Landlord and BT and third party: lengthy!

carolinosourus

Hi all,

Hope I'm posting this in the right place and that it's not too confusing.

Basically, we're renting at the moment and had to activate a line via BT when we moved in and split the £120 cost with our current LL. That's not the problem.

We're moving to a new (old) flat at the beginning of October and started thinking about moving the phone and internet and hoping that we wouldn't have to pay another £60 or £120. So the LL called me on Sunday 13/09 at about 7.30pm asking whether we wanted him to sort all that out as he has a phone company that would only charge £99 for the line connection rather than what BT charge (£120). I said we would think about it, he asked me to let him know what we wanted to do by next Monday/Tuesday. I took that to be by 21st or 22nd.

OH called BT on Monday 14/09 to find out what we would have to do about paying for a new line when we move, we would have to change our number as it was from a new exchange or something, which we were happy about (as we keep getting calls for a company called Sapphire Cosmetics). So he called BT and they said that as the line had been active in the past 3 years they wouldn't have to charge us like they did last time, which we were really pleased about.

I appreciate that I should have let the LL know immediately, however I had an exam on Monday 21/09 which was much more pressing for my attention. So I called him on Tuesday 22/09 (the last day that he wanted us to let him know whether to proceed) to let him know that we had spoken to BT and they said that they would not have to charge us as there had been this active line. He seemed pleased for us, and that was that.

However, on Wednesday 23/09 OH received an email from him which had a forwarded email from what we presume was the phone company that he was going on about saying that he owed them £99 plus VAT and the reason BT was not going to charge us anything was because this phone company had already activated the line! :eek:

However, this line must have been activated before Monday 14/09 which is well before we let him know if we wanted to proceed with his company or BT, as this was the day we spoke to BT and they said that there was an active line, and probably activated before the LL had spoken to me on the Sunday night 13/09.

We called BT this morning to see if they could give us any info on how long the line at this property had been active, and if that phone company had ACTUALLY done anything or whether they were just trying to scam £99 + VAT. BT couldn't tell us anything, apparently all the lines are actually owned by OpenReach and BT can't access info like the info we wanted. The person we spoke to was also shocked regarding the £99 charge from this other company, apparently BT charge £120 + VAT as that is what OpenReach charge them (not totally sure I believe that) as it's usually an OpenReach engineer who will open the connection, not a BT one.

The BT guy also says that they advise the LL to leave it to the tenants who move in to deal with things like this as the bill will invariably be in the LL's name rather than the tenants'.

So basically, we don't think that we should have to pay this, as there was nothing about this charge in the contract and he has really incurred us/himself a charge without our consent.

As far as we were aware, BT informed us the day after he called us the 1st time that there was already an active line at the property, as they can take a couple of days to connect a line, that indicates that he had agreed the connection even before he had spoken to us to ask us the 1st time if we wanted him to do it for us.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this?

Thanks,

Caroline

silvercar

Outreach were part of BT so it is quite likely that Openreach charge the same as BT and BT don't make a profit from them.

Find out who this company is. It is probably someone like Pipex or Tiscali who can sub-lease lines of BT, they are probably subsidising the cost and home to profit from your calls. You also want to know if you will have a minimum length contract with them.

Bottom line is whether the bill is in the name of the landlord or your name. If it is the landlord's name and he has chosen this provider there is less room to manouvre than if it is going to be a contract in your name - then I don't see why you can't say you don't want to go with XXX and have nothing to do with them.

carolinosourus

It's someone called M-Line Telecoms...

The problem is that he wants us to pay this £99+VAT that he has incurred without our agreement, in fact, even before asking us about it.

welshy_2002

carolinosourus wrote: »

thinking about moving the phone and internet and hoping that we wouldn't have to pay another £60 or £120.

~£120 is what BT charge for a new line. As in, a property without one or a property that needs a separate, second phone line installed. If you've moved into a rented flat you should only need to get the phone re-connected. There's a nominal charge for this. If the phone lines been disconnected physically at the subbox on your street (property may have been vacant for sometime), then the charge is more. But £120?!

That's my understanding anwyay. I've moved several times and never had to pay such a eye watering amount to get an already-installed line working again.

carolinosourus

They charge you £120 for reconnecting the line if it's been disconnected for longer than 3 years, as after that period the line is disconnected.

We asked BT if they could find out the history of the line at the property but they couldn't.

The point isn't really the cost, it's the fact that this guy has incurred this cost without our consent and the charge not being in the contract.

silvercar

Being you want a phone line, if you go with BT and the line hasn't been connected for 3 years you are going to have to pay £120. So the landlord finding some company to do it for less looks good value. Though I would want to check call packagaes and minimum term.

If you want to avoid this company alltogether, you could tell your landlord you are going with Virgin who will physically put new line in, so you won't be touching this guys wires.

Bear in mind that this is the first dealing with the new landlord, you have to havea business relationship with him for the length of the tenancy, so it may not be worth arguing about money you know you will have to pay.

carolinosourus

Yes but when we spoke to BT the day after we spoke for the first time regarding him getting his company to do it, they said that we wouldn't have to pay as the line had been active in the past 3 years.

We don't know whether that was due to the previous residents using BT, or because he went behind our backs, without our consent to get this line activated. If it's his company then he could just be shafting us trying to get this £99+VAT for doing nothing when the line was already active.

We tried to get the history for the line but BT said they didn't have that info.

silvercar

We don't know whether that was due to the previous residents using BT, or because he went behind our backs, without our consent to get this line activated. If it's his company then he could just be shafting us trying to get this £99+VAT for doing nothing when the line was already active.

It is unlikely to be his company, its a reseller. See here:

http://www.mlinetelecoms.com/home

carolinosourus

Or they could be shafting him and he's passing the shafting on to us. Anyway, someone has to own these companies, don't they?

The main point is that he has basically gone behind our backs and asked us what we wanted to do AFTER he'd already decided to do whatever he wanted and actually did it.

Edit: he's also decided that he's having a water meter installed but that he "would happily pay for it"...

silvercar

Sounds like there is a breakdown in trust between you and the landlord before you have even moved in; are you sure you want to rent this place?

he's also decided that he's having a water meter installed but that he "would happily pay for it"...

Water meters are generally considered to be good. They encourage you to save water, reducing your costs and helping to save the planet. If you are in a compulsary metering area, the landlord has to get a meter installed on change of tenancy.

Or they could be shafting him and he's passing the shafting on to us. Anyway, someone has to own these companies, don't they?

I was just commenting on the very, very small chance that a landlord also owns a telecoms reseller. I don't know that anyone is necessarily being shafted - business's operate to make profits. You have indicated that you want a landline, the landlord has made sure that one is installed. The landlord could be under the impression that it would have been charged whoever installed it, so he chose a more accommodating supplier than BT. Good intentions, maybe?

carolinosourus

You're right about the breakdown of trust. Also we've just found out that he works for the company, he doesn't own it so when he said it was his company that was a little misleading.

My problem is that he has obviously decided what he would do, and then did it, before talking to us to ask us what we wanted to do and then asked us to decide and get back to us, but that was pointless as he'd already done it!

I mean, if we'd have known about the cost then we would have used our mobiles and used dongles, the only reason we have a landline is for the internet. We went ahead with BT again because we were told there wouldn't be a charge because he'd already basically incurred one on our behalf, before even talking to us or checking if it was ok.