Sky Installation: Whos responsibility?

JimmyDeemo

Hi all, i wondered if you guys could give me your thoughts on the situation below as i'm unsure what i should do, or whose responsibility it is.

We have had tenants move into our apartment recently and they decided to get Sky TV installed. Now the apartment has satellite connections installed from when it was build (2006) with two feeds. When the Sky TV guy installed the equipment, he told the tenants that it was a shared dish (which is correct) but that only one of the two feeds were working (meaning they can only record one channel and not watch another channel at the same time). The Sky TV guys said they should contact me about this issue. Please note that having lived in the apartment for 2 years prior to letting it out, we never had Sky. Now i have contacted the maintenance company for the communal areas (that i have to pay as the apartment owner), they said they would be happy to send someone out to check the COMMUNAL equipment, but if it was deemed to be a problem inside the apartment then i would be liable for the call out charge. If it is a problem with the communal equipment then its covered by my maintenance contract so there is no problem.

So there are a few things i want to know you thoughts on;

1. Should i tell my maintenance contractors to check the communal equipment?
2. If it is deemed as a problem inside the apartment, whose responsibility is it for charges to get it working again? *See below
3. I was thinking that i should be there when the contractor comes out to check the feeds, to ensure they are checking that any changes they make are being tested inside the apartment. (i.e. they switch a box on in the loft, check to see if the feed works in the apartment).
4. Should the satellite connections have been checked before the builders release the property? I know a lot of stuff are covered by the NHBC, but is that one of them? Really I’m looking for confirmation that the feeds worked when we originally moved in, how could i have checked this without getting Sky? Note: I have contacted the builders customer service who have said that as I’m outside of the two year warranty that any work is now my responsibility that is not covered by the NHBC.

Notes on 2. : Now i don't want to be funny about this but this is what’s confusing me the most. Is it my job to front the cost of investigation and then fixing of internal connections for the satellite? or the tenants? For example I was told once by a landlord that if I wanted to have a digital Ariel on a rented property (even thought wiring was internal) I’d be responsible for the costs.


Don't get me wrong if it really is my responsibility then i'll sort it out, althought moneywise probably not a fast as the tenant would like. I just wanted some second oppinions.

Please let me know what you think. Sorry for long post!

silvercar

Unless you guaranteed two sky feeds to the tenants when they took the tenancy, I would leave it to the tenants. Pass the information you have to the tenants along with a letter of authority giving them permission to get sky installed at their expense. Then it is their decision whether they want to call the maintenance team or not.

JimmyDeemo

Thanks for the reply, i didn't really promise them two feeds, more assumed they worked. I guess i should have had them checked as part of the inventory? Can you get satellite feed checkers?

Also technically they can't call out the maintainance team as the management fee is paid by me as i am the owner. I don't pass this on to the tenants.

It just seems kinda harsh to me, i know i would be a little annoyed as a tenant if this happened. Cheers for your thoughts.

debtfreein4years

im a tennant and id say its my issue to get sorted. im in a house that already had a sky dish, so was just a case of getting the engineer round to sort my out with sky plus (where you can record) if the dish was iffy and i couldnt have sky plus well then id either have paid for the dish to be replaced or just had plain sky (where you cant record), wouldnt have dreamed of asking my landlord to cover this cost.

I would say that you split the cost of the maintenance as if the flat didnt come with a guarentee that you could have sky plus then there is nothing that you really have to do, but im assuming that you want to keep the tennants happy you so you are looking into this issue for them to help them resolve it.

I would make it really clear that this is something that you are doing as an extra as the flat didnt come with any guarentees that sky plus would work. you are not fussed about having sky but as they want it you are willing to cover part of the investigation and part of the cost if the fault is found to be within your flat. (this would benefit future tennants as well, but its a case if your future tennants are not fussed with sky then it wouldnt be a benefit)

confused31_2

what you will find is they have sky+ and to tape one channel and watch one you have to have a twin lnb with 2 cables going to the box. But that is not your problem it is theirs if they want to use that facility they will have to pay for a twin lnb.

JimmyDeemo

Ok thanks for the help guys.

Just to clarify, when the flat was built, two feeds were put in to facilitate Sky Plus.

I have been informed that the connections to the communal equipment from the flat should literally just be a wire. What i will try to assertain is whether or not both feed were meant to be active. If they were then more then likely the problem lies in the communal areas. I am also going to try and see if my maintenance company will use the contactors that installed the equipment (i've obtained their details from the builder) so they are familiar with the property.

Interesting hearing your views on that, i thought it would be the other way round. But like i said, if its a communal problem then its not an issue. I've also asked the tenants to ask around the other flats to see if anyone else has had it installed. Thats because the management company said they have had no other complaints from the same area. But if no one has had sky then why would they!?

Cheers. More thoughts welcome if you wish.

littlemissmoney

Do the two feeds work for any other flats? Might be worth putting a note up or asking around.

Edit: Oops, I see you have thought of this already!

System

I was a tenant for years and i would say its definetly the tenants responsibility. I got Sky in for all four houses i rented in and each time I had to pay sky £30 to install the service. Apart from getting permission of the home owner I would never have dreamed of asking the landlord to pay for installation. I understand the flat is a different situation but still sky is a luxury service and personally i would say its down to the tenant if they wish to pay for it. If you pay for this you will be committing yourself in the future to pay for any maintenance on their sky equipment which you don't want to do!

JimmyDeemo

littlemissmoney, thanks for the idea anyway.

I see what you mean, the tenant is a friend of mine you see (we did everything by the book though, AST, guarantor, etc.) so they didn't really ask for me to sort it out. More like 'hey i thought this was supposed to work', which was my sentiments as well.

The thing is that they have already paid sky for the 'installation'. The communal equipment is not Sky's and was put in place by a contractor, so thats the difference.

What i'm going to do is find out if anyone else is recieving the full signal, and if so then i will say that normal sky is availible unless they want the contractors details to sort it themselves. If no one else has sky, i'm pretty sure its the communal equiptment and that should be sorted as thats what i pay a maintainance fee for.

I think if all else fails, i'll just give the tenants permission to ring sky up and get them to slap a normal dish on the side and drill through the walls (like they would do with any other place).

Thanks again, will let you know what happens anyway.

sarah_elton

JimmyDeemo wrote: »

I think if all else fails, i'll just give the tenants permission to ring sky up and get them to slap a normal dish on the side and drill through the walls (like they would do with any other place).

Are you sure that's allowed?

My building has a communal dish, and we are not allowed to put up our own (in the terms of the leasehold). Buildings covered in satellite dishes ain't pretty.

Also, it's probably a lot easier, and neater in the long run, to get the duff feed fixed than have a separate dish put up.

I would say ordinarily it's the tenants responsibility. However, if the flat was let with two working Sky feeds, they could argue it's down to you in this instance. Normally stuff like that (and TV aerials) aren't specified. Was there anything in writing (e.g. on the inventory) about two working Sky feeds?

QTPie

Regarding whether two feeds should be supplied (and maintained) by you, I would say it depends whether it was advertised/inventoried as such. If I moved into a property with a dishwasher, then I would be a bit peeved if I moved in to find it there but not working... (and the landlord to turn around and say "well we never used it, didn't know it didn't work, if you want to use it then fix it yourself"... Although I have no idea about the legal side of it.

JimmyDeemo wrote: »

I think if all else fails, i'll just give the tenants permission to ring sky up and get them to slap a normal dish on the side and drill through the walls (like they would do with any other place).

Check your leasehold/freehold agreement for this. We live in a new developement (well 5 years old) with a communcal dish. We own our house: a 4 bed freehold townhouse within the development. Our satellite feed is a regular single input provided by the communal dish. Our freehold (and the leasehold for the flats in the development) FORBIDS the installation of personal satellite. So there is NO WAY for us to get two feeds.

I am guessing that this is not uncommon - quite a few new developments may well have the installation of personal dishes forbidden...

QT