Money Moral Dilemma: My tenants left without cancelling their broadband - should I keep using it?

MSE_Kelvin

This week's MoneySaver who wants advice asks...

I'm a landlord and recently moved into one of my flats that was previously let to tenants that left without paying several months' rent. I discovered they hadn't cancelled the broadband, so I've been getting it for nothing. Given they owe me money and seemingly don't check their bank accounts, do I really have to contact them about cancelling it - or should I just keep using it?

Unfortunately the MSE team can't always answer money moral dilemma questions as contributions are often emailed in or suggested in person. They are intended to be a point of debate and discussed at face value. 

😲 If you haven’t already, join the forum to reply.

🙄 Got a Money Moral Dilemma of your own? Suggest an MMD.

Browntoa

My moral dilemma a few years ago , my broadband down for a week but I noticed that my neighbours was totally unsecured with no password . I connected to that for a week until mine was fixed .

Never did tell them 

eddddy

Rather than looking at it as a moral question, it might be more important to consider whether it is a criminal offence under the Communications Act 2003 or the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

People have been prosecuted for using other peoples broadband without consent. Typically they've been piggy-backing, but this example sounds like it would fall foul of the same laws.

Communications Act 2003
125 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services
(1) A person who—
      (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
      (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
is guilty of an offence.
...
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.

Link: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/2/chapter/1/crossheading/offences-relating-to-networks-and-services/enacted?view=plain

Here's some examples:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/6565079.stm

xylophone

Two wrongs don't make a right - it's as simple as that.

Comms69

eddddy said:

Rather than looking at it as a moral question, it might be more important to consider whether it is a criminal offence under the Communications Act 2003 or the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

People have been prosecuted for using other peoples broadband without consent. Typically they've been piggy-backing, but this example sounds like it would fall foul of the same laws.

Communications Act 2003
125 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services
(1) A person who—
      (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
      (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
is guilty of an offence.
...
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.

Link: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/2/chapter/1/crossheading/offences-relating-to-networks-and-services/enacted?view=plain

Here's some examples:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/6565079.stm

Ive noticed a lot of MSE's moral dilemmas totally ignore the obvious criminal ramifications. 

Grumpy_chap

@OP - no moral dilemma.  It is theft, some as.
Also likely to undermine any claim you have against the former tenant if you want to pursue the unpaid rent.
It is the former tenant's responsibility to cancel the broadband, but that doesn't make it anyone's to use in the meantime.

Grumpy_chap

@OP - no moral dilemma.  It is theft, some as.
Also likely to undermine any claim you have against the former tenant if you want to pursue the unpaid rent.
It is the former tenant's responsibility to cancel the broadband, but that doesn't make it anyone's to use in the meantime.

[Deleted User]

People are less likely to view something as a dilemma if one of the options is a criminal act.

Crashy_Time

Comms69 said:

eddddy said:

Rather than looking at it as a moral question, it might be more important to consider whether it is a criminal offence under the Communications Act 2003 or the Computer Misuse Act 1990.

People have been prosecuted for using other peoples broadband without consent. Typically they've been piggy-backing, but this example sounds like it would fall foul of the same laws.

Communications Act 2003
125 Dishonestly obtaining electronic communications services
(1) A person who—
      (a) dishonestly obtains an electronic communications service, and
      (b) does so with intent to avoid payment of a charge applicable to the provision of that service,
is guilty of an offence.
...
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable—
(a)on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, or to both;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to a fine, or to both.

Link: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/part/2/chapter/1/crossheading/offences-relating-to-networks-and-services/enacted?view=plain

Here's some examples:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4721723.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/hereford/worcs/6565079.stm

Ive noticed a lot of MSE's moral dilemmas totally ignore the obvious criminal ramifications. 

And the obvious fact that using broadband for a few days until they don`t pay that bill either isn`t going to bring back thousands in missed rent.

onwards&upwards

This is not a moral dilemma, this is someone wanting approval for doing something they clearly know is wrong. 

dimbo61

So the Landlord rented out the property so had consent to let or a BTL mortgage ?
If the Landlord moves back in and he/she has a BTL mortgage there are breaking the T and C s of the mortgage.