Problems with previous tenant

piratefairy

A.Penny.Saved wrote: »

If necessary have a new line installed and leave it to her and BT to sort out their debts.

Can't understand why you didn't do that as soon as you were told the line was in use and therefore you couldn't have your choice of broadband.

piratefairy

espresso wrote: »

Rubbish!

The account holder is fully responsible for her BT bill, not the new tenant who has been unable to use their chosen provider.

I see that, and understand it, but what about the costs incurred by the account holder due to the (unauthorised?) use of the line?

piratefairy

espresso wrote: »

You owe her nothing!

Rubbish!

They owe her the costs she incurred when they used her broadband. They used it, not sure why you'd be advising them to try and get out of paying for something they used?!

A.Penny.Saved

piratefairy wrote: »

Can't understand why you didn't do that as soon as you were told the line was in use and therefore you couldn't have your choice of broadband.

Probably because like most people, she thought that because there was already a phone line, that she would be able to get it sorted so she could use it in the way that she wanted. As a tenant she might need permission to have a phone connected, drilling through walls etc. She probably thought that there would be a simple solution and didn't expect such unreasonable behaviour from the account holder.

piratefairy wrote: »

Rubbish!

They owe her the costs she incurred when they used her broadband. They used it, not sure why you'd be advising them to try and get out of paying for something they used?!

I don't think she is legally liable for it, used or not. She didn't agree to the line being left like it was so it is still the account holders responsibility for any usage. If miss-october didn't make any phone calls then it doesn't really matter whether she used the broadband or not, it hasn't cost the account holder anything more than if it hadn't been used.

The inconvenience caused would be more costly IMO so I don't think she should pay anything. The account holder is trying to get out of paying for it and I don't think miss-october should be the one to foot the bill for the account holders deviousness.

Get a new line put in and get on with whatever you want to do and let her sort out the mess that she left. You have tried to be reasonable and she is still trying to force you to pay for her mistakes. Don't let her get away with it!

miss-october

Thank you to everyone who has replied to the thread - it all seems to be getting a bit clearer now, although there are a few more things I need to add:

1. The previous tenant has already paid the past 3 months' bills, and is now chasing us to pay her back
2. Her broadband had a very low download limit and, with us being used to unlimited downloads with Sky, we went above the limit. Had we been allowed our own internet connection with the provider of our choice, this would certainly not have been an issue.
3. The previous tenant left the country and went back to Romania after she moved out. We contacted her about the broadband/phone line issue immediately upon moving in, but she never replied back to any of them.
4. The landlord seems to have problems with any changes made to the flat (big or small), so it's highly unlucky that he would have allowed us to have another line installed when this problem could have been fixed quickly and easily without having to drill holes.


Therefore, would most of you agree that we're only liable for the extra costs (i.e. what was spent on top of the line rental and the set montly cost)?

Thanks in advance

A.Penny.Saved

miss-october wrote: »

Thank you to everyone who has replied to the thread - it all seems to be getting a bit clearer now, although there are a few more things I need to add:

1. The previous tenant has already paid the past 3 months' bills, and is now chasing us to pay her back
2. Her broadband had a very low download limit and, with us being used to unlimited downloads with Sky, we went above the limit. Had we been allowed our own internet connection with the provider of our choice, this would certainly not have been an issue.
3. The previous tenant left the country and went back to Romania after she moved out. We contacted her about the broadband/phone line issue immediately upon moving in, but she never replied back to any of them.
4. The landlord seems to have problems with any changes made to the flat (big or small), so it's highly unlucky that he would have allowed us to have another line installed when this problem could have been fixed quickly and easily without having to drill holes.


Therefore, would most of you agree that we're only liable for the extra costs (i.e. what was spent on top of the line rental and the set montly cost)?

Thanks in advance

I don't think paying her anything would be a good idea. If she has to keep paying for it then she might get fed up with it and terminate the contract to cut her loses. I think it is going to be a battle of wills and who is going to break first. You could keep on using her broadband, over using the bandwidth limits and make her keep paying for it while she resists terminating the contract. But first seek advice on this for any possible legal consequences.

It might be worth talking to your local Citizens Advice Bureau either by phone or a visit and explain to them the situation because they might be able to give advice on the best way to deal with it. They will have more knowledge on the legal situation and who is liable and for what.

Your landlord might be required to intervene as you have no phone or broadband available in your name, there might be something in the tenancy terms and conditions that might force the landlord to do something because I don't think it is right that you should be held to ransom on this when it was not your doing. It think that the landlord should ensure that such things cannot happen.

Another point which might be worth considering, to help pressurize her into terminating the contract is the situation which could arise with the internet connection and copyright enforcement.

The fact that the phone line and broadband is in her name means she herself is responsible for whatever use the phone and broadband is put to and not anyone who uses the phone or broadband. That was a really stupid thing to do IMO because if a wireless router was left connected to that broadband connection and not sufficiently protected or left with no protection anyone could use that broadband connection. If she left a router then maybe that could be setup and the wireless protection removed, keeping your own router protected to connect when you need it.

If someone was to use it Wirelessly and login and download copyrighted material like some people do when wireless connections are left unprotected and if the IP address is captured then the account holder would be the one held legally responsible for it. This is all disputed and has yet to be proven in court but if any letters are forwarded to her then she would probably at some point get a letter for breaking copyright with a demand for money.

Many people have received threatening letters from solicitors such as ACS-Law and Gallant McMillan even though they say they did not download the torrents which they were claimed to of done. Even little old ladies were being threatened with letters from solicitors for downloading pornographic torrents which they say as you might guess, that they did not download and all because someone was using their wireless internet connection without their knowledge.

So it might be worth informing the previous tenant about this and tell her that she shouldn't of left the phone line and broadband connected because it could cost her a great deal of money if something like this happens to her, far more than the cost of termination of the contract if she receives solicitors letters demanding hundreds of pounds repeatedly due to misuse of the broadband that she is legally responsible for. She could get many claims against her with many people using the wireless broadband connection for every torrent title that gets caught and the IP address identified as hers.

The question is, is she prepared to take that risk? Would thousands of pounds of claims against her name and having her credit blacklisted be what she wants, all for failing to terminate the contracts that she should of done when she left?

I would recommend that you visit your local Citizen's Advice Bureau and getting some advice on what you can do because they should know better about which laws apply and to whom. Whether your Landlord should of done more seeing as you cannot get a telephone and broadband in your name. How long have you rented for?

Other opinions on this might be helpful, we don't want to get miss-october in trouble for sending threatening emails or anything like that.

It might apply more pressure on her to terminate those contracts.

System

Rubbish!

It quite easy to see that the former tenant was still in contract and didn't want to pay the early termination fee, so she/he let it run til the end.

The former tenant would have paid the same regardless of the broadband being used or not. Since she suffered no additional cost by their use, she hasn't got a leg to stand on - legally or morally - for them to pay towards it.

she's chancing her arm...

piratefairy wrote: »

Rubbish!

They owe her the costs she incurred when they used her broadband. They used it, not sure why you'd be advising them to try and get out of paying for something they used?!

custardy

piratefairy wrote: »

Rubbish!

They owe her the costs she incurred when they used her broadband. They used it, not sure why you'd be advising them to try and get out of paying for something they used?!

well that would be the BB tariff cost that the account holder would have to pay if the modem was in use or left on the table where she left it?
in the end its a mess of the account holders making

piratefairy

Heng_Leng wrote: »

Rubbish!

It quite easy to see that the former tenant was still in contract and didn't want to pay the early termination fee, so she/he let it run til the end.

The former tenant would have paid the same regardless of the broadband being used or not. Since she suffered no additional cost by their use, she hasn't got a leg to stand on - legally or morally - for them to pay towards it.

she's chancing her arm...

Thanks for your response, but I think the OP said they DID go over the download limit, so yes it has cost the old tenant more than she was signed up to pay. Yes I agree that the previous tenant shouldn't have left it, but that the new tenant shouldn't have used it either!

custardy

piratefairy wrote: »

Thanks for your response, but I think the OP said they DID go over the download limit, so yes it has cost the old tenant more than she was signed up to pay. Yes I agree that the previous tenant shouldn't have left it, but that the new tenant shouldn't have used it either!

maybe,but they were forced into this as they couldnt take over the line due to the previous tenants inaction.
putting in another line is expensive and would depend on the LL's permission