PDA

View Full Version : Landlord won't fix television aerial



GuitarMan
19-12-2005, 01:13 AM
A relative of mine lives in a flat. In a recent storm the television aerial attached to the building fell over, and does not pick up most channels. She complained to the letting agent, but was told that they would not be fixing the aerial as it would cost too much. She bought an internal aerial, but it does not work very well. Does she have reason to complain about them refusing to fix the aerial?

GuitarMan

lkhpmm
19-12-2005, 08:56 AM
As a LL, I would be fixing the TV aeriel. We have had a similar problem in the past and did not quibble over getting it fixed as the tennant is not at fault.

Ericthelobster
19-12-2005, 09:11 AM
If the aerial was installed and working when she viewed the property and signed the tenancy agreement, then surely the LL has a responsibilty to maintain the status quo.

"When I viewed the property I saw that there was a proper rooftop aerial installed; had there not been I would not have rented the property in the first place"

GuitarMan
19-12-2005, 13:21 PM
If the aerial was installed and working when she viewed the property and signed the tenancy agreement, then surely the LL has a responsibilty to maintain the status quo.

"When I viewed the property I saw that there was a proper rooftop aerial installed; had there not been I would not have rented the property in the first place"

That puts her in "the right". But the agents probably realise that. What realistic comeback does she have if they just say "no".

GuitarMan

davidjohnbutton
19-12-2005, 15:49 PM
Warn that this will be done by recorded delivery letter to the agent giving them 7 days notice - then get an aerial contractor out, replace aerial pay bill and then deduct cost from next rent cheque

lmaidment
02-06-2008, 17:49 PM
I too have a similar problem. When I took on the rental, of this ground floor flat, 12 months ago the signal from the aerial was fine. It has gradually deteriorated and now I canot get a signal at all through my digital box. Upon looking at the aerial on the roof of the block (circa 1960's) it looks very old and rusty. I have asked the agent to ask the LL. He is refusing to do anything about it. I have tried indoor aerials with boosters but because of very high trees the signal is not much better. I am also not allowed to have cable or sky installed. So I have been without a tv for some time. I am paying a TV licence for no TV!! I have other problems with the LL in that a reduced rent was agreed in writing when I first moved in, due to damp problems in one of the rooms. He tried to put the rent up by £100 a month, last month as he has had to undertake some emergency maintenance on the property, and wanted to recoup these costs through increasing my rent. This was two leaks due to probken pipes in the kitchen and bathroom (general wear and tear), which damaged a carpet and lino, and some woodwork replacements. But the damp has not been sorted. I told them of the agreement and he has backed down. I like living here and do not want to move, but I am worried about the LL terminating my rolling contract if I put up a fuss. But I am unsure as to my options. I would appreciate any advice anyone has for me. Thank you.

Ericthelobster
02-06-2008, 18:13 PM
I like living here and do not want to move, but I am worried about the LL terminating my rolling contract if I put up a fuss. But I am unsure as to my options. I would appreciate any advice anyone has for me. Thank you.In terms of the TV aerial, the answer is just the same as in the old thread from 3 years ago which you've ressurrected - sure, the landlord should sort it out and IMHO he's being totally unreasonable not to do so. However if he wants to give you notice as you fear, he can do so; you'll have to make that risk assessment yourself as nobody else can.

You mention him trying to raise the rent by £100/month: that's a hell of a jump: notwithstanding the damp issues (which he should also resolve - or is it just tenant-induced condensation?!) is it possible you are paying well below the market rent? If so, and the LL thinks he could get another tenant in to pay a higher rent, that would be another reason to worry about an S21 notice around the corner...

Mrs Jones
03-06-2008, 12:37 PM
When I purchased my flat I discovered the communal TV aerial did not work. Cable was not available so I decided the easiest thing was to buy Freesat - £175 including Satellite disk, Skybox, card and installation. Well worth every penny. Get all the usual terrestrial channels and quite a few more. If I had wanted, I could have easily upgraded to any of the Sky packages too. When I move, I just let them know where I am going.

Mrs Jones
03-06-2008, 12:38 PM
Sorry - missed the bit where you say you cannot have Satellite. In that case - I would be very vociferous in getting the aerial fixed.

lmaidment
03-06-2008, 20:07 PM
Thank you for your advice. The rent he wants to charge is above current market rates £750 a month for a scruffy 2 bedroom ground floor unfurnished flat in the midlands. And the damp was there when I moved in, which is why I got the initial reduction. I keep the windows open as much as possible when I am in, as I do not want to live in a place more damp than it is now. I have been told that it is an inherrent problem with the building, as the cavities are blocked and there are no air vents in the windows or brickwork, therefore no air flow. The landlord has told the agent that he will not spend any money on the property. Which is why he has had maintenance issues that he has incurred costs on. I have made myself available for workmen to undertake inspections and do the maintenance work (taking time off work). But this LL seems to only be interested in what he can get and not pay out. Which is why I have the fear that he will service an S21 on me. He is just looking for what he can get, not a good tenant for his property and his neighbours.

Even though it states aerial points in the living room and one of the bedrooms on the inventory (which also states I should asume that all items work), I have come to the conclusion that I will have to pay for it myself. I just hope that he doesn't serve a S21 notice after I have paid out. I live on my own here, but if he wants to get sharers or a family, who are more likely than a lone person to afford this rent, I know that this is his choice. But in the mean time, I will just have to swallow the £100+ cost. I just hope he gives permission to undertake these works. Otherwise I will have to consider looking for somewhere else to live. And yes, I do know that I don't have a right to TV, but it really is a basic requirement nowadays. I just don't fancy moving all my stuff, now that I am settled. Once again thank you for your advice, and sorry about resurrecting the thread, but I was unsure whether to start a new thread, when it discussed similar issues. Sorry new to all of this.

Ericthelobster
03-06-2008, 22:31 PM
I do know that I don't have a right to TVSure you do; if it was presented to you on signing the AST agreement that you would have TV (ie, there was a TV aerial on the roof and outlets on the walls).

jeffrey
04-06-2008, 09:01 AM
Sure you do; if it was presented to you on signing the AST agreement that you would have TV (ie, there was a TV aerial on the roof and outlets on the walls).

If AST/Inventory stated that TV is included, it is. If they didn't, mere presence of aerial/outlets will not be a representation of availability.

Ericthelobster
04-06-2008, 17:40 PM
If AST/Inventory stated that TV is included, it is. If they didn't, mere presence of aerial/outlets will not be a representation of availability.

I find that one a bit hard to swallow - I don't think I've ever seen an AST or inventory stating that. If so, how would the scenario above differ from a tenant finding out immediately after moving in that the washing machine in the kitchen didn't actually work?

Or that the TV set provided by the landlord didn't work?

jeffrey
05-06-2008, 10:15 AM
I find that one a bit hard to swallow - I don't think I've ever seen an AST or inventory stating that. If so, how would the scenario above differ from a tenant finding out immediately after moving in that the washing machine in the kitchen didn't actually work?

Or that the TV set provided by the landlord didn't work?

True. What L provides (as shown on Inventory) should be in working order. If aerials/outlets are, L is in the clear. TV is included in this if it's included in Inventory (like wot I said earlier).

Ericthelobster
05-06-2008, 18:04 PM
True. What L provides (as shown on Inventory) should be in working order. If aerials/outlets are, L is in the clear. But isn't that just what the OP's issue is - that the aerial/outlets aren't working any more? When she moved in her signal was OK, but now it's not...

jeffrey
06-06-2008, 11:06 AM
But isn't that just what the OP's issue is - that the aerial/outlets aren't working any more? When she moved in her signal was OK, but now it's not...

Wasn't it the TV set itself?

jeffrey
06-06-2008, 14:40 PM
Wasn't it the TV set itself?

No, it wasn't. I've just re-read the thread, and I see that it was indeed the aerial. However, isn't storm damage covered by L's insurance?

Paragon
06-06-2008, 15:10 PM
No, it wasn't. I've just re-read the thread, and I see that it was indeed the aerial. However, isn't storm damage covered by L's insurance?

As long as they don't say it was an Act of God!

jeffrey
06-06-2008, 15:14 PM
As long as they don't say it was an Act of God!

What? Insurers seeking to avoid liability to pay a policyholder? As if!