Unlicensed TV

Press, Volume CXII, Issue 33064, 3 November 1972, Page 8

Unlicensed TV

Sir, —I was amazed to read in your columns that the Post Office has no redress .against viewers who deny owning a television set. A licence has to be taken out for a dog, car, etc., so surely there must be some means of closing up this loophole of evading the purchase of a 'television licence. As stated in your columns, the evaders are those best able to afford a licence, married couples and people out at work all

day. Cannot the Post Office obtain legislation or a magistrate’s search warrant, when it has definite proof of occupiers having a television set on their property, especially as television revenue is virtually public funds and affects the whole community. I, for one, think a drastic remedy should be found, and quickly, with television funds in the state they are and colour licences going up to $35. —Yours, etc., NORMAN LESLIE BROWNE. Blenheim. October 26, 1972. [Mr D. M. Davies, regional engineer of the Christchurch Post Office, replies: “The article to which the writer refers may have given the wrong impression. There is no evidence to suggest that there are a significant number of unlicensed television sets, and the Post Office carries out regular surveys to ensure that all people who have television sets are properly recorded. For instance, many people omit to notify the Post Office when they change their address. There is adequate provision under the existing legislation to ensure that people comply with the regulations. The penalties for non-compliance are prescribed in the Post Office Act, 1959—a maximum fine of $lOO in addition to the licence fee which is still payable."]