Brand New House - Phone Connection

[Sunny]

Hi everyone,

We have just come across this site and have found alot of great info.

Anyway our situation is as follows:

We have just rented a brand new house and were told by the phone companies that because a phone has never been connected in the house we would have to pay a fee of $299.00 instead of the usual $59.00(approx)

The cable from the street to the house and to the phone jacks had already been laid and installed. The technician arrived put something into the phone jack, did what he needed to do and was gone within 5 minutes.

I mentioned to the PM before we moved in about this charge and she said that either they or the landlord would reimburse, we just had to take the invoice in when it arrived, but this was mentioned verbally and nothing put in writing.

I phoned last week to advise invoice had arrived and the PM has said landlords are now disputing paying this as they say it is not an essential thing.

I don't mind paying a phone connection fee as everyone has to pay when they move into a property, but why should I have to pay the first connection fee which is extemely large because I am the first tenant in the property.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated

Regards

Sunny

 

[geoffw]

Sunny

I don't believe it is the landlord's responsibility to pay for the connection- however, the landlord is getting the benefit of the installation- it will be somethjing which will add value to his property. On that basis, you may be able to negotiate- especially as the Property Manager has told you that you would be reimbursed, and you have proceeded on the basis of that advice.

From the NT Department of Justice

Most tenants would expect that the property to let has a phone line installed enabling them to have a phone connected. If a property does not have a phone line installed it would be prudent of the landlord to advise a prospectiv e tenant of this fact before ebtering into the agreement as it may avoid a possible dispute at a later date

Also see http://www.tuv.org.au/pdf/resources/Utility_Charges_FS_R_062005.pdf , http://www.realestate.com.au/cgi-bin/rsearch?a=v&t=res&id=148&cat=res:Investing and the discussion in Whirlpool forum

 

[NedKelly]

The landlord should reimburse you $240.00. A phone is an essential item these days.

 

[Pushka]

In these days, a land line is no longer essential.

 

[Xenia]

The landlord should reimburse you $240.00. A phone is an essential item these days.

Maybe, but not according to current legislation. We write it as a condition of our leases that landlords are not resposible for connection charges.

 

[Muz]

Phone connection

Hello,

I remember in the 90's when we were renting we paid half of the connection with the landlord paying for the other half. It was a brand new unit.

We thought that was fair enough at the time.

 

[twobobsworth]

I would ring the PM and remind them of your previous discussion. Maybe offer to go 50/50 with the landlord.

 

[geoffw]

Maybe, but not according to current legislation. We write it as a condition of our leases that landlords are not resposible for connection charges.

Yes, that's what my research indicates. But it would have been fair for the landlord to inform the tenant that a phone connection was not available. Failing that, the PM should have not given the nod for the phone connection to be installed "at the landlord's expense", by the sound, without the landlord's knowledge.

 

[manny]

Hi Sunny,

I would class a telephone line as an essential service (regardless of whether you use it or not)... Most builders offer at least a single phone point nowdays (due it to being essential)... I would therefore deduct $240 from your next rental payment (with a note that you will cover the usual $59 fee & note that the $240 is for the first time installation/fees plus a photocopy of the bill of course)... This will then bring this to a hear (rather than waiting for a re-imbursement)...

Note: imagine there is no electricity, should you be expected to cover the first-time installation? Definately not...

Cheers,

Manny.

 

[Mamaof3]

Hey Sunny,

I have no idea what the law regarding this is but just thought i'd say i would be pretty annoyed as well if i were in your situation because when you leave at the end of your lease, the next person and subsequent tenants will only have to pay the $59 connection fee....so it only makes sense that the landlord pay for the initial installation (although he may not be required to legally).

some things do seem very unfair at times doesn't it

good luck and hope you manage to convince the landlord to pay for it

cheers,
Kim

 

[poppy]

My understanding is that in VIC the landlord does not legally have to pay the initial phone connection fee.

We will soon have a brand new IP up for rental in VIC. I haven't decided as yet whether to offer to pay any of the initial phone connection. We have already paid $300 for physical installation of the phone cables, plus the cost of the phone points so I'm not so happy to pay another $290 for the phone company to flick a few switches - especially as my understanding is that once you get a connection, if a tenant chooses not to re-connect a landline for some time, the phone company can hit you up for another $290 again.

Obviously though, it is a good idea to advise the tenant up front if they are expected to pay for the initial phone connection. Sounds like the PM is at fault - they made an assumption that the landlord would pay without discussing this with the landlord.

 

[regrow]

Hi All

We are doing this with our rental at present. We will reinburse the $240 to the tennent.

The reasoning behind this is that Telstra would recieve two lots of $59,
once when we as landlords connect the phone line ($299) and disconnect straight away and again when the tennents connect it into their name.

This way Telstra only gets the total of $299 not $358.

Regards

Regrow

 

[tubs]

I've been through this before.

The question is:
Is there a phone outlet in the property already?

What it comes down to is whether or not you assume there is a phone connection available. So if there is a phone outlet already, when you rented it, it appeared to be an available service as part of the rental property.

If there's no phone outlet, then the argument will probably be that there was no indication that they were providing this service.

My wife went through this a few years ago. Because the phone outlet was there, even though it was not connected, it was reasonable to assume that she'd be able to use a phone in the property, and the landlord had to pay.

Tubs

 

[DavidMc]

Sunny - do you live in Narre Warren South?

 

[Pushka]

Thats a good point Tubs!

 

[WinstonWolfe]

What it comes down to is whether or not you assume there is a phone connection available. So if there is a phone outlet already, when you rented it, it appeared to be an available service as part of the rental property.

If there's no phone outlet, then the argument will probably be that there was no indication that they were providing this service.

Tubs

I agree with the above to some extent.

Though at the end of the day, once you were aware of that there was a $300 connection fee, you should have got it in writing from the PM or owner who was going to pay. The PM had no right to assure the owner would pay.

As sad as it is, this is another reason to spell out everything you can think of on the rental agreement.

 

[Pushka]

Actually I had another thought about Tubs statement. Foxtel never removes either the satellite dish or the wall plug when disconnecting a service. So if Tubs idea was used, then people would move in and expect to receive Pay TV as part of their rent if the plug was present. And no-one would expect to receive pay TV unless it was specifically put into the agreement.

 

[DavidMc]

Hi All,

This has been a particularly interesting thread for me, because I believe I am the landlord in question!

I really don't know where I stand on the issue. On one hand we have 'the law' and on the other we have 'what seems right'. I don't have a landline in my house and I don't think it's essential these days, especially considering:

Reasons why I shouldn't pay:

• If I had enabled the connection day 1 we'd probably be up for another initial connection charge as it's been inactive for over 2.5 years.
• I don't have a landline in my house, but I know I'm not the norm on this one. I use mobiles.
• I've already paid over $300 installing multiple phone points and the leading line or whatever it's called. I almost broke my back digging that trench (lesson for David, pay someone else to do this next time!) and then I had someone run the phone line from the street to the house.
• I've been paying an interest bill of $400+ per week for a lovely brand new house that they've been paying me $260-270 per week for for years.
• It's the tenants responsibility by law.

Reasons why I should pay:

• They've been fantastic tenants.
• I feel it's the 'norm' (regardless of law) and it's something I should pay.
• I honestly can't remember if I said I'd pay for it initially.
• A land line is more essential than the dishwasher and the other various items I'm providing in the house, so it's a bit strange one gets a dishwasher and not an enabled phone line.

I'm sure in another few years we'll all be arguing that a High Speed Internet connection is an 'essential service' and that the landlord should pay for connecting that as well.

I initially decided to offer 50/50 with the tenant but then soon changed my mine and have now offered to paying it in full. These tenants are very good and I'd like to show my appreciation to them.


David.

P.S. It's obviously a misunderstood issue as even my PM (and her boss) were certain it was my responsibility. I've emailed them a copy of the Tenants Union of Victoria information PDF (www.tuv.org.au - great resource) which states clearly in B&W that it's the tenants responsibility.

 

[geoffw]

This has been a particularly interesting thread for me, because I believe I am the landlord in question!
...
they've been paying me $260-270 per week for for years.

We have just rented a brand new house

So David, it sounds as if you are not the landlord in this case. Though it is obviously not an uncommon situation- David, you've done well to pick up the tab.

 

[Jase H]

I've been through this before.

The question is:
Is there a phone outlet in the property already?

What it comes down to is whether or not you assume there is a phone connection available. So if there is a phone outlet already, when you rented it, it appeared to be an available service as part of the rental property.

If there's no phone outlet, then the argument will probably be that there was no indication that they were providing this service.

My wife went through this a few years ago. Because the phone outlet was there, even though it was not connected, it was reasonable to assume that she'd be able to use a phone in the property, and the landlord had to pay.

Tubs

I think the above logic is flawed, otherwise it could be argued that if there is a TV connection in the property than the LL should provide a TV as it was reasonably expected!

Jase