In reply to a post by UKFibreGuy:

I disagree that this scenario is not what the Code is for. With every property in the country requiring at least one new fibre-optic cable in the near future it is exactly what the Code is for and is also why the Government is looking to further strengthen Operators' powers.

You disagree that this is not the scenario that code powers are for... but your company wouldn't dream of using them for that?
Ok then...

Code powers aren't there to give operators carte blanche to stick whatever they want on or through anyone's land, especially a final installation in a single dwelling.

Can you give a single example of ANY operator, ever, trying to use code powers for that?

They use wayleaves instead, because

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

That's not what code powers are for.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

but in OP's situation, I'd have not told the LL, got my FTTP installed, and if they tried to argue about it at the end of the tenancy and deduct from deposit, disputed it on the basis the code allowed me to have telecoms installed.

You would lose that dispute and lose your deposit.

Code powers don't allow YOU to do anything and telecoms companies don't use their code powers for installations on private property, especially where the property owner refused.

That's not what code powers are for.

Would I? I think DPS would be vaguely supportive of my right to have a broadband connection, I also think that deposit deductions have to be representative of an actual cost/loss to the LL, rather than a desire to punish for disobeying, and installation of FTTP if anything increases the value and rentability of the property.

Personally I think it would be a vindictive LL to try, although, that means they will probably try, however I'm not so certain I'd lose my deposit over it.

Really this needs addressing by the government, and should be treated the same as LLs trying to ban tenants from changing utility supplier - e.g. not allowed and clauses in tenancies to try to prevent it being made void.

As it is, my opinion is academic anyway as barring some catastrophe I am unlikely to be a tenant again in the future. If I became a LL, I'd definitely be fully supportive of my tenants installing whatever broadband they wanted.

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

but in OP's situation, I'd have not told the LL, got my FTTP installed, and if they tried to argue about it at the end of the tenancy and deduct from deposit, disputed it on the basis the code allowed me to have telecoms installed.

You would lose that dispute and lose your deposit.

Code powers don't allow YOU to do anything and telecoms companies don't use their code powers for installations on private property, especially where the property owner refused.

That's not what code powers are for.

Would I? I think DPS would be vaguely supportive of my right to have a broadband connection, I also think that deposit deductions have to be representative of an actual cost/loss to the LL, rather than a desire to punish for disobeying, and installation of FTTP if anything increases the value and rentability of the property.

Personally I think it would be a vindictive LL to try, although, that means they will probably try, however I'm not so certain I'd lose my deposit over it.

Really this needs addressing by the government, and should be treated the same as LLs trying to ban tenants from changing utility supplier - e.g. not allowed and clauses in tenancies to try to prevent it being made void.

As it is, my opinion is academic anyway as barring some catastrophe I am unlikely to be a tenant again in the future. If I became a LL, I'd definitely be fully supportive of my tenants installing whatever broadband they wanted.

If you as a tenant add things / amend the property during your tenancy that was not agreed by the landlord you'll need to be able to foot the bill for any damage caused / or potential service infrastructure removal costs.

If you came into a property of mine and stuck an ugly ONT in the middle of my living room or the work completed by Openreach / a Contractor was not as clean as hoped, i would be expecting you the tenant to foot the bill to have it removed (If you had not discussed with me prior / its not in the framework of our contract).

This cost could be deducted by the landlord via the DPS Scheme, and would be a legitimate claim in order to 'Make Good' what was installed.

Re tenancy agreement. If he is in Wales, https://www.rentsmart.gov.wales/en/home/ will identify the landlord and agent for free. Not sure if there is an English equivalent.

Cheers!

+1

Having just had fibre installed last week, let's just say the OR contractors didn't really pay much attention to detail, the work (even under my supervision) was pretty shoddy and will need some tidying up. I dare say that (some) contractors will be even less conscientious when left unsupervised...

At point they suggested I run an ethernet cable around the chimney breast "to make life easier". I'm not sure who's life they were referring to, but I don't think it was mine! Thankfully my wife wasn't in the room at the time...

In reply to a post by Whitehall11:

Would I? I think DPS would be vaguely supportive of my right to have a broadband connection,

In the case of the OP it appears there is already a high speed capable internet connection available and they want to add a different one, I'm not sure you would get much support in this case.
As OR seem to be reluctant to lay on FTTP to new private housing which has FTTP provided by other operators I'm not sure they would have much interest in a 'bun fight' either.

I count myself lucky that my letting agent as well as my landlady are flexible. The letting agent is of the attitude that it's my home while I'm living here and paying the rent and as long as I don't make a big mess or do something stupid like knocking down walls or something then it's good.

Anyway, they might be able to tell you've had this installed from either looking at where the lines come in or comparing photos of what rooms looked like prior to moving in (assuming someone took photographs). I'm not an expert in this particular area, but like you I would strongly imagine they couldn't take much of your deposit, if any of it, for having another line installed for a different service. As long as the installation is tidy and not an eyesore I don't see the problem myself, but they could be awkward about it and insist things must be put back to the way they were before you moved in. This would mean getting rid of the ONT, the FTTP line into the building, and neatly re-filling in holes as best as possible (if possible). Obviously getting rid of the ONT and FTTP line would become another problem as those aren't meant to be touched by the end user.

Edited by Ixel (Wed 18-Aug-21 21:53:34)

My wife had a rented property before I met her. When she moved out they (a property inspection company) went through finding lots and lots of little details and charging large sums for fixing (most of it was minor cosmetics). She actually had the original survey that was done by the landlord before she moved in with descriptions and photos and the vast majority of items that were pointed out were already there when she moved in.

In the end she managed to argue against everything except some cosmetic damage from hanging pictures (ie a small hole in the wall where the next tenant would quite probably want to hang pictures as well) and charged her for filling the holes and repainting.

I would suspect the landlord would argue that they didn't sanction the incoming FTTP line and therefore would charge for the costs of removing the line and filling the hole (possibly more than one as they normally screw the ONT on the wall to avoid fibre cable moving)/making good/painting. And once out do you later insist on going back in to check the landlord had actually done the work or just left the line in as a benefit for new tenants?

they (a property inspection company) went through finding lots and lots of little details and charging large sums for fixing (most of it was minor cosmetics).

We had a similar experience at our last rental, as did my son, for his squalid bed sit.

It seems just another way for estate agents to retain their top spot in the ‘scumbags I could well do without’ list. Money grabbing scrotes the lot of ‘em

My daughter moved out of a rental a few months back and teh inspector found plenty of issues.

Soon after moving in my daughter found out that the "maintenance man" who was one of her customers at work was also the owners husband. And he was very fair.

The owners looked at my daughters reply to the list of issues and accepted all of them - either becasue they were repairs done by her husband, repairs done by my daughter to a better standard, or structural issues such as damp that caused peeling wall paper.

With approval they put in a "garden room" which the inspector said needed removal - the owners said no, and upped the rental price becasue of it!



Some landlords are good, and some a real pain