Are we liable to pay for new tenants phone connection?

chris_m

westv wrote: »

But what business was it of the employer to get the line disconnected? Didn't somebody else here say that the "business" part referred to the account and not the line? Why disconnect a line that would be used by somebody else? It wouldn't have cost the employer any money to leave it running.

Without an active account the line will be disconnected so it cannot be used - otherwise BT (or any other comms provider) won't have any details of to whom future bills should be charged.
Any reconnection fee will depend upon what other work has subsequently been done to the line plant in the area, what work will be required to reconnect - and also the financial status/history of the new tenants.

It's certainly not the old tenants' responsibility.

lillemy

Hi everyone, thanks again for all the advice!

Thought I would post an update on this saga. As I was filling in the TDS dispute form the landlord sent this email:

"I have just spoken to BT ([name of person], Assistant to C&CEO, Executive Complaints, BT ). She explained that the new tenants will be charged £127.99 for reconnecting to the BT service.

The tenancy agreement states: The Tenant agrees to the following … 9.8. To pay any costs incurred in reconnecting or resuming any services to the Premises if any services are cut off during the Tenancy due to the default in payment, the specific instruction or any action or lack of action of the Tenant.

BT only charge for reconnecting when a line has not been in use for several months - the line is disconnected during this period but it is not cut-off and can be reconnected immediately. When you moved in the line had been disconnected for a day or two because we had told BT that we would no longer be responsible for the ‘phone bills and you would be moving-in. Had you contacted BT they would have reconnected the line at no cost. Because you chose to have a new line with a different provider for a year, there is now a reconnection fee. When you said to me you wished to upgrade the telephone line, you did not indicate that there would be a reconnection fee due to BT at the end of your tenancy. Had you told me this we would have had to discuss the resulting cost. As it is, because of your action, a cost has arisen. I therefore think it is reasonable that you pay the cost of returning the flat to the condition it was in when you took over the tenancy.

I have no problem in immediately instructing FJ Lord to return your deposit minus the £127.99.

I look forward to hearing from you."

To which my partner replied:

"If you disconnected the phone line and we did not want a phone line, are you saying that we are still liable to pay. Because that is what you are implying.

" To pay any costs incurred in reconnecting or resuming any services to the Premises if any services are cut off during the Tenancy due to the default in payment, , the specific instruction or any action or lack of action of the Tenant." I think you are misinterpreting this, because (Lillemy)'s work paid for the line and we did not default on any payment.

So hence, we are not liable for the incurred cost."

Anyway, it just got so stupid. My partner called the landlord and left a message before sending the email reply, and he sort of lost it a bit saying he had had enough etc etc. 



A few minutes later we got this email "[Name of estate agent] Please relase the full deposit to [partner] and [Lillemy].
 
I have spoken to the new tenants and explained the situation regarding the previous telephone-line supplier. They are willing to pay BT's reconnection cost."

Well thank * for that. We now have the full deposit back in our account, I didn’t want to jinx it and post a reply here before this was the case.

I'm so glad I posted on here, at first I actually thought, oh maybe I have done something wrong... god. We had a nightmare living in that flat - serious problems with mould and we had a baby whilst living there, and none of our complaints were taken seriously. So happy we don't have to deal with these people again.

Thanks again guys!!

N79

1. Stop phoning and start writing.
2. Block the deposit in the TDS - they should return the non disputed amount to you.
3. Personally, I believe that this is the sort of dispute where the TDS arbitration should NOT be used as their assessment is done on the basis of a paperwork exercise whereas your dispute with the LL is based on the interpretation of contract wording (and you are right in your interpretation). Therefore, step 3 therefore should be to start a small claims action against your LL for the deposit with an appropriate letter before action. Others may have a different opinion on the competence of the TDS arbitration to deal with this or what their default position will be.

puddy

no, the OP has their money back. and i agree, what a nonsense, if you had not taken out a landline for the time you were there (as many dont these days with mobiles and stuff), then theres no way you could be liable for a line being reconnected now. the landlord took that action, not you
well done

tbs624

We've all done those sort of posts - you click on post reply but get distracted by your real life and in the meantime, before you hit "done" other posts have appeared


Even though the OP now has their full deposit money back , N79's response stands as good advice to any other MSEer who may be in a similar situation with their rented property.

Lillemy - glad you are now sorted - well done for sticking with it and good luck in the new home.

puddy

yes, i thought they hadnt seen that post, but it happens to me all the time, usually where i forget to quote and reply to what i think is going to be the post above, when its about 4 posts after by the time it shows!

but thats right about this TDS, a good idea and all that, but it wont cover all eventualities, meanwhile someones money is tied up in the scheme and they cant use it for the next properties deposit