A man is celebrating after a court case relating to his TV licence was dismissed at Sefton Magistrates Court. Lee Stuart from Kirkby, applied for a TV licence when he moved into his property, but later decided to cancel it because he did not watch any live television and instead relied solely on online streaming platforms.
According to guidance on the TV Licensing website, a licence is required to watch or record live TV on any channel or device, including live programming streamed online via services such as ITV Hub, All 4, YouTube, and Amazon Prime Video. A licence is also necessary for using BBC iPlayer. A TV Licensing spokesperson told the Liverpool ECHO: “If a property we believe should be licensed is unlicensed, letters are sent to that address advising of the requirement for a TV Licence if the occupant watches live TV or other licensable content. This stops for one year when the occupant declares they don’t need a licence, when letters will resume to check if circumstances have changed.”
In September last year, Mr Stuart was visited by a TV Licensing inspection officer. He described the visit as an opportunity to explain his viewing habits in person, adding: “I told him I didn’t pay for a TV licence because I didn’t think I needed one because I don’t watch live TV.
“I don’t even have an aerial installed in my TV, and I invited him to do his checks. He was a bit apprehensive, but he looked at everything and asked me what I used the TV for.
“So I told him I just watch Netflix and Amazon Prime through the PlayStation, and he asked me if I used BBC iPlayer and I said, ‘no’.”
Following the inspection, Mr Stuart said the officer confirmed he was not in breach of licensing requirements. Mr Stuart described how the officer documented their conversation and read back the main points, including that no live TV was being watched and no BBC iPlayer account was used.
He added: “It was official, and I agreed with what he had said, so when I was presented with the big white signature box, I just signed it, and then he left. To be honest, I was really made up with myself, thinking I’d beaten the system and proved I didn’t need a licence.”
However, in January this year, Mr Stuart received a Single Justice Procedure Notice (SJPN), which covers those who are alleged to have watched TV without a licence.
Lee explained: “It said if I pleaded not guilty, the fine would be larger and I may have to pay court costs. So I’m not sure what’s going on at this point.
“I look through it all, and at the back was the inspector’s statement. Straight away I clock the question, ‘May I come in to inspect the TV receiver?’ and it said ‘no’ in the answer box, so that was wrong because I did.
“The next point was saying I admitted to watching the news last week. So I’ve refused him entry and then admitted on the step I watched live news last week? It didn’t make any sense.”
Mr Stuart chose to contest the notice and represented himself in court.
He said: “I can see why people just accept it, but I knew I was innocent and I wasn’t paying for a TV licence that I didn’t need so I fought it. I’ll be totally honest, I was surprised by the outcome and I thought it might be good to share my experience.”
The court dismissed the case due to insufficient evidence. A TV Licensing spokesperson said: “This was reviewed by TV Licensing following the court hearing in April 2025 as is standard practice, and no failings were highlighted.”
The spokesperson added that while both the officer and Mr Stuart gave credible in-person testimony, the magistrates could not find the case was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
Mr Stuart, initially pleased with the outcome, later received a further letter from TV Licensing advising of the licence requirement. He has since submitted a formal complaint and a No Licence Needed (NLN) declaration.
He added: “The form asks at the end, ‘What outcome do you want from this?’ and I just put ‘All I want is to be left alone, but an apology wouldn’t go amiss’.”
TV Licensing confirmed it has now received Mr Stuart’s NLN declaration.