Gawd! How unreal can you get?

Agreed! The contracta for the phone and BB will be in tenant's name and any bills will follow them.

My daughter had phone and AOL LLU at previous place. New tenants put in new BB order with some other ISP and she received email from AOL that a new order had been placed on her line and so they were ceasing BB and crediting her the remainder of the month to her bank account. As far as phone was concerned she received bill for remaining period on her own BT a/c which carried forward onto her new phone line.

EDIT: Don't forget the suppliers have the bank account/credit card details of the departing tenant to make any outstanding charges to.

Edited by XRaySpeX (Fri 20-Jan-12 19:12:10)

I rent 2 student properties and 2 multiple occupancy houses

Often people arrive with a contract still tied to them eg had sky at the previous house and have 6 months left. Much easier to let them get on with it & not control it.

Just my feelings.

I think it's more realistic to allow people to keep their current ISP than have to buy themselves out as I restrict it kind of thing

In reply to a post by ukhardy07:

The tenants can just set things up

If they choose FULL LLU the next tenant will have to cease and reprovide. Again - their problem not yours.

I don't see why you're worrying about it...

If you put the bill in your name and bill the tenants - if they run up a huge bill and don't pay it's your credit affected.

If they have it setup in their name and don't pay - it's their credit.

& this allows people to choose which ISP they want. Not everybody wants to be with whatever ISP for whatever reason. This is how things are normally done in the rental sector anyway

Totally agree with you. From past experience providing for the tennant can be very problematic.
Let them provide and when theres problems you will be glad its not you trying to resolve issues.
We had a tenant who did alot of file sharing. Then we had one of those nasty letters from BE informing us of the tennant downloading some copyright material. We were warned that the bill payer is responsible for the connection.
Also if theres a problem with the connection or line the ISP will only talk to the bill payer to resolve issues.
It will be the landlords time to go around and resolve the issues.

Let the tennant have the choice on who they want to goto.

Seems I'm wrong .

For instance, XRaySpeX's case. That sounds like his daughter was no longer in contract. So no problem.

However, there's no possible argument I can raise against what ukhardy07 & BP1 say.

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

For instance, XRaySpeX's case. That sounds like his daughter was no longer in contract. So no problem.

Yes, she had been with AOL for years. But even if she hadn't, they would have charged her bank account, not the landlord's, for the early termination fees.

EDIT: it's all a matter of just who are the parties to the contract; any other parties, even at the same address, are not involved and therefore not liable.

Edited by XRaySpeX (Fri 20-Jan-12 23:22:11)

Which leaves us with the scenario we frequently see on here. A line with a dial tone and an ISP tag, but no way of finding out who either is with. It seems many ISps are still ignorant of how to get that sorted out, and the tag removed.

If I moved into a tenancy I would expect the landlord to sort it.

My alternative would be to order a new line a nd let that one stew .

Well it seems to have gone smoothly for the new tenants at my daughter's old place. AOL acceded to to the new order and wrote to her, I suppose, in case she wanted to object. Isn't it a bit like slamming the phone? BT write to you in case you want to say it's wrong.

It is very likely there was no dial tone as she probably told BT to cancel the old line when she ordered the new one. She never had to pay a connection fee on the new one, so it must have been an existing line.