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

pastpostie

staggered said:

The landlord is in a difficult position.  It's likely that the broadband provider won't cancel the broadband, because authorisation for that has to come from the contract holder i.e. the tenant.  Which means that, without going to the considerable trouble and expense of getting a second line installed, the landlord won't be able to get their own broadband service (you can't have two services on the same line).  They either have to use their tenants' broadband or have none at all.  Their tenant has, once again, left them high and dry.

I would ring the broadband provider and try and get them to cancel the service.  If they don't, escalate to the Ombudsman.  Perhaps use mobile broadband as a temporary measure.  If they wanted to use the tenants' broadband in the meantime, I wouldn't blame them in the slightest, what else are they supposed to do?  There wouldn't be any legal ramifications and, if they've tried to get the contract cancelled but not been allowed to, then they're not doing anything remotely immoral as far as I'm concerned.  The only reason I'd try and avoid using it would be if the tenants used it as a ploy to avoid paying the rent they owe.

this sounds sensible as there could be a deeper deliberate problem here and the tenant may know the game here.  start documented procedure to cancel the broadband phone contract to enable a free line for the new tenant.  charge for your time and don't use it so as not to give the tenant any legal excuse.  I smell a rat here and you could be about to fall for it
 

troffasky

Crack on and use it. The tenants cannot use it, because they aren't there. You are not depriving them of anything. Virgin Media don't bill based on usage so your using or not using it will make no difference to how much the tenants are charged.

Jumblebumble

yorkie22 said:

If the tenants have'nt informed the Broadband company then maybe you should. If you get caught out they may make you pay because they will know when  and how often it got used after they left.

I don't believe for one moment The BB supplier could do anything of the sort.
Perhaps we are confusing power suppliers and their deemed contracts. 
Back in the real world
The OP has no contract with BB Suppliers
The OP does not have to discuss anything with the BB supplier who will thus be unable to identify the OP
The BB suppliers only sanction is to terminate the service
No one is going to prosecute the OP for using the broadband as they would not know who to prosecute
The broadband might be capped so the ex tenant might get billed for any excess
The ex tenant will not know if it was the OP who used the broadband or a man in a car out side.
The ex tenant can tell a court all the fairy stories they like but their evidence would likely be dismissed as irrelevant to non payment of rent
Common sense dictates the tenant will not be talking to The BB supplier any time soon
When we moved into our house the previous occupants left a live phone line . We did not use it as it could have incurred costs for the ex occupant and we had no beef with them.
We did have to have a second line installed as the service was non openreach but we could not identify who had supplied the service

GHolmesAdmin

Am I missing something? How is he managing to use the BB without the password, or, why does he have the password?? I moved recently and my BB & phone were cut off a couple of days later at my old address but no one could have used the BB without knowing the password, academic anyway since no one was moving in straight away.

Slithery

The password is only needed to use the internet wirelessly. It's not needed if you just use a cable.

Also the username/password is usually on the back of the router.

DoaM

Slithery said:

The password is only needed to use the internet wirelessly. It's not needed if you just use a cable.

Also the username/password is usually on the back of the router.

... and fewer people than you'd expect actually change the default settings.

icemice

A little knowledge (of the law) is a very dangerous thing as demonstrated by several posts.  This is theft as it is gaining a pecuniary advantage i.e. taking/using something that has to be paid for but without paying for it.  References to the Theft Act are incorrect.  The landlord has no 'right to deprive another of it' and is also not a trustee. That is a very specific aspect of 'trust' law and nothing to do with the situation here.  There is no moral dilemma. This is a legal matter and being equitable is as much a part of law as any Act of Parliament.  If the landlord wishes to take action against the previous occupants for rent arrears, he must 'come to the law with clean hands', i.e. not have committed any dishonest act himself.  

Termagant

Legally the provider can only terminate the account if the person named on the contract closes it. My suggestion would be to send emails to broadband providers stating the problem and asking them to terminate if this is one of their customers. If you can provide evidence that you have attempted to deal with the situation then there should be no comeback. I also believe that as you now are living in the property you might find difficulty getting broadband in your name if there is already service in anothers. You would need to check this out.

Taz_trooper

Surely
1. The landlord is paying for the electrical to power the router,
2. He is not wilfully depriving the tenant, who have left, defaulting on rent
3. Only the person named on the contract can close the BB contract. 

gpr1

Is their personal owners computer security issues here with the owners data as the old tenant could be nearby the house and also use the WiFi? Should or could the owner alter router and broadband password to make safe?