Man thought he'd beaten TV licence system - then a letter turned up
According to guidance on the TV Licensing website, a licence is required 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 necessary for using BBC iPlayer.
A TV Licensing spokesperson told the Liverpool ECHO: '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.'
READ MORE: Plumes of smoke seen after quad bikes go up in flames
READ MORE: Liverpool man shot dead in Costa del Sol 'gun fight' named for first time
In September last year, Mr Stuart was visited by a TV Licensing inspection officer. He described the visit as an opportunity to explain his viewing habits in person, adding: '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'.'
Following the inspection, Mr Stuart said the officer confirmed he was not in breach of licensing requirements.
Mr Stuart 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 license.'
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 license.
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 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 chose to contest the notice and represented 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 license 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.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Asylum seekers to be removed from Essex hotel as council granted injunction
Asylum seekers to be removed from Essex hotel as council granted injunction Asylum seekers will be removed from an Essex hotel after a council was granted a temporary High Court injunction blocking them from being housed there. Epping Forest District Council had asked a judge to issue an interim injunction stopping migrants from being accommodated at the Bell Hotel in Epping. The injunction sought by the council meant the hotel's owner, Somani Hotels Limited, would have had to stop housing asylum seekers there within 14 days. The hotel has been at the centre of a series of protests in recent weeks after an asylum seeker who was staying there was charged with sexually assaulting a 14-year-old girl. In a ruling on Tuesday, Mr Justice Eyre granted the temporary injunction, but extended the time limit by which the hotel must stop housing asylum seekers to September 12. He also refused to give Somani Hotels the green light to challenge his ruling, but the company could still ask the Court of Appeal for the go-ahead to appeal against the judgment. In his judgment, he said that while the council had not 'definitively established' that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules, 'the strength of the claimant's case is such that it weighs in favour' of granting the injunction. He continued that the 'risk of injustice is greater' if a temporary injunction was not granted. A further hearing on whether the injunction should be made permanent is expected to be held at a later date, and is expected to last two days. Several protests and counter-protests have been held in the town since a then-resident at the hotel was accused of trying to kiss a teenage girl. Hadush Gerberslasie Kebatu has denied charges against him and is due to stand trial later this month. A second man who resides at the hotel, Syrian national Mohammed Sharwarq, has separately been charged with seven offences, while several other men have been charged over disorder outside the hotel. The council said last week it was seeking an injunction due to 'unprecedented levels of protest and disruption' in connection with asylum seeker accommodation. Chris Whitbread, leader of the council, said the situation 'cannot go on' but the Government 'is not listening'. At a hearing on Friday, barristers for the council said that the site's 'sole lawful use' was as a hotel and that Somani Hotels had breached planning rules by using it to house asylum seekers. Philip Coppel KC, for the authority, said the situation was 'wholly unacceptable' and provided a 'feeding ground for unrest'. He said: 'There has been what can be described as an increase in community tension, the catalyst of which has been the use of the Bell Hotel to place asylum seekers.' Mr Coppel continued: 'It is not the asylum seekers who are acting unlawfully. It is the defendant, by allowing the hotel to be used to house asylum seekers.' He added: 'It really could not be much worse than this.' Piers Riley-Smith, for Somani Hotels, said that 'disagreement with Government policy' did not justify a 'draconian' injunction and that there would be 'hardship' caused to the company and those housed at the hotel. He also said that contracts to house asylum seekers were a 'financial lifeline' for the hotel, which was only 1% full in August 2022, when it was open to paying customers. Mr Riley-Smith said: 'It is clear that recent protests have expanded far beyond the local community and have gone into concerns about wider ideological and political issues from those outside the community. 'Those particular ideological, non-community concerns are not relevant to planning.' Following the ruling, Mr Whitbread said: 'I am delighted. This is great news for our residents. The last few weeks have placed an intolerable strain on our community but today we have some great news.' He continued: 'Home Office policy ignores the issues and concerns of local residents that the council represents. 'Today we have made a step towards redressing the imbalance and showing that local people do have some say, whatever the Home Office thinks.' Before judgment was handed down on Tuesday, barristers for the Home Office asked to intervene in the case, citing the 'substantial impact' caused to the Home Secretary, Yvette Cooper, in performing her legal duties to asylum seekers. Edward Brown KC, for the department, told the court that moving asylum seekers in 'extremely short order' would cause a 'very significant operational burden' and 'particular acute difficulties' for the Government. But Mr Justice Eyre dismissed the Home Office's bid, stating that the department's involvement was 'not necessary'.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Labour MP Kate Osborne faces inquiry by Commons expenses watchdog
Parliament's expenses watchdog has opened an investigation into Labour MP Kate Osborne. The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (Ipsa) said it had opened an investigation into whether the Jarrow and Gateshead East MP had breached spending rules. Announcing the investigation on Tuesday, Ipsa said the investigation related to spending on travel and subsistence costs and 'miscellaneous costs and financial assistance'. It added: 'No further information will be published until the investigation has concluded.' Ms Osborne, 59, has been an MP since 2019 and was re-elected last year with a majority of 8,964. She is the second Labour MP to be investigated by Ipsa this year, after the watchdog opened an inquiry into spending by Tahir Ali in May. Mr Ali, the MP for Birmingham Hall Green and Moseley, faces an investigation into spending on 'office costs, travel and accommodation'. Ms Osborne has been contacted for comment.


Gizmodo
an hour ago
- Gizmodo
UK Official Calls for Age Verification on VPNs to Prevent Porn Loophole
A U.K. government official wants tougher rules to stop kids from using VPNs to dodge the country's latest online safety laws. The Online Safety Act, which went into effect this summer, puts new legal pressure on online platforms, including search engines and social media sites, to protect users from harmful content. The laws are mostly aimed at keeping children away from porn and other 'harmful' material tied to self-harm, suicide, and eating disorders. One of the act's main provisions is that pornography sites and platforms with user-uploaded content must use technology to verify or estimate a user's age. That typically means requiring people to upload a government-issued ID or a photo of themselves to prove they meet the age requirement. But users have already found ways around these new digital checkpoints. Some crafty gamers discovered they could use the photo mode in Death Stranding to trick age verification systems on Reddit and Discord. Most, though, are simply turning to virtual private networks (VPNs), which reroute internet traffic through servers in other countries and hide a user's real IP address. That makes it easy to get around the age verification requirements. Interest in VPNs spiked in the UK the week after the laws took effect on July 21, according to Google Trends. Now, one official is pushing to close the VPN workaround. Dame Rachel de Souza, England's children's commissioner, told BBC Newsnight on Monday that VPNs are 'absolutely a loophole that needs closing' and called for age checks on the services themselves. In a new report, de Souza recommended requiring age verification for the use of VPNs. The report argues the move would help stop underage users from accessing porn. A survey conducted right before the law took effect found that about 70% of children had seen pornography online, with X (formerly Twitter) cited as the most common source. The report also flagged the violent nature of much of the porn kids are exposed to, with 58% of respondents saying they had seen porn depicting strangulation before turning 18, and 44% reporting seeing depictions of rape of a person sleeping. 'This is having an impact on children's view of what is normal sexual behaviour,' the report argues. A government spokesperson told the BBC that there are no plans to ban VPNs, 'but if platforms deliberately push workarounds like VPNs to children, they face tough enforcement and heavy fines.' In the U.S., nearly half of the states have passed laws requiring porn sites to use age verification systems. Nine states have also approved rules forcing social media platforms to demand either age checks or parental consent for minors.