Who is responsible for installing a TV aerial?

[Ausprop]

It IS small stuff.

true and I agree a TV antenna is fair enough. the problem is there are lots of small things, like the amount of rent collected as the main one. Then in comparison you have the letting fees telephone connection, tv antenna, PM fees - well you know the drill, you get the same statements I do each month... some big numbers at the top and a little "paid to owner" number that falls out at the bottom.

As Dazz has said before - in a similar way anyway - if your road to wealth relies on a guy that can't/won't afford to pay $300 for a TV antenna, or so much as change a 9v battery on a stove top, then is it really a good road to wealth?

As sad as the big picture is, the small picture seems even worse.

 

[sparky23]

We buy tv aerials ourselves and hubby installs them, much cheaper way to go. When I have been a tenant in the past I would expect the tv to work, we have even provided an amplifier in the past to give an improved picture quality to one of our tenants.

 

[Dazz]

Perhaps this is why Dazz has had so much trouble with ressy landlording and we have had pretty much smooth sailing

I'm sure you are right wylie....the Landlording road to wealth is a tricky business.

....or.....perhaps it could be that I am too busy managing a competent and diligent fleet of road train drivers and really I couldn't give a stuff if one of the whingy kids playing off to the side complains to me that one of the yellow streamers on their tricycle handle is broken.

 

[wylie]

I'm sure you are right wylie....the Landlording road to wealth is a tricky business.

....or.....perhaps it could be that I am too busy managing a competent and diligent fleet of road train drivers and really I couldn't give a stuff if one of the whingy kids playing off to the side complains to me that one of the yellow streamers on their tricycle handle is broken.

I don't find it tricky at all. I think you have the problems due mostly to your attitude. Boy am I glad I am not a tenant of yours, ressy OR commercial.

 

[jaycee]

That's okay. I can take a stir. I think dishwashers are in a different league. I think it entirely reasonable that if someone rents my IP they can plug in their telly and receive reception. I would not ask my tenant to spend $300 on having an aerial installed, particularly as it is something that stays with the house.

It is a one off expense and will be there for the next tenant, and the next.

Dishwashers are obvious by their presence in the kitchen (or obviously NOT present) so it is not like a tenant will move in and then kick up a stink that there is not a dishwasher. (Well, some might, but that is tough bikkies.)

I just think TV reception is something that is "expected" and if I was renting, I would expect it. If I struck a tight**** landlord who told me to install it, I possibly would do so, but I sure would start that tenancy with a grudge against the landlord and probably would not worry too much about how I looked after his house.

Perhaps this is why Dazz has had so much trouble with ressy landlording and we have had pretty much smooth sailing (with a few hiccups, but relatively trouble free).

If intillegent people who are property investors actually think that, perhaps Dazz is in some ways correct. Wylie, you're an owner of multiple properties yourself, you know what happens if they get damaged, but you would lower you standard of care ?

 

[wylie]

Honestly, no I wouldn't lower my standard, because I am who I am and I would not change or lower my standards for some tight**** landlord. However, any goodwill I felt would be diminished, and when goodwill is diminished things can be "let slip" that might normally be followed up.

I was really making the point that some tenants would indeed carry a grudge and for the sake of a one off payment for a tv aerial I would not risk it.

It's not like they are asking for something unreasonable, don't you agree?

 

[jaycee]

I agree they are not asking for anything much at all.

I was surprised at how you said you would react and wondered the impliations of this business, if even the good understanding tenants might be that flippant.... just an observation.....

 

[wylie]

I agree they are not asking for anything much at all.

I was surprised at how you said you would react and wondered the impliations of this business, if even the good understanding tenants might be that flippant.... just an observation.....

Okay. I understand. I suppose I was not really meaning that "I" would react that way, but I reckon plenty of tenants WOULD react that way. Once you start a relationship with one party "offside" I just don't think the goodwill is there any more.

It is just one thing that I am more than happy to provide for my tenants, similar to a working oven or a working hot water system.

 

[Nth Brisbanite]

For me, it is part of providing a functioning house. It is no more a big deal than providing something else that should enable a tenant to live there comfortably.

I totally agree with you wylie. It's a small price to pay to keep your tenants happy. In most cases, happy tenants mean long term tenants who are willing to give back a lot more than the paltry $300 for an aerial. By just giving a little to my tenants I've found that some are willing to perform minor maintenance tasks for me, put in drainage for me, not dispute rental increases etc. Also, the new aerial if its under $300 should be tax deductible in the year that you installed it.

 

[BayView]

It's the Landlord's responsibility - if you want the joint to be tenantable.

Who would knowingly move into a place that you couldn't get a tv signal at?

 

[joanmc]

I agree with Wylie. We have never rented out a house without a working aerial...ever. Hubby being Austel licensed means we do it all ourselves, but even if we couldn't I consider it to be our responsibility. Goodwill count for heaps in keeping long term tenants and if one goes because of no Tv aerial the letting fee on the new tenant is about the same cost anyway.

 

[Wishlist]

What about when the antenna is there but reception in the area isn't as good as tenant would like, should the LL be paying for the 'next' level of antenna, if it is available?

Seems that since tenant has purchased a Plasma the existing antenna is no longer up to scratch. Anyone else experiencing this problem and know if plasmas require a different level of signal?

 

[sparky23]

We gave ours an amplifier which boosted the signal, it cost about $40 I think.

 

[Ausprop]

not sure but I think to receive the digital signal you need a digital antenna, some old ones could be analogue? in which case if it is an item that the tenant desires then the landlord should provide it

 

[Perp]

I agree with wylie and others; a TV antenna is no longer a "luxury", and no, I don't believe that plasmas require a "special" antenna. Saying that the place was provided "as is" is a bit ridiculous ; tenants are entitled to assume that the essentials are in place and work, unless told otherwise. There's only so much that you can do during an inspection, particularly when there's often no electricity connected.

If there's an oven, are prospective tenants required to cook a roast on inspection, or else have no cause for complaint if it turns out that it doesn't work?

If there are light fittings visible, are they required to confirm that they're real light fittings that are wired into the mains, as opposed to non-working "props" just put there to look good?

Due to our flood, we've recently become tenants for the first time in over a decade. Our unit is brand new, and the landlords told us up-front that it would cost $299 for us to get the phone connected, but that they'd reimburse us $240 - the difference being $59, which is all they felt that we should be up for.

A phone line (ie ready for a $59 connection) and a TV antenna are basics that tenants expect landlords to provide - reasonably IMHO.