Tweet
I'm hoping to receive a little help on behalf of a client I am supporting whilst she and her son reside in our homeless accommodation.
She was visited by TV Licencing Enforcement Officer in July and advised to purchase a TV licence. She didn't buy one as she was experiencing difficulties with her work not paying the correct level of sick pay coupled with the fact Concentrix cancelled her Tax Credits claim without writing to her to advise they were after more info. I've sorted the Tax Credits now and she has a new employer so is in a much better position financially.
Today she has received a SJPN with 21 days to respond.
The statement of fact says "on 25th July you admitted to using colour TV receiving equipment to watch or record live TV programmes at the above address for an unspecified period without an appropriate licence, last using it 25th July 2016. Access to the premises to inspect the equipment was refused'.
Now the Enforcement Officer witness statement completely contradicts the statement of fact in that it says the EO tested the TV and observed the equipment as well as testing various channels. My client says he did enter the property and in fact sat on the sofa! So why the statement of fact says he was not permitted entry I do not know. His statement starts by saying the response to the question 'May I come in and inspect the set' was 'not at moment' but then goes on to say he heard no programmes but tested BBC1, C4 and UK Gold. He also says there was a colour TV with digital box on standby with power plugged and aerial plugged in.
My client says he did not test UK Gold as she cannot get this channel. She does not dispute she had equipment in the house but approximately 2 days before the visit, and from when she moved into the property early June 2016, The aerial didn't work for the first few weeks after she moved in so she watched dvd box sets.
She is on a low income as a home carer, working 16 hours a week and single mum to a 7 year old.
Should we plead not guilty based on the conflicting evidence or should she plead guilty and mention the mitigating circumstances which are the conflicting reports on the statement of facts and the EO witness statement?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
She was visited by TV Licencing Enforcement Officer in July and advised to purchase a TV licence. She didn't buy one as she was experiencing difficulties with her work not paying the correct level of sick pay coupled with the fact Concentrix cancelled her Tax Credits claim without writing to her to advise they were after more info. I've sorted the Tax Credits now and she has a new employer so is in a much better position financially.
Today she has received a SJPN with 21 days to respond.
The statement of fact says "on 25th July you admitted to using colour TV receiving equipment to watch or record live TV programmes at the above address for an unspecified period without an appropriate licence, last using it 25th July 2016. Access to the premises to inspect the equipment was refused'.
Now the Enforcement Officer witness statement completely contradicts the statement of fact in that it says the EO tested the TV and observed the equipment as well as testing various channels. My client says he did enter the property and in fact sat on the sofa! So why the statement of fact says he was not permitted entry I do not know. His statement starts by saying the response to the question 'May I come in and inspect the set' was 'not at moment' but then goes on to say he heard no programmes but tested BBC1, C4 and UK Gold. He also says there was a colour TV with digital box on standby with power plugged and aerial plugged in.
My client says he did not test UK Gold as she cannot get this channel. She does not dispute she had equipment in the house but approximately 2 days before the visit, and from when she moved into the property early June 2016, The aerial didn't work for the first few weeks after she moved in so she watched dvd box sets.
She is on a low income as a home carer, working 16 hours a week and single mum to a 7 year old.
Should we plead not guilty based on the conflicting evidence or should she plead guilty and mention the mitigating circumstances which are the conflicting reports on the statement of facts and the EO witness statement?
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Comment