Television Licenses - The Truth Revealed

[ToxicBunny]

The law states what is required in terms of vehicle licences.

The Act governing television licenses does not have a requirement to inform the SABC that the license is no longer needed.
The onus is on you to keep paying the license as long as you have a television, not on the SABC to extort money from you until you've informed them you no longer need to pay it.

 

[HapticSimian]

O RLY?

Had a quick look at the National Road Traffic Act, which makes no mention of procedures for deregistration of a motor vehicle. However, services.gov.za does make mention of a prescribed form to be completed.

Don't see the difference... Regardless, you are like a petulant child - and over R250 per year? I hope the SABC's incompetent BEE attorneys annoy the carp out of you at some point.

 

[ToxicBunny]

It has sweet FA to do with the R250 cost..

and has everything to do with the ethics of it, and the SABC claiming one thing with is NOT a requirement in the law.

 

[HapticSimian]

It has sweet FA to do with the R250 cost..

and has everything to do with the ethics of it, and the SABC claiming one thing with is NOT a requirement in the law.

As mentioned, I also don't see the law (as contained in the various Acts) explicitly setting out the procedure for deregistering a vehicle. Thus, me saying I don't see the difference.

If it ever lands before a magistrate/judge, the assumption would be that you were in continual possession of a television unless you can prove otherwise... Ever heard of the legal concept of the 'reasonable man'? Contrary to what you may believe, you aren't one...

 

[ToxicBunny]

The NRT act hands over that aspect to the Registering authorities as per the regulations, etc etc....

The ECT (or whichever act governs it now) does not hand of the authority to dictate the regulations to the SABC, the SABC is just the collection point for License fees.

No, again you fail to understand the law. The onus of proof lies with the SABC to prove I had a TV, not for me to prove I didn't.

 

[HapticSimian]

No, again you fail to understand the law. The onus of proof lies with the SABC to prove I had a TV, not for me to prove I didn't.

Ah, right... so I suppose the numerous court cases lost on your very assumption count for naught then - must be those incompetent magistrates who can't interpret the law. I suppose you're so much better at it than them.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Thousands of cases?

Please point me to ONE case that has gone to court where the owner DIDN'T have a TV and hadn't paid their license and hadn't notified the SABC of no longer owning a TV,
and the magistrate ruled in favour of the SABC based simply on the fact that the guy hadn't paid their license.

One case.. thats all I'm asking for.

 

[HapticSimian]

numerous = thousands?

Quite frankly, I can't be arsed. Your entire argument in this regard flies in the face of logic. Any standing agreement between legal entities, commercial or otherwise, places a responsibility on the one making a change to such an agreement to notify the other parties. By selling/denaturing/blowing up your television YOU change the basis of the agreement therefore you carry the responsibility.

Next thing you'll be expecting Telkom to sense that your billing details have changed...

 

[ToxicBunny]

Numerous/thousands.. irrelevant.

You seem to know of these cases so please, point me in the direction of just one, thats all.

I signed no "contract" or agreement with the SABC to pay them a fee yearly. I paid my license for one year whilst I had a TV. I now no longer have a TV, therefore I no longer pay the license. Should the SABC want to sue me or whatever for not paying my tv license whilst having a tv... they will have to prove I have owned a tv during that time.

 

[HapticSimian]

The “minority test” which had also been expressed by some courts said that a tacit contract was established where, by a process of inference, the court could conclude that the most plausible, probable inference from all the relevant proved facts and circumstances was that a contract came into existence.

From Scopeful 130 (Pty) Ltd vs. Mechani Mag (Pty) Ltd 2008

With your l33t leg4l p0werzz you should know that you don't necessarily need to sign something for an agreement to be inferred. As stated, I don't see the need to go digging for a case - your logic is flawed.

 

[ToxicBunny]

A license fee is NOT a contract though, your court case relates to a rental agreement whereupon I would agree with your interpretation, but a license fee of the nature of the TV License is not a "contract/agreement" in perpetuity.

The SABC informed me of the need to pay my license, I informed them that I no longer own a TV.

The SABC then decided to lay down a procedure which I needed to follow (that THEY came up with, that is not stipulated in any Act or by any regulating body (such as ICASA), I attempted to do so, they then "lost" the documentation, upon which I lost my temper and told them to take a hike

 

[HapticSimian]

OK, let's just 'whooooosah' for a minute here...

I can actually sympathise with your issue - the state of the SABC, let alone that of countless other government or quasi-government institutions, stems from gross incompetence and I wouldn't attempt to defend that. Fact is, there are a lot of things wrong in a lot of places & I don't know if/how it will be improved.

I get annoyed when people justify their 'decision' or 'right' to not pay for a television license through the 'I don't watch so i won't pay' argument, which is within the letter of the law patently flawed. I see the laws of the country as a black and white matter - either comply with them, or carry the consequences if you don't...

As far as your issue is concerned - if you still have copies of the documentation in question, I could see if I can get the story sorted out for you via my dad...

EDIT

Oh, and a license fee, in my interpretation, does constitute an agreement. But I kinda think we've gone far enough down that road.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Agreed

I also have no inclination of dealing with the SABC at this point in time, plus I no longer have the documentation, its 600kms away from me in the place I used to live, where the TV used to be. As for the laws, I have a feeling that the TV License ones are actually very grey given the way the SABC has been handling me over the last few months.

I've sworn at a few lawyers and threatened them with legal action for attempting to circumvent the NCA which shut them up fairly quickly, until clearly another one of the little creatures got their hands on the SABC's records. (relating to threatening to blacklist me etc etc)

If I had an unlicensed tv I would pay my license but still rant about it, but I live in a household with a licensed TV.

 

[HapticSimian]

Agreed

I also have no inclination of dealing with the SABC at this point in time, plus I no longer have the documentation, its 600kms away from me in the place I used to live, where the TV used to be. As for the laws, I have a feeling that the TV License ones are actually very grey given the way the SABC has been handling me over the last few months.

I've sworn at a few lawyers and threatened them with legal action for attempting to circumvent the NCA which shut them up fairly quickly, until clearly another one of the little creatures got their hands on the SABC's records. (relating to threatening to blacklist me etc etc)

If I had an unlicensed tv I would pay my license but still rant about it, but I live in a household with a licensed TV.

Just a little insider-tip: Don't ever mention either the NCA or, what's the other one... ah, yes 'prescription of debt'. Neither apply as the SABC is not a credit provider. A clever lawyer (not that there are too many) could infer from your reference to either that you admit to outstanding debt...

I think most lawyers just flinch when they hear 'NCA'... all you need is one smart one.

 

[ToxicBunny]

Ahhh, but nobody can "blacklist" you unless they are a registered credit provider (one of the wonderful things about the NCA)

They can POSSIBLY list you as a bad payer, but they have to jump through hoops to make that one happen.

 

[alloytoo]

Just my interpretation of the processes involved:

Being a license holder would infer the assumption that you would keep your television unless you explicitly prove the contrary. You cannot expect the SABC to smell that you've gotten rid of a once-licensed television.

I own a car that hasn't been driven in 2.5 years - for argument's sake I could've sold it for scrap two years ago, but unless I have it officially deregistered or I do the whole transfer-of-ownership thing, I will be expected to renew the license every year ad infinitum.

Having a valid television license is a legal requirement, which can only be cancelled through legally acceptable means, no?

/SABC Defence Force out...

A simple letter or email is a courtesy they should be pleased to accept.

The Law says I have to pay the SABC if I have a TV licence nothing more.

 

[HapticSimian]

alloytoo, without rehashing the entire rather constructive discussion Toxic and I just had, good luck with that line of defence if you ever need it.

 

[alloytoo]

As mentioned, I also don't see the law (as contained in the various Acts) explicitly setting out the procedure for deregistering a vehicle. Thus, me saying I don't see the difference.

If it ever lands before a magistrate/judge, the assumption would be that you were in continual possession of a television unless you can prove otherwise... Ever heard of the legal concept of the 'reasonable man'? Contrary to what you may believe, you aren't one...

I have advised the SABC in writing that I no longer have a TV. Those are the actions of a reasonable man. The Broadcast act makes no provision for a prescribed form to cancel a licence.

Furthermore the SABC has acknowledged receipt of my letter.

As a reasonable man my obligations are complete.

 

[alloytoo]

From Scopeful 130 (Pty) Ltd vs. Mechani Mag (Pty) Ltd 2008

With your l33t leg4l p0werzz you should know that you don't necessarily need to sign something for an agreement to be inferred. As stated, I don't see the need to go digging for a case - your logic is flawed.

The licence is a requirement by law.

No tacit agreement could possibly be inferred by someone forfulling his legal obligations as there is NO CHOICE.

 

[HapticSimian]

I have advised the SABC in writing that I no longer have a TV. Those are the actions of a reasonable man. The Broadcast act makes no provision for a prescribed form to cancel a licence.

Furthermore the SABC has acknowledged receipt of my letter.

As a reasonable man my obligations are complete.

Television license = legal obligation. The cessation of a legal obligation would require a legally acceptable channel, i.e. the requirement for an affidavit. A letter doesn't cut it - writing a letter stating that you've found the cure for cancer doesn't make it so.