TV licence changes - provide name and address requirement

[footnote]

With the changes in the rules around TV licences coming in on 1st September requiring people who watch TV on computers or smartphones to have a TV licence I wondered if the same practices of TV retailers will soon be adopted by phone and computer shops.

Last time I bought a TV in a shop, even for cash, they requested my name and address to notify the TV Licence people.

Will this now apply to people buying laptops and smartphones etc?

Is there a legal requirement to provide this information?

[anonymous-user]

You sure they wanted the info for that reason and so that they could target you with promotions and insurance etc?

[anonymous-user]

REALIST123 said:

You sure they wanted the info for that reason and so that they could target you with promotions and insurance etc?

Exactly this. I'm pretty sure they have no contact with the licensing people.

[mp3manager]

footnote said:

With the changes in the rules around TV licences coming in on 1st September requiring people who watch TV on computers or smartphones to have a TV licence I wondered if the same practices of TV retailers will soon be adopted by phone and computer shops.

Last time I bought a TV in a shop, even for cash, they requested my name and address to notify the TV Licence people.

Will this now apply to people buying laptops and smartphones etc?

No, that has been abolished some time ago.

[footnote]

They've always given that info to TV Licensing - hence you will get a letter shortly after purchase asking if you have a licence

[anonymous-user]

footnote said:

They've always given that info to TV Licensing - hence you will get a letter shortly after purchase asking if you have a licence

Not since June 2013.

[eldar]

garyhun said:

Not since June 2013.

At the time, 10 Downing Street had around 200,000 TV sets. There was no requirement to verify the address supplied.....

[GC8]

The law only required them to ask and for the provided details to be provided. Many retailers used to lie when requesting the information, in my experience (example for the PHers who still live with their mothers: Maplin Electronics, July 2008, Wolverhampton).

[anonymous-user]

GC8 said:

The law only required them to ask and for the provided details to be provided. Many retailers used to lie when requesting the information, in my experience (example for the PHers who still live with their mothers: Maplin Electronics, July 2008, Wolverhampton).

It was a bit more than a requirement to ask. The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 obliged retailers to notify TV Licensing of any sales or rentals of television sets. Failure to provide notification was an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act.

[footnote]

garyhun said:

GC8 said:

The law only required them to ask and for the provided details to be provided. Many retailers used to lie when requesting the information, in my experience (example for the PHers who still live with their mothers: Maplin Electronics, July 2008, Wolverhampton).

It was a bit more than a requirement to ask. The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 obliged retailers to notify TV Licensing of any sales or rentals of television sets. Failure to provide notification was an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act.

Thanks all - these changes just passed me by - must have been down in my bunker at the time...

TV Licensing website "The Wireless Telegraphy Act of 1967 (as amended) has been repealed, meaning that from 25 June 2013 onwards you no longer need to send us customer name and address details when you sell or rent out TV equipment. This also means your business no longer has to keep sales records to comply with the law on TV Licensing. If you don’t need these records for anything else you can destroy them from 25 June."

I suppose it's not so important with smartphones anyway - they know the telephone numbers - they can just triangulate your location and look over your shoulder.

Would a smartphone be covered by a home licence while on a train?

[Jakg]

footnote said:

Would a smartphone be covered by a home licence while on a train?

Depending on how they actually amend it, probably - "portable tvs" are defined as running off battery power, and are already covered by your home license.

[GC8]

garyhun said:

GC8 said:

The law only required them to ask and for the provided details to be provided. Many retailers used to lie when requesting the information, in my experience (example for the PHers who still live with their mothers: Maplin Electronics, July 2008, Wolverhampton).

It was a bit more than a requirement to ask. The Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967 obliged retailers to notify TV Licensing of any sales or rentals of television sets. Failure to provide notification was an offence under the Wireless Telegraphy Act.

Indeed. My point was that they had to take a name and address and forward it and their responsibility was discharged. They did not have to establish the purchasers identity, hence the number of Micky Mouse, 10 Downing Street type submissions.

[Fer]

eldar said:

At the time, 10 Downing Street had around 200,000 TV sets. There was no requirement to verify the address supplied.....

I know who three of those might be.

[anonymous-user]

GC8 said:

Indeed. My point was that they had to take a name and address and forward it and their responsibility was discharged. They did not have to establish the purchasers identity, hence the number of Micky Mouse, 10 Downing Street type submissions.

Parrot for me then

[GC8]

Possibly wasn't clear. I didn't feel the need to spaz out, so probably not.

[anonymous-user]

GC8 said:

Possibly wasn't clear. I didn't feel the need to spaz out, so probably not.

It's OK, I can take it