countries, two men charged in connection with the deaths of five migrants in the channel, red bull chief ‘doesn’t look favourably’ on horner scandal as team set for shake-up, 'you're making yourself look older' women over 50 told to avoid 'cheap' hairstyle, prince william opens up on how princess kate feels about missing royal family duties, princess beatrice steps out with husband after weeks of turmoil, boxing fans make feelings clear on tyson footage ahead of paul fight, kate and william set to follow 'new procedure' with princess charlotte, angel adoree exclaims 'can't bear it' as she reflects on children being in 'new era' of life, trending on gb news, world snooker championship disaster emerging as third player threatens to walk away.

Watching Netflix without a TV licence could trigger fines of up to £1,000.

Under UK law, every household is required to have a valid TV licence to watch or record live television. This £169.50 fee doesn't just cover programmes on the BBC but applies to live broadcasts on ITV, Channel 4, Sky TV, Virgin Media, and all other channels in the TV Guide.

You've always needed to be covered by a TV licence to catch up on previously aired shows and films on BBC iPlayer. However, watching on-demand content from streaming services like Netflix, Disney+, Apple TV+, and Prime Video was exempt. But that's all about to change.

That's because these streamers are increasingly branching out into live broadcasts.

Teasing the fight, Netflix says: "A ringside seat (on your couch) awaits. For the first time ever, Netflix and Most Valuable Promotions (MVP) are teaming up for a heavyweight boxing mega-event headlined by the Problem Child, Jake “El Gallo” Paul, versus the Baddest Man on the Planet, Mike Tyson."

NETFLIX PRESS OFFICE

Netflix broadcast a stand-up show from Chris Rock called Selective Outrage back in March 2023 to subscribers across the globe — its first foray into live events. Another comedy special, John Mulaney Presents: Everybody’s in LA , will be broadcast on the platform in the coming months.

• 5 things Sky TV never told you about its new Sky Stream box

But the US streamer is looking to up the ante in July, when it will exclusively broadcast a boxing match between YouTube superstar Jake Paul and heavyweight champion Mike Tyson from the AT&T Stadium in Arlington, Texas. The hotly-anticipated fight will be watched by 80,000 fans in the venue but has the potential to reach 260 million paid subscribers worldwide.

​ Since this is a live broadcast, the TV licence exception no longer applies. As such, Netflix viewers — as well as those who tune-in to other streamers who dabble in live events — will need to spend £169.50 on the licence fee.

A spokesperson for the BBC told GB News: "A TV Licence is needed to watch live content on streaming services, watch or record a TV programme on any channel and when using BBC iPlayer. Further information is available on the TV Licensing website or via the customer services team, who can help with any queries."

The loophole was first spotted by the team at telly-centric blog CordBusters .

Netflix isn't alone, with a number of streamers now experimenting with live broadcasts. Prime Video has aired Premier League fixtures to its fans, who can watch with a standalone £5.99 subscription or as part of an annual Prime membership, as well as coverage of the ATP Tour, WTA Tour, and European Open.

Meanwhile, Disney+ streamed Elon John's farewell concert, Elton John Live: Farewell from Dodger Stadium , on November 20, 2023 — the 47th anniversary of his 1975 performance at the Los Angeles ballpark. Apple TV+ has secured the rights to all football matches in the Major League Soccer 2024 season too, marking its continued push into live sports coverage.

Given that so many of these streaming services previously only offered on-demand content — and were therefore exempt from the TV licence — their changing schedules and the ramifications for licence fee payers will likely catch some viewers off-guard. Many (outdated) online guides claim that viewers who stream exclusively from ITVX, Channel 4, Netflix, Prime Video, and Disney+ do not need to pay the £169.50 fee.

Crucially, whether you need a TV licence fee is never determined by the device you're using to watch a programme. It applies to traditional TVs, as well as desktop computers, laptops, smartphones and tablets, games consoles, set-top boxes like Sky Stream, and or DVD/VHS recorders.

Earlier this month, the TV license fee rose 6.6% up to £169.50 a year. The rise is determined based on the rate of inflation as measured in September last year. The previous TV licence fee was £159 a year.

Elsewhere, the price of a black-and-white TV licence is increasing by £3.50 going from £53.50 to £57.

In a statement to the House of Commons, the Culture secretary said the £10.50 hike would be "felt" by households but added that the BBC was facing "increasing pressure" due to "a rapidly changing media landscape".

According to data released by the BBC, 90% of UK households who were required to hold a valid TV licence had one between March 2022 - 2023, something that could change as more streaming services branch out into live entertainment

GETTY IMAGES

According to BBC data, the total income from the licence fee last year was £3.74 billion, which accounted for about 65% of the BBC's total income of £5.73 billion. The TV licence fee was frozen for two years between 2022 and 2023. At the time, the UK Government hailed the announcement as giving "broadcaster certainty while protecting the public from price hikes".

If you're caught watching live TV without a TV licence, then you may be fined £1,000 or be taken to court. The maximum fine is £2,000 in Guernsey.

LATEST DEVELOPMENTS

• Millions of BT, Sky and TalkTalk users unlock broadband speed boost
• Sky Glass TV viewers can claim a free gift worth £290
• Send your old Fire TV Stick to Amazon, and upgrade for less

In 2022, there were 40,220 convictions for licence fee evasion, resulting in an average fine of £202.

According to TV Licensing annual 2022/23 review, a total of 90% of UK households who were required to hold a valid TV licence had one. In that same period, 73,000 people were caught watching live TV without a licence and £137 million was spent collecting the necessary fees.

It's a common misconception that you can be sent to prison for licence fee evasion. However, you can be imprisoned for failing to pay the fine for not having a valid TV licence.

You may like

Listen live

Kim Kardashian meets with VP Kamala Harris to talk criminal justice reform

WASHINGTON — Kim Kardashian joined Vice President Kamala Harris at the White House on Thursday to discuss criminal justice reform and President Joe Biden 's use of pardons and clemency . 

The reality TV star and businesswoman, who has used her platform to draw attention to individual inmates she feels were wrongfully convicted , joined Harris, four people who received pardons from the Biden administration on Wednesday, and Steve Benjamin, director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, for a roundtable event.

Kardashian's visit to D.C. comes during the same week Biden pardoned 11 people convicted of non-violent drug charges and commuted the sentences of five others he deemed worthy of "the chance at building a brighter future for themselves beyond prison walls."

"I am super honored to be here to hear your stories today and I think it's so important to share them and amplify them because there are so many people that are in your position that could use the inspiration," Kardashian told the recently pardoned recipients attending the event: Beverly Holcy, Jason Hernandez, Bobby Darrell Lowery, and Jesse Mosley. "I'm just here to help and spread the word."

During her remarks, Harris confirmed the finalization of a Small Business Administration rule she first announced in January, which removes most restrictions on loan eligibility based on a person’s criminal record. 

"We have convened today to talk about the power of individuals — when supported by community, by society — the power they have to do extraordinary things that benefit all kinds of people," Harris said. "Reducing that restriction is going to mean a lot in terms of second chances and the opportunity for people to excel."

Trump hush money trial live updates: Who is David Pecker? What to know about the witness

The annual event, which takes place in April, aims to highlight how government and service providers can "build meaningful second chances for people returning from incarceration," according to the U.S. Department of Justice. 

"During Second Chance Month, we recommit to building a criminal justice system that lives up to those ideals so that people returning to their communities from jail or prison have a fair shot at the American Dream," Biden said in a proclamation released by the White House. 

Last month, Harris convened a separate roundtable on marijuana reform featuring pardon recipients, rapper Fat Joe, and other politicians.

White House Press Secretary Karine Jean Pierre said the roundtable aimed to highlight Biden’s commitment to “second chance” policies. During his administration, Biden has commuted the sentences of 122 people and granted pardons to 20 others who committed non-violent drug offenses. 

“Many of you had heard me say it. I just don’t think people should have to go to jail for smoking weed,” Harris said.

Thursday’s roundtable discussion was not the first time Kardashian visited the White House. In 2020, she  met with former president Donald Trump to thank him for commuting the sentences of three women and discuss change she said the U.S. justice system “desperately needs.”

"It was actually in this very room that I was in years ago, my first clemency meeting, that really inspired me to take a journey," Kardashian said. "I didn't know a whole lot, and I was inspired to go to law school and really further my education to see what I can do to help."

"The Kardashians" star has also gotten involved in the cases of some convicted celebrities. In 2020, she called for the early release of Corey Miller , a rapper who she believes was wrongfully convicted of murder. In 2019, she brought rapper A$AP Rocky , who a Swedish court found guilty of assault, to Trump's attention. 

Around the same time, Kardashian released a documentary called "The Justice Project" centering around her criminal justice reform work and announced she had passed the "baby bar" exam.

Rachel Barber is a 2024 election fellow at USA TODAY, focusing on politics and education. Follow her on X, formerly Twitter, as @rachelbarber_  

Russia fines actor who hosted 'almost naked' party over her calls for peace

A Moscow court on Thursday imposed a 50,000-ruble ($560) fine on a TV presenter and actress who gained notoriety for  hosting an “almost naked” party , saying her social media posts calling for peace discredited the military.

Anastasia Ivleeva sparked an explosion of public indignation in the increasingly traditionalist country when she hosted a party in December encouraging guests to wear almost nothing.

Ivleeva did not appear in court Thursday for the non-criminal case, in which she was fined for two social media posts in the early days of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine  that called for peace and negotiations. The court found her guilty of violating a law penalizing remarks discrediting the military, although the law was passed several days after the posts.

One of the posts on Instagram, which is blocked in Russia but often accessed by VPN, showed a black square and the words “No to war.” The other showed a sketch of a dove and called on authorities to “reach those compromises that would stop the killing of people.”

Soon after the invasion launched on Feb. 24, 2022, Russia cracked down on any perceived criticism of what it calls a “special military operation.” In the stiffest punishment so far, prominent opposition activist Vladimir Kara-Murza was sentenced to 25 years in prison for a speech in the United States denouncing the war.

Oleg Orlov, co-chair of the Nobel Peace Prize-winning organization Memorial, was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison for criticism of the war. Orlov separately has been designated a “foreign agent” and was to appeal that ruling in a Thursday court hearing by videolink, but the hearing was held in a courtroom without that capability, the Mediazona news site reported.

Ivleeva became the focus of a scandal after hosting a bash at a Moscow nightclub whose invitations stated the dress code as “almost naked.” A well-known rapper showed up wearing only socks wrapped around his genitals and feet.

Photos from the party circulated widely on social media. Conservative legislators, bloggers and others then unleashed a storm of criticism, contending the images were unseemly, even unpatriotic, for a country embroiled in war.

The denunciation of the party also reflected the rise of fiercely conservative sentiment in Russia amid President Vladimir Putin’s accusations against the West for trying to undermine “traditional values” and the nationalism intensified by Russia’s war in Ukraine.

The lightly dressed rapper, who uses the stage name Vacio, was sentenced to a total of 25 days in jail for disorderly conduct and fined 200,000 rubles ($22,000) for allegedly spreading “LGBTQ propaganda” in a video.

A lawsuit against Ivleeva alleging moral damages and demanding $11 million in compensation be paid into a fund supporting soldiers fighting in Ukraine was thrown out of court in January on jurisdictional grounds.

The Associated Press

• Buckeyes In the NFL
• FanNation FanNation FanNation
• SI.COM SI.COM SI.COM
• SI Swimsuit SI Swimsuit SI Swimsuit
• SI Sportsbook SI Sportbook SI Sportsbook
• SI Tickets SI Tickets SI Tickets
• SI Showcase SI Showcase SI Showcase
• SI Resorts SI Resorts SI Resorts

© Adam Cairns / USA TODAY NETWORK

Ohio State Buckeyes WR Marvin Harrison Won't Sign NFLPA Licensing Deal ... Yet

Ohio State Buckeyes wideout Marvin Harrison Jr. has a way of doing things when and how he's ready.

• Author: Timm Hamm

In this story:

Former Ohio State Buckeyes wide receiver and soon-to-be NFL draft pick Marvin Harrison Jr. apparently has his own agenda for making it at the next level.

Harrison didn't work out at the Combine, he didn't even meet with reporters there. Then he refused to work out at Ohio State 's Pro Day.

Adam Cairns / USA TODAY NETWORK

What gives, MHJ?

Now, on the heels of surprising some by even showing up at Thursday's NFL Draft, he has yet to sign his NFLPA licensing agreement. That means his jersey, face and name won't appear in the Madden video game - at least until he signs.

And, all things being equal, he might not ever sign.

If he doesn't, that means he retains his full rights to those intellectual properties. He could sell his own jersey with full exclusivity, and it would allow him to work out his own deal with EA Sports to appear in their video game.

While NFL players are required to join the players union, they're not required to sign the licensing agreement for it. It's similar to the new-ish NIL (name, image, and likeness) deals that he signed with the Buckeyes in college.

Harrison Jr. is expected to be one of the top - if not the top - wideout taken in Thursday night's first round of the NFL Draft.

And, just as he's done all offseason, he's marching to the beat of his own drum with regard to himself as a product for the NFL. And it looks like it's working pretty well.

Latest Buckeyes News

NIT Tournament 2024: Complete Schedule, Tip-Off Times, Locations, TV, Point Spreads

NCAA Women's Basketball Tournament 2024: Complete Schedule, Tip-Off Times, Locations, TV, Point Spreads

WATCH: Buckeyes Commit Colin White Wins Ohio Mr. Basketball

Ohio State's Taylor Named to Final List for National Award

Ohio State Wins Close Game over Cornell