BT Line: Who pays - LL or Tenant?

Barcode

My partner and I have found a flat we like, and hope to move in the beginning of July.

However, it is a new build, and we have been told a BT engineer needs to come out, and it is about £125.

The estate agent said she would ask the landlord to see if he would pay the charge: the reply was "they can use mobiles."

Strictly speaking, this is true. But my view is that this does not bode well for future relations. My girlfriend thinks the attitude is normal. Now, I would not expect the landlord to cover all the cost, but I would imagine 50% is reasonable. It benefits his property.

It's not very realistic to say "use mobiles" to two people who do a lot of communicating by e-mail.

On the face of it, this seems a minor thing. But after several bad experiences with LL's, I'm now very wary and wonder how much money he might try and extort out of us in the future if something goes wrong with the flat. I'd rather not have stress before we have even moved in.

Gf doesn't think it's worth pulling out. I don't either. I'm just wary of the LL's attitude about this, and wonder what the general consensus is. Obviously, if we have to pay, I'm going to disconnect it when we leave. Not going to do anything to intentionally benefit the LL.

Vampgirl

I believe that's its up to the tennant to pay if they want a specific service installed (I've always had to pay anyway to have a BT line installed). Many new builds already have an NTL line installed - does this one? You may be better using them than than paying for BT.

If there is no landline at all currently installed then I would say to them that although you like the flat, you'd want a reduction in rent if you decided to take it as you don't feel its worth that price without this basic facility. It obviously depends how much you want the flat tho!

padders_2

Can't use mobiles if you want broadband or internet. I would personally not touch with a barge pole a landlord that dosen't get phone service of one type of anther installed. Threaten to pull out.

pinkshoes

You could argue that the building company should pay the £124.99 when they build the house/flat, as no one would notice that added onto a house price!

Maybe the landlord doesn't use broadband, and has a mobile so doesn't require a landline, hence they don't see the advantage of paying this charge.

If you like the flat, and want broadband/phone line, then just pay the £124.99!! It's probably not worth getting in an arguement with the landlord over!

Meatballs

Ditto padders. Landlord that can't see the advantages of having a basic common service such as a telephone and internet connection to his property is obviously a moron.

£125 of your money to better the landlord's property, to reconnect it when you've gone will probably cost him £20? He probably knows this and wants to save himself £100!

If you do really want the flat, maybe see if you can get a cable installation for less than a BT landline?

prudryden

Are you saying that there is no line to the property or just that BT hasn't connected a phone number to the line?

Barcode

There is no line to the property at the moment, I think.

The flat is five minutes from my girlfriend's work, and ten minutes from the station for me to come to York. It is also one of the bigger one's in the complex (the melting point in huddersfield), and the complex has all sorts of things on site, so we don't really want the hassle of looking further afield.

We know the landline is not an obligation. And I agree that any LL who doesn't appear to understand why a landline is important is a moron.

So, here are the options:

1) The rent is £675. We could propose £665.

2) Threaten to pull out. Nobody has paid any fees at this point. I don't know if that might prompt the LL into action if he has a void of another few weeks which presumably costs more than the £125 connection fee.

I should point out we don't expect the LL to cover all of it, but I'm just not happy with the response of "they can use mobiles." Even a small gesture towards the cost would have been appreciated. It's the "no" right off the bat that has me concerned about his attitude.

silvercar

There is some deal with new-builds that BT lays the cables in when the building is built, in return the first occupiers to want a phone line have to pay the connection fee of £125.

Should the tenant then arrange disconnection after they leave, the re-connection fee would only be £25 max.

Difficult to say whether landlord should pay or not.

This talk of internet is a red herring.Some mobile packages for internet can work out cheaper than landline internet charges. T-mobile's Web'n'walk is only £14.99 a month. Nothing to stop you getting cable broadband without a BT line.

franklee

I think the landlords should pay as it's of permanent benefit to the property but it's common for them the ask the tenant as far as I know.

As a new build there's bound to be others available to rent, why not ask those if they are providing the phone line? Then tell your landlord that flat zxy provide them... OK so you want the bigger flat but you needn't mention that. If none of the others provide phone lines then at least you will know all the local landlords are money grabbing.

As for mobiles alone not being any good, let the landlord know why this is, he may not have thought of internet access. If he knows you have good reason to need the phone line that may help your case. If he is being unreasonable it this stage then I would be extremely wary of moving it, as you say it doesn't bode well for the future.

franklee

silvercar wrote: »

There is some deal with new-builds that BT lays the cables in when the building is built, in return the first occupiers to want a phone line have to pay the connection fee of £125.

Should the tenant then arrange disconnection after they leave, the re-connection fee would only be £25 max.

Sometimes the reconnection is free. I moved into a flat where the phone line had been disconnected for a year and it was free to reconnect.

PS, Barcode, It's quite funny really, The Melting Point is marketed as luxury, prestigious, contemporary-styled apartments so your landlord should know tenants there would want a phone line. Talk about not knowing your customer. If it was a croft in the middle of nowhere that'd be different. Doesn't he ever watch Beeney :rotfl:

bristol_pilot

If the flat was advertised as having a landline, then the landlord should pay. Otherwise it is up to the tenant.