No TV Licence

[Alex321]

I totally agree it's disgusting. But are the terms cleverly worded such that just by having an App capable of receiving live TV, which is any catch-up TV App, are you breaking the law just by having the App even if you don't click the "live tv" button? Anyway, I grudgingly pay the license because we do watch live TV and BBC content. But I hope you continue to stand up for yourself given that you don't need a license

Have you actually READ any of the previous responses to this same question you have asked again?

The answer is still the same - NO you do not need a licence to possess devices capable of receiving live TV.

 

[wiggydiggy]

To be fair on @Electric_Andy the rules are that obfuscated, and buried deep within the TV licencing website it's easy to get confused.

Livestreams on platforms like YouTube or Discord are not included as needing a licence, unless they are being broadcast as part of a TV programme. That's a confusing but as what is a TV programme?

I used to watch streams of things like the recent video game awards 2025, but because it was also available on Prime this year and TV licensing says you do need a licence to watch Prime live I didn't watch it this year. That's despite it being an american show that gets no licence fee funding, yet TV licencing still insists I need one. It was also not also being broadcast on any British TV channel.

 

[DRM]

But that's my point - if they decide to take things further and bring police to access your property, if they find an app capable of watching live TV, could that be grounds for prosecution? I think the wording is that you need a license if you have a device capable, not "only if you watch it live". How would you prove you don't use the live TV option on the App. And how would they prove that you don't! It seems a bit chicken and egg

They won't bring the Police to your house unless You admit to watching live TV without a licence, or making use of BBC iPlayer, it's as simple as that, as I said previously if they knock on your door, tell them no thank you & close the door, don't speak to them, & never, ever sign anything, they could amend it later, it's as simple as that

 

[Alex321]

To be fair on @Electric_Andy the rules are that obfuscated, and buried deep within the TV licencing website it's easy to get confused.

It is, but he has asked the question, and had it answered already.

Livestreams on platforms like YouTube or Discord are not included as needing a licence, unless they are being broadcast as part of a TV programme. That's a confusing but as what is a TV programme?

This is where it gets really obfuscated and buried
Section 263 - Interpretation of Part 3 contains

“television programme service” means any of the following—
(a) a television broadcasting service;
(b) a television licensable content service;
(c) a digital television programme service;
(d) a restricted television service;

“television broadcasting service” means (subject to subsection (4)) a service [F11(or a dissociable section of a service)] which—
(a) consists in a service of television programmes provided with a view to its being broadcast (whether in digital or in analogue form);
(b) is provided so as to be available for reception by members of the public; and
(c) is not—
(i) a restricted television service;
(ii) a television multiplex service;
(iii) a service provided under the authority of a licence under Part 1 of the 1990 Act to provide a television licensable content service; or
(iv) a service provided under the authority of a licence under Part 1 of the 1996 Act to provide a digital television programme service;

“television licensable content service” has the meaning given by section 232 of this Act;

“digital television programme service” means a digital programme service within the meaning given by section 1(4) of the 1996 Act for the purposes of Part 1 of that Act;

In section 405 (general interpretation), we have

“television programme” means any programme (with or without sounds) which—
(a) is produced wholly or partly to be seen on television; and
(b) consists of moving or still images or of legible text or of a combination of those things;

I think it is para (a) of that which lets out Youtube and Discord, but catches you watching things like live streams on Amazon Prime or other similar producers.

I used to watch streams of things like the recent video game awards 2025, but because it was also available on Prime this year and TV licensing says you do need a licence to watch Prime live I didn't watch it this year. That's despite it being an american show that gets no licence fee funding, yet TV licencing still insists I need one. It was also not also being broadcast on any British TV channel.

None of the channels outside the BBC family get any funding from the licence, regardless of nationality. And it has always been true that you needed a licence to receive any TV, regardless of where it was broadcast.

 

[Emanresu]

Has anyone mentioned what happens to the monies that the fines generate?

There are about 350,000 private prosecutions each year covering TV, Rail, RSPCA and other private companies that still have government-style ability to prosecute*. There are no separate numbers for TV Licencing. However the monies collected go to the courts and not the prosecutors so it actually costs a lot of money to take people to magistrates court. Any conviction is simply for the PR benefit to dissuade people from not paying for the licence. It's also why the cheaper threatening letters get sent out. Lawyers cost.

*This is why a lot of people like me get annoyed that this practice still exists and the prosecutions should be in County Court (under different laws) rather than the Magistrates.

 

[Alex321]

There are about 350,000 private prosecutions each year covering TV, Rail, RSPCA and other private companies that still have government-style ability to prosecute*. .
<snip>
*This is why a lot of people like me get annoyed that this practice still exists and the prosecutions should be in County Court (under different laws) rather than the Magistrates.

That makes no sense. You are annoyed about it happening, with the reason being that it happens?

But why are you annoyed? What is wrong with these organisations bringing private prosecutions? And why, given that the penalties are imposable by magistrates courts, should the prosecutions be under a different court - a civil court even though they are criminal offences?

 

[Emanresu]

That makes no sense. You are annoyed about it happening, with the reason being that it happens?

But why are you annoyed? What is wrong with these organisations bringing private prosecutions? And why, given that the penalties are imposable by magistrates courts, should the prosecutions be under a different court - a civil court even though they are criminal offences?

Basic answer without going into the realms of jurisprudence. Private companies should not be able to apply criminal sanction to a private individual. If they have a beef, take it to a civil court.

 

[Alex321]

Basic answer without going into the realms of jurisprudence. Private companies should not be able to apply criminal sanction to a private individual. If they have a beef, take it to a civil court.

But in all those cases, it is criminal law, which the "private" companies are responsible for enforcing.

It isn't the same as a general private company suing you for causing them damage.

You seem to be suggesting here that cruelty to animals shouldn't be a criminal offence. Or of course, TV licence evasion. Or train fare evasion.

 

[Hover Fly]

Basic answer without going into the realms of jurisprudence. Private companies should not be able to apply criminal sanction to a private individual. If they have a beef, take it to a civil court.

Subject to certain provisos, anyone can bring a private prosecution. Difficult and complicated, yes, but it has been done when CPS has dropped a case.

 

[Alex321]

Subject to certain provisos, anyone can bring a private prosecution. Difficult and complicated, yes, but it has been done when CPS has dropped a case.

Though if the CPS deem it to be "not in the public interest", they can take it over and then drop it.