TV Licence - Landlord or Tenants pay?

corrcullen

I live in a 3 bed house and am an owner occupier, and I rent out the 2 other bedrooms.
I always divide up ESB, NTL and the Gas bills.
The TV licence bill has arrived and am wondering if I should pay it myself, or divide it in 3 between us all, like with the other bills?

MagicMarker

Divide it. You all use it so you should all pay for it. I share with my landlord and we split it.

Silverfish

Usually whoever owns the tv.

Our landlady pays it, as she provided the tv in the sitting room.

In other places, we all shared it, but everyone yelled at me when I asked for the money, so technically, I paid it.

corrcullen

Silverfish wrote: »

Usually whoever owns the tv.

Our landlady pays it, as she provided the tv in the sitting room.

In other places, we all shared it, but everyone yelled at me when I asked for the money, so technically, I paid it.

There is a TV in the sitting room for everyone which I bought, and I have provided a TV in each of the bedrooms as well.

Silverfish

Oooer.

Well, technically, since they didn't bring their own / ask you to provide them, then you should have the licence.

However, since they're getting tv's for nothing, they should really want to chip in on the licence.

I suppose it's down to you at the end of the day on this one.

Ste.phen

I'd be inclined to say it's shared between all the tenants, the fact you're an owner occupier shouldn't muddy things too much. A bill came, they're getting the benefit of what the bill pays for, they should pay.

bugler

It's an annual fee as opposed to a bill. They might move out in a months time, and what will they have paid for? A year's TV? That's actually what happened to a friend of mine and another tenant. It's hardly cut and dried, but I think this one should be footed by the owner.

markpb

Did she not watch TV for the time she lived there before the license was renewed?

Silverfish

Well, lets put it this way.

Maybe she doesn't own a tv herself, because she never watches it. She moves in here, and there's a tv in the room. She then moves out a month later. Why should she pay her share of a year's tv licence?

That's like saying "I know you don't drive, or want to, but there's a car there, so you owe your share of the insurance".

markpb

Depends on the house really.... if it comes with a TV, you should be prepared to pay part of the license. If it comes with Sky, you should be prepared to pay part of the monthly fee. Thats how sharing a house has worked in any place I've rented. If she doesn't want to pay, lease the house herself and set the rules.

Silverfish

markpb wrote: »

Depends on the house really.... if it comes with a TV, you should be prepared to pay part of the license.

I don't agree. If I bring a tv, I'll pay part of the licence.

If there's a tv there, that I don't use, or didn't ask for, I'm not paying for the licence.

Kipperhell

This is very simple. It is a shared cost for the facilities in the house. It does not matter who owns the property. If you were not living in the house and there was a tv it would be the tenants bill.

If somebody leaves before a full year the portion is divided out.

Ste.phen

Kipperhell wrote: »

This is very simple. It is a shared cost for the facilities in the house. It does not matter who owns the property. If you were not living in the house and there was a tv it would be the tenants bill.

If somebody leaves before a full year the portion is divided out.

Agreed, I think it's standard for things like this to be handed over between old/new tenants when someone is replaced, once it's mentioned before the new person moves in, it should be no problem

bugler

If somebody leaves before a full year the portion is divided out.

That would be the fairest approach. But it is definitely distinct from utility bills. I pay the NTL bill in advance for the following two months - I wouldn't ask a tenant to pay for a bill they weren't there to use.

corrcullen

Everyone uses the TVs in the house that were provided.
I think i will divide the bill between us all.
And to be fair, I will state to them, that if they move out, in for example 6 months time, I will give them back half of the TV licence contribution.
Cant be any fairer than that.

astrofool

If you're providing televisions then you should really factor the cost of the TV (which includes license) into your rent. Now in reality, you can't really charge say €20 more per month then the similar place down the road due to providing a TV, however, it might be what swings a tenant to rent your place.

I'd see it as extra's in a car, they don't increase the sell on cost, but means you'll sell it on a lot faster than a base spec model.

Silverfish

astrofool wrote: »

If you're providing televisions then you should really factor the cost of the TV (which includes license) into your rent. Now in reality, you can't really charge say €20 more per month then the similar place down the road due to providing a TV, however, it might be what swings a tenant to rent your place.

I'd see it as extra's in a car, they don't increase the sell on cost, but means you'll sell it on a lot faster than a base spec model.

But you'd own the car, here you don't end up owning either the house OR the tv.

astrofool

Silverfish wrote: »

But you'd own the car, here you don't end up owning either the house OR the tv.

I didn't mention anything about owning anything?

The OP is an owner occupier.

Silverfish

astrofool wrote: »

I didn't mention anything about owning anything?

The OP is an owner occupier.

You were comparing it to extras in a car. Presumably referring to BUYING a car.

The tenants will not be BUYING the tv, so if the landlord wants to put tv's in the room, why should he recoup the cost of the tv's in the rent.

If someone brings their own tv, do they pay less rent?

Victor

What does the lease say?

Who owns the television? You? Your bill, then.

When the insurance bill comes, will you do a collection for that? Alarm monitoring charge? Repairs? Decoration? Throwing €20 at the neighbours kid to cut the grass?

Its €1 per person per week, I'd expect the landlord to cover it in an owner occupier situation. Its not as utility bill.

Be careful this doesn't take you over the limit for the Rent-a-Room scheme. Anything you get from the tenants counts. Anything over €7,620 and you pay tax on the lot.

astrofool

Silverfish wrote: »

You were comparing it to extras in a car. Presumably referring to BUYING a car.

The tenants will not be BUYING the tv, so if the landlord wants to put tv's in the room, why should he recoup the cost of the tv's in the rent.

If someone brings their own tv, do they pay less rent?

Why would you presume that?

I'm saying that all things being equal a person will be more likely to rent the place that provide's TV, just as when buying a car, all things being equal, they will buy the car with extra's.

To make it simple for you, imagine they were renting the car

TV license also probably falls under the same category as management fee, for example.

cazzy

Id divide it equally between 3 assuming ye all watch the TV


When I was renting, before I bought my own gaf, I always paid the TV licence bill as a tenant - didnt even think of asking the landlord. Assumed it was like a utility bill.

corrcullen

Victor wrote: »

What does the lease say?

Who owns the television? You? Your bill, then.

When the insurance bill comes, will you do a collection for that? Alarm monitoring charge? Repairs? Decoration? Throwing €20 at the neighbours kid to cut the grass?

Its €1 per person per week, I'd expect the landlord to cover it in an owner occupier situation. Its not as utility bill.

Be careful this doesn't take you over the limit for the Rent-a-Room scheme. Anything you get from the tenants counts. Anything over €7,620 and you pay tax on the lot.

yeah right.
There are some really be-grudging people on this forum towards landlords. I guess they are pissed off to be paying rent and cant afford a place of their own.

Silverfish

astrofool wrote: »

Why would you presume that?

I'm saying that all things being equal a person will be more likely to rent the place that provide's TV, just as when buying a car, all things being equal, they will buy the car with extra's.

To make it simple for you, imagine they were renting the car

TV license also probably falls under the same category as management fee, for example.

So if he buys a dishwasher, everyone pays towards it?

To make it simple for you, its his decision to go to that expense. Why should the tenants be told 'Oh by the way, I've put your rent up to cover those tvs I put in your rooms'

astrofool

Anything you buy for the accommodation should be covered by the rent you charge. Thats how you run a business? Why else would he put in a dishwasher? You're really going off on your own tangent here btw.

Silverfish

astrofool wrote: »

Anything you buy for the accommodation should be covered by the rent you charge. Thats how you run a business? Why else would he put in a dishwasher? You're really going off on your own tangent here btw.

What I am saying is, if I moved in somewhere, and there was a tv in the bedroom, and I was expected to pay the tv licence for someone else's tv, I would ask them to remove it.
I will pay the licence fee for my own tv, but if it comes with the house, I don't think I should pay the fee, as the tv will be there before I moved in, and after I move out.

I was using the dishwasher analogy as an example. It probably wasn't clear enough for you.

kaiser sauze

In the house I shared, and where I provided a TV, the TV licence was shared between all tenants.

If someone moved out before the TV licence had expired, they got back whatever amount they had not used which was then, in turn, charged to the next person.

Very simple, equitable and fair.

astrofool

Silverfish wrote: »

What I am saying is, if I moved in somewhere, and there was a tv in the bedroom, and I was expected to pay the tv licence for someone else's tv, I would ask them to remove it.
I will pay the licence fee for my own tv, but if it comes with the house, I don't think I should pay the fee, as the tv will be there before I moved in, and after I move out.

I was using the dishwasher analogy as an example. It probably wasn't clear enough for you.

Yes, but the landlord should be factoring in that €158 a year when calculating what his rent would be (if he is providing the TV), just as he factors in the cost of a dishwasher, maintenance fee's, repair fee's etc.

Victor

kaiser sauze, I would make a clear distinction between an owner occupied and non-owner occupied residence.

astrofool wrote: »

Silverfish wrote: »

What I am saying is, if I moved in somewhere, and there was a tv in the bedroom, and I was expected to pay the tv licence for someone else's tv, I would ask them to remove it.
I will pay the licence fee for my own tv, but if it comes with the house, I don't think I should pay the fee, as the tv will be there before I moved in, and after I move out.

I was using the dishwasher analogy as an example. It probably wasn't clear enough for you.

Yes, but the landlord should be factoring in that €158 a year when calculating what his rent would be (if he is providing the TV), just as he factors in the cost of a dishwasher, maintenance fee's, repair fee's etc.

I think you two are agreeing with each other. Stop arguing.

kaiser sauze

Victor wrote: »

kaiser sauze, I would make a clear distinction between an owner occupied and non-owner occupied residence.

I don't think that is necessary; it works for both scenarios.

Kipperhell

Unless the tenant does not watch TV they should pay their share. The fact their is a TV provided in the rooms means nothing. I think it makes no difference to shared expenses whether one of the people owns the property or not. If you use the service you pay for it. It is effectively the same as saying if the landlord bought the toaster he should pay for the electricity to run it.

loyatemu

I'd regard it as an annual expense and should be paid by the OP. He'd have to get a license even if the tenants weren't there. If he wasn't living in the house then the situation might be different but if he was still supplying a TV then he should probably still pay.

Victor

Kipperhell wrote: »

Unless the tenant does not watch TV they should pay their share. The fact their is a TV provided in the rooms means nothing. I think it makes no difference to shared expenses whether one of the people owns the property or not. If you use the service you pay for it. It is effectively the same as saying if the landlord bought the toaster he should pay for the electricity to run it.

No - there are two differences. Firstly, the residents can decide on how much they use the toaster - a TV licence is not dependent on the level of usage. Secondly, electricity is a recognised utility bill that is generally agreed to be shared, unless otherwise stated.

Again, what does the lease say? Is the OP trying to unilaterally vary the contract?

Kipperhell

Victor wrote: »

No - there are two differences. Firstly, the residents can decide on how much they use the toaster - a TV licence is not dependent on the level of usage. Secondly, electricity is a recognised utility bill that is generally agreed to be shared, unless otherwise stated.

Again, what does the lease say? Is the OP trying to unilaterally vary the contract?

I don't agree. I don't think there is a difference between an annual bill and a monthly one. The lease wouldn't need to state the TV licence specifically if household bills are said to be shared. The fact that the licence isn't dependent on usage means if the resident watched TV they should pay. The law is very clear on the situation where the landlord owns the TV in rented property and just because one of your house mates also owns the property I don't think the whole thing should be re-evaluated. I can't believe people think because a charge is annual it means it is not a household cost. It is not dependent on the property therefore the landlord should not pay. IMHO

shadowcomplex

Im moving out of my current place and the landlord is expecting me to pay a share of the licence covering the whole year even though ill only be there for 2 months worth of it

Asphyxia

I'd be dividing it equally it's only fair unless one of you don't actually watch tv.

Azureus

In any case Ive had, the tenants split the cost of the TV licence, its never been covered by our landlord even if they did provide the tv.