Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

TV Licence - Landlord or Tenants pay?

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    loyatemu
    Registered Users Posts: 14,736 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Options
    #33
    Victor
    Registered Users Posts: 78,245 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • Options
    #34
    Kipperhell
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #35
    shadowcomplex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,097 ✭✭✭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


  • Options
    #36
    Asphyxia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,740 ✭✭✭Asphyxia


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


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Azureus
    Registered Users Posts: 2,131 ✭✭✭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.


Advertisement