Sky TV Installed without consent

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Sky TV Installed without consent

    Hi everyone, My ex tenant had Sky TV installed without my consent and they(sky tv) made a right mess of it. I have been in touch with them (sky) and they say it is between myself and the tenant. Fair enough, it was her who signed saying she was the home owner! in the contract with them (sky).
    There are cable All over the outside of the house, and lots inside also. Brick work was damaged outside, and plaster inside, along with wall paper damage. Does anyone know on what I can do about this?. Im currently being taken to court over the deposit (previous threads) as I with-held some for other damages, but i would like to know what to do about Sky tbefore the date set (5th Nov 2008) as I have mentioned this (and Other things) in my defence. Many Thanks in advance. Neil

    #2
    I had the same issue 4 years ago with Sky. My tenant allegedly told Sky they were the homeowners and Sky drilled through an exterior wall and left unsightly glue on the exterior and a mass of wires internally. i took it up with Sky and they just passed the buck back to the tenant. Ultimately it is between the T & L to dispute. My dispute went via an arbitration and I did win this issue. I took photos of the damage to the wall and passed comment on the house being in a conservation area too.
    That said, I do believe that Sky should be held accountable. It appears they use 3rd party engineers to do their installation work. Sky maintain that if the occupant alleges ownership they are obliged to believe them. I would rather see WatchDog or Rogue Traders inspect them and ask them to explain their actions.... It appears a lot of homeowner/ non-resident Landlords are in this situation with Sky being installed shoddily via Ts request. I certainly know of at least 5 people.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by neil.daines View Post
      ex tenant had Sky TV installed without my consent and they(sky tv) made a right mess of it.
      You have 2 options, if not both.

      1) The AST should include items such as :-
      a) Not to add any aerial, antenna, satellite dish etc. etc
      b) Deposit is held against any damage.
      c) Return possession of the property in the same condition as at the begining of tenancy.

      So you have valid points of a, b, and c. who is in violation of the lease at
      a) She did not have permission to erect any dish.
      c) Has not returned the property in the same condition.

      your case against ex tenant sould be clear cut.

      Assuming you get compensation from ex, tenant, then go after Sky. -- They damaged ---your-- property, and is nothing to do with the tenant. ( so you could get compensation twice !! )

      2) Sky damaged your property, maybe not damaged, but unslightly instalation and it requires rectification. Go after sky for improper instalation, not done in a profesional manner, and the expense for rectifying the unprofesional installation. never back off.

      The actions of your tenant has caused you to rectify the outside and inside of your building, at a cost to you. Your tenant is liable.

      At court, don't mention about chasing sky. Your tentants actions caused the damage, by violation the lease, and your tenant will have to rectify ( How he does it, is not your concern, but a cash settlement will allow you to rectify. )

      R-a-M

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by ram View Post
        You have 2 options, if not both.

        1) The AST should include items such as :-
        a) Not to add any aerial, antenna, satellite dish etc. etc
        b) Deposit is held against any damage.
        c) Return possession of the property in the same condition as at the begining of tenancy.

        So you have valid points of a, b, and c. who is in violation of the lease at
        a) She did not have permission to erect any dish.
        c) Has not returned the property in the same condition.

        your case against ex tenant sould be clear cut.

        Assuming you get compensation from ex, tenant, then go after Sky. -- They damaged ---your-- property, and is nothing to do with the tenant. ( so you could get compensation twice !! )

        2) Sky damaged your property, maybe not damaged, but unslightly instalation and it requires rectification. Go after sky for improper instalation, not done in a profesional manner, and the expense for rectifying the unprofesional installation. never back off.

        The actions of your tenant has caused you to rectify the outside and inside of your building, at a cost to you. Your tenant is liable.

        At court, don't mention about chasing sky. Your tentants actions caused the damage, by violation the lease, and your tenant will have to rectify ( How he does it, is not your concern, but a cash settlement will allow you to rectify. )

        R-a-M
        So your advice is to the OP is to claim from the tenant the cost of damage they allowed Sky to cause while the tenant was responsible for the property.

        Having settled that claim succesfully and recovering your costs, you then advise the OP should issue a claim against Sky for the same cost of damages your tenant allowed them to cause to your property which has already been settled?

        Does the concept of British Law mean anything to you?
        My advice is not based on formal legal training but experience gained in 20+ years in the letting industry.

        Comment


          #5
          Sky allowed to damage property.

          Originally posted by oaktree View Post
          So your advice is to the OP is to claim from the tenant the cost of damage they allowed Sky to cause while the tenant was responsible for the property.

          Having settled that claim succesfully and recovering your costs, you then advise the OP should issue a claim against Sky for the same cost of damages your tenant allowed them to cause to your property which has already been settled?

          Does the concept of British Law mean anything to you?
          claim from the tenant -- I assume you have no problems with that. ?

          claim against Sky for the same cost of damages
          If you don't claim from Sky, then they will have got away with damaging property.

          What do you do, say to them, you damaged my property, but I will let you do that, you don't have to repair it, and you can continue to damage landlords property with impunity, for the rest of your lives, cos landlords will never sue you for damage to property.

          Sky damaged the property, and they must be made to pay for the damage.

          If you had a property, and a tenant signed a contract for services, and i installed --whatever-- and damaged your doors, put a window out, spilt adhesive everywhere,then i CAN do that, and you wont sue me ? you will sue the tenant......
          Please employ me ...... as a Sky installer for your tenants, so i can do a bad job, knowing you will never sue me or Sky.

          Hope sky installers are reading this -- damage property with impunity.. the tenant will pay to fix it.

          Do you see NOW, why you --must-- chase Sky to fix the problem ? via monetary compensation ?

          Does the concept of ensuring those that cause damage cannot get away with it, mean anything to you ?

          The court "may" say that the tenant cannot be held responsible for someone elses damage, but tenant did nothing to rectify the problem.

          Smile, it's stopped raining .....

          Comment


            #6
            As I thought, you have no idea what you are talking about.

            You cannot receive compensation from two different sources for the same damage unless the claim is split between the two defendants i.e. 50/50, 60/40 etc

            Let me make it clearer as I suspect that won't have been simple enough - if the OP is able to demonstrate his loss and recovers damages in full for the damage to the property caused by the Sky installation then that is an end to the matter. He cannot then proceed against Sky for the same damage as, due to his previous success against the tenant, he no longer has any loss.

            The tenant could sue Sky for his loss as he has had to compensate the landlord for their shoddy work but then he would have to explain to a court why he passed himself of as the owner of the property when it was patently clear that he was not. Unlikely to be succesful.

            Does the concept of ensuring those that cause damage cannot get away with it, mean anything to you ?

            Yes, thats why the OP should claim against the tenant

            Some people may take your 'advice' and act upon it - that scares me and is a poor reflection on the generally good advice given on this forum.
            My advice is not based on formal legal training but experience gained in 20+ years in the letting industry.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by oaktree View Post
              Some people may take your 'advice' and act upon it - that scares me and is a poor reflection on the generally good advice given on this forum.
              Agreed. Any court action against Sky by the tenant would probably be thrown out because the tenant illegally claimed to be the owner of the property.

              The tenant has to pay and it is the risk he ran when he broke the law in the first place.

              I have no axe to grind for Sky, since they did similarly inept and destructive things to my own house. They came to instal the dish, etc, on the wrong day. Finding we were out, didn't bother to contact us, but asked my 14 year old son to borrow a high ladder from the neighbours, and use it to access the loft space and take a cable through ... (it's a three storey building and the Sky engineer wasn't insured to go that high) ...son wanted to be helpful/wanted Sky TV, so agreed and ended up falling through bedroom ceiling from loft space. Injured knee, missed playing in Yorkshire Cup (Rugby) and learnt a lesson. Sky successfully sued for damage. However, we weren't breaking the law, they were.
              'Pause you who read this, and think for a moment of the long chain of iron or gold, of thorns or flowers, that would never have bound you, but for the formation fo the first link on one memorable day'. Charles Dickens, Great Expectations

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by oaktree View Post
                So your advice is to the OP is to claim from the tenant the cost of damage they allowed Sky to cause while the tenant was responsible for the property.

                Having settled that claim succesfully and recovering your costs, you then advise the OP should issue a claim against Sky for the same cost of damages your tenant allowed them to cause to your property which has already been settled?

                Does the concept of British Law mean anything to you?
                I wouldn't bother paying much attention to ram's postings.
                They are mostly uneducated, self-created legal mumbo-jumbo stuff.

                In addition, this person clearly has much too much time on their hands to be having any kind of balanced life away from the computer screen and thus, is likely to be a bit out of touch with reality.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Remember an AST is a contract between landlord & tenant and if the tenant breaches it in any significant way then that is who's responsible for the damage caused.

                  Unfortunately the cost of the damage is likely exceed the value of the deposit, and I would be obtaining a quotation now to assess the remedial cost, and to present it to the tenant asap. How you go from there I don't know but it's a start.
                  The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

                  Comment

                  Latest Activity

                  Collapse

                  Working...
                  X