BT Line: Who pays - LL or Tenant?

Alan_M_2

I've always paid to install/connect phone lines an any property I've moved into. It isn't a basic amenity.

Of course that doesn't stop you negotiating with the LL for a an element or even all the cost. No harm in trying, but I wouldn't hold up much hope for it.

debsy42

dippy wrote: »

This talk of mobile internet and cable broadband are even bigger herrings as I've ever heard. Mobile internet is a non-starter except for 3G and you need the extra hassle of configuring non-standard equipment, problem sharing internet in your house for you and the gf, etc etc. Cable is just as big a herring as you need to get a package with other services, when you may only want the internet.

Sorry but this bit isn't quite right, you can have just internet on it's own as a cable package

ScarletBea

$$$ wrote: »

Sounds like you've convinced yourself - just have persuade your OH (assuming Barcode is your OH) your new landlord isn't a money grabbing wotsit.

Oh, all I wrote here I'd already told her

Anyway, I really don't see any other opportunities for him to 'grab money'. I was expecting to pay the normal service charges of the development (ground maintenance, lift maintenance, gym, etc) and he pays that, so that's not so bad.

And by the way, that's on a non-cable area (I checked with Virgin), so cable's not an option.

Meatballs

The whole 'first tenant' pays argument just highlights why the landlord should be paying. You are bettering the property, and all the tenants that come after you will benefit from this, as will the landlord when it comes to advertise/sell etc.

It may not be a basic ammenity but then how many people on this board dont have a phone line installed? I would guess less than the number that don't have TV.

Ok so the landlord doesn't use it, but I bet 9/10 successive tenants would use the landline (if only for the broadband connection).

How many people would want to fork out the fees to install a television aerial? Is that common for the first tenant to pay for as well being a luxury item? (If you couldn't get any signal on those crappy indoor ones!)

Gorgeous_George

I would pay for a phone line to be installed for my tenant but it would be as an act of goodwill. I'm not sue if I would be able to off-set my income against this 'business' expense.

The problem here lies with BT. The charge simply should not exist.



GG

prudryden

GG - It can be offset as far I know. I would also install a line, but the tenants would have a choice, at their expense, which service provider to use. However, it is crucial that they cancel their service, such as Bulldog, when they leave. It is a nightmare trying to get Bulldog to take some stupid contraption off the line unless you are the account holder.

wymondham

in my experience, read into this as it is probably likely to be the start of a long list of things the landlord won't pay ...

BTman

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

I would pay for a phone line to be installed for my tenant but it would be as an act of goodwill. I'm not sue if I would be able to off-set my income against this 'business' expense.

The problem here lies with BT. The charge simply should not exist.



GG

Of course GG, us engineers work for nothing, copper costs nothing, the infrastructure for new sites costs nothing, maintaining the exchanges cost nothing, and when the subscriber goes off to another service provider we get nothing.
Whats life like on your fluffy cloud GG?...:rolleyes:

Gorgeous_George

Fair point BT Man.

As an opponent of privatisation I still use British Gas and the local Electric Company (though I'm with BG at the monment for gas and electric due to the dual fuel discount).

I have broadband with BT for convenience but I vowed to spend as little as possible with BT some years ago when they ripped me off.

It's a shame that, where I live, I have little choice over the copper provider. As soon as I can get broadband without a BT line, I'll be gone for good. No offence to your good self but I was ripped off and respond accordingly.



GG

Barcode

Well, we are going ahead with the flat. We did point out to the estate agent that since the development is marketed towards young professionals, this should be taken into consideration in the future. We didn't want to sound like we are having a go at her as she has been very helpful; it's just the landlord.

The thing with buying was that the LL asked the agent if we would be interested in buying the flat at some point. That sounds to me like he is not making much money out of it and perhaps want to get rid of it. Anyway, we said definitely not for the first six months as we know very little about the area and only seen the flat once when we went to the viewing. If we like living in it, and it seems viable, it's something to possibly consider at the end of our tenancy agreement.

Having been renting since I was 17 (I'm 26 now) I've dealt with many problems over the years. These days, I'm a bit more clued up on tenants rights. I have a reasonable idea of what the LL should pay for if it needs fixing and won't have any problem deducting rent to cover the charge if he delays (like our old one who just didn't bother). We'll be meeting him next weekend to get the keys, and hopefully I'll be able to get a better idea of what he is like in person.