Can the Secretary of State exempt people over 75 requiring a TV licence under section 363 of the UK&#39;s Communications Act 2003? Can the Secretary of State exempt people over 75 requiring a TV licence under section 363 of the UK's Communications Act 2003? I don't have any legal background but below is an extract from Communications Act 2003 at section 363 (the link has more readable formatting). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363 Communcitaion act 2003 363 Licence required for use of TV receiver (1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part. (2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence. (3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who— (a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or (b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection, is guilty of an offence. (4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale. (5)Subsection (1) is not contravened by anything done in the course of the business of a dealer in television receivers solely for one or more of the following purposes— (a)installing a television receiver on delivery; (b)demonstrating, testing or repairing a television receiver. (6)The Secretary of State may by regulations exempt from the requirement of a licence under subsection (1) the installation or use of television receivers— (a)of such descriptions, (b)by such persons, (c)in such circumstances, and (d)for such purposes, as may be provided for in the regulations. (7)Regulations under subsection (6) may make any exemption for which such regulations provide subject to compliance with such conditions as may be specified in the regulations.
Can the Secretary of State exempt people over 75 requiring a TV licence? Yes. s.363(6) introduces the power to exempt those listed at (a) to (d) by way of Regulations. s.6, paragraph 1 of the Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004 states: No fee shall be payable for a TV licence of a type referred to in the first or second entry in column 1 of the table in Schedule 1 where— (a) the licence is issued to a person aged 75 years or more or to a person who will attain that age in the calendar month in which the licence is issued; and (b) the single place, vehicle, vessel or caravan specified in the licence is the sole or main residence of that person. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/regulation/6?timeline=false The first and second entries in column 1 at Schedule 1 refer to black and white or colour TVs in a domestic setting or business purposes. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/schedule/1?timeline=false
It seems to me that some commentators/articles have inadvertently conflated different legislation and a recent event involving the seizure of equipment from protester Steve Bray in Parliament Square. Some articles about Steve Bray have named or otherwise referred to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 without an explanation of any link between that person and this law - to me there is no link in the context of Bray's equipment seizure (the police may have mentioned other newer powers to Bray). Among other things, section 143 of the Police Reform and Social Responsibility Act 2011 (as amended) explicitly prohibits the unauthorised use of &quot;amplified noise equipment&quot; (including but not limited to loudspeakers and loudhailers) within Parliament Square and (the amendment) &quot;the Palace of Westminster controlled area&quot;. Westminster Council provides a map in pdf format of the respective areas: Appendix to Protocol for enforcement of provisions in relation to noise nuisance in the vicinity of Parliament. Before the PRSRA 2011, sections 137 and 138 of the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 gave the Home Secretary the power to prohibit the unauthorised use of &quot;loudspeakers&quot; in &quot;designated areas&quot; no more than one kilometre around Parliament Square. Part 3 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 amends the Public Order Act 1986 in relation to &quot;public processions and public assemblies&quot;, including clauses related to &quot;noise&quot;. Section 78 of the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 abolished the common law offence of public nuisance and created the statutory offence of &quot;intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance&quot;. This more recent legislation has been criticised in relation to protests generally (not solely those that involve megaphones), e.g. by the Joint Committee on Human Rights its witnesses in their scrutiny of the-then Bill. Quote: The Bill introduces a new statutory offence of “intentionally or recklessly causing public nuisance” which was previously an offence at common law. There is a wide range of non-violent conduct that may be caught by the statutory offence, which potentially criminalises some forms of peaceful protest. The offence carries a maximum sentence of 12 months if tried summarily and 10 years if tried on indictment. A person can also be issued with a fine.77 A number of our witnesses raised concerns about the impact of these changes and its compatibility with Articles 10 and 11 of the ECHR. We share some of those concerns. In summary the explicit prohibition of &quot;amplified noise equipment&quot; is limited to Parliament Square and &quot;the Palace of Westminster controlled area&quot; but one can easily imagine the police claiming that a protester's use of a megaphone is a public nuisance.
To me this seems analogous to failing to report a bank error in your favour, which amounts to theft in england-and-wales. I wrote an answer about that here. See that answer for the details but briefly there are five elements to establish under section 1(1) the Theft Act 1968: Dishonesty (section 2) Appropriation (section 3) Property (section 4) Belonging to another (section 5) Intention to permenantly deprive (section 6) As pointed out in the comments, there is a separate offence of abstraction of electricty in section 13 which only has the following elements: dishonesty, use of electricity, and lack of due authority. The courts have also held that electricity cannot be considered &quot;property&quot; for the purposes of the Theft Act (Low v Blease [1975] 1 WLUK 325). Arguably this offence is not commited here as you had due authority (permission from the supplier) to consume the electricity, however I will have a look later to see if I can find some case law on this point and edit it in if I find anything. With that said, &quot;property&quot; includes choses in action (section 4(1)). Choses in action are intangible property which can only be recovered by enforcing a right rather than by taking possession. In the case of a bank error, the resulting bank balance is a chose in action and the crime of theft is committed on that basis. In your scenario, the right to be paid for electricity you consume is a chose in action belonging to the supplier. Although I'm not aware of any case law specifically on this point, it seems to me that depriving the supplier from its right to be paid could satisfy the requirement of appropriation of property. The other elements of theft, as in the case of bank errors, are easily established here. Note that you won't be saved by &quot;if and when the company does discover its error, I have no problem with paying the arrears&quot;. This is because of section 6(1) of the Act which states: A person appropriating property belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or disposal. Even if you eventually pay for the electrity, your intention was not to do so if they didn't notice. Note also that it is not necessary that there is a contractual requirement to notify the supplier of their mistake. Such a requirement can arise under common law (e.g. A-G's Reference (No 1 of 1983) [1984] 3 All ER 369, elaborated in my other answer). You didn't specify which part of the UK and this answer may not be applicable in Scotland or Northern Ireland.
Given that this is a UK based company, the most applicable Act would be the Unsolicited Goods and Services Act 1971 A person who, not having reasonable cause to believe there is a right to payment, in the course of any trade or business makes a demand for payment, or asserts a present or prospective right to payment, for what he knows are unsolicited goods sent (after the commencement of this Act) to another person with a view to his acquiring them [for the purposes of his trade or business], shall be guilty of an offence and on summary conviction shall be liable to a fine not exceeding level 4 on the standard scale. This law specifically refers to [unsolicited] charges for entries in directories. You also mentioned that they're misrepresenting that a company is already a customer and sending out invoices on that basis. That would be a breach of the Fraud Act 2006 A person is in breach of this section if he dishonestly makes a false representation As to their enforceability, that answer is no. If this came before an actual judge, the judge would throw it out in a heartbeat. No agreement was made to provide a service in return for a payment and these companies rely on sending threatening letters via (seeming) third-parties precisely because they wish to avoid that level of scrutiny.
No. See section 20 Equality Act 2010 which imposes the duty to make adjustments only in relation to a person's disability: (1) Where this Act imposes a duty to make reasonable adjustments on a person, this section, sections 21 and 22 and the applicable Schedule apply; and for those purposes, a person on whom the duty is imposed is referred to as A. (2)The duty comprises the following three requirements. (3) The first requirement is a requirement, where a provision, criterion or practice of A's puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage. (4) The second requirement is a requirement, where a physical feature puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to avoid the disadvantage. (5) The third requirement is a requirement, where a disabled person would, but for the provision of an auxiliary aid, be put at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled, to take such steps as it is reasonable to have to take to provide the auxiliary aid. ... For completeness, section 6 defines a disabled person for the purposes of the Act: (1) A person (P) has a disability if— (a) P has a physical or mental impairment, and (b) the impairment has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on P's ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities (2) A reference to a disabled person is a reference to a person who has a disability. ...
I don't know where you looked, but the Housing Act 2004 on legislation.gov.uk is up to date according to its header: [the] Housing Act 2004 is up to date with all changes known to be in force on or before 12 January 2023. There are changes that may be brought into force at a future date. Sections 212 to 215 fall within Part 6, Chapter 4 of the Act. With hindsight, you may be looking at an earlier version. So for awareness, if the entry's header is: green, then it is up to date. Any provisional amendments (i.e. yet to be enacted) there might be can be found using the &quot;view outstanding changes&quot; drop down option if there is one. red, then there are changes yet to be made which can be found via the &quot;view outstanding changes&quot; drop down option. blue, it's either the original version that has not had any amendments, or it's an earlier version that can be navigated to/from by selecting the the tick box &quot;show timeline of changes&quot; and the sliding calendar above the header.
The gov.uk website has a page devoted to this specific matter. With reference to the issues mentioned in the question: It seems to imply that form RX3 may not be necessary: &quot;Download and fill in the form to cancel a restriction, if one has been registered.&quot; Regarding the cost: &quot;Send the form and documents to HM Land Registry’s Citizen Centre. There’s no fee.&quot; As the website makes clear, even without form RX3, there are still a number of other documents that must be submitted. It also states that you can apply yourself, or use the services of a legal professional.
Georgia Code § 40-5-24 says: Any resident of this state who is at least 15 years of age may apply to the department for an instruction permit to operate a noncommercial Class C vehicle. What is “age”? According to § 15-11-6, (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this Code section, a child attains a specified age the first second past midnight on the day of the anniversary of such child's birth. (b) A child born on February 29 attains a specified age on March 1 of any year that is not a leap year. So, you still have to wait until the 15th anniversary of your birth to apply for a permit.