Freeview and landlord obligations

Forums › Freeview (DVB-T/DVB-S) › Freeview and landlord obligations

dwknight

74 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#103302 3-Jun-2012 17:58

Hey guys, does anyone know if it will be a legal requirement for landlords to install a UHF aerial to allow their tenants to watch Freeview? Once the old signal gets switched off the tenants will be totally screwed.
Surely this problem has been foreseen... tenants shouldn't have to pay to install the aerial.

Thanks for any info.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

3539 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 124

Trusted

#635119 3-Jun-2012 18:13

I would say get the landlord's permission, and get it installed yourself. Don't see why he/she should have to stump up for it. It is hardly a necessity of life, so doesn't qualify as something the landlord should pay for IMO.

dwknight

74 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#635120 3-Jun-2012 18:22

Luckily I'm not the one needing it done, but still, I do think it's necessary. Plus, it's being installed on the landlord's house so when the tenants move somewhere else the aerial remains. Landlords are expected to pay for all other repairs/improvements. Surely this can be thought of in that regard?

alasta

6889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3363

Trusted

Subscriber

#635121 3-Jun-2012 18:27

grant_k: I would say get the landlord's permission, and get it installed yourself. Don't see why he/she should have to stump up for it. It is hardly a necessity of life, so doesn't qualify as something the landlord should pay for IMO.

I agree. The fact that there is currently a VHF aerial shouldn't mean that the landlord is obligated to maintain or upgrade it unless it's specified in the tenancy agreement.

When I move this year ensuring that the new landlord is okay with me installing an aerial will be on my list of questions to ask. I won't be moving in to any place where the landlord objects to me doing it, but I don't expect them to cover the cost.

dwknight

74 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#635123 3-Jun-2012 18:29

Sorry I wasn't clear from the start. There is currently no aerial of any kind on the property.

Behodar

11099 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6078

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#635125 3-Jun-2012 18:33

So to clarify: There is currently no analogue TV provided at all, but you'd like a free installation of Freeview HD once analogue is turned off?

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#635127 3-Jun-2012 18:34

dwknight: Sorry I wasn't clear from the start. There is currently no aerial of any kind on the property.

In which case you've probably got no grounds whatsoever to expect one. if there was an existing VHF aerial you could probably have a good reason to expect the landlord to upgrade it to a UHF one.

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

dwknight

74 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#635128 3-Jun-2012 18:35

Well again, this isn't for me, I'm just wondering what's going to happen to all the people out there who can barely make ends meet as it is.
Also, I just found the official document which clarifies this (and you guys were all correct). However, once the old analog signal gets switched off I can see this issue becoming a slightly bigger deal.

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#635135 3-Jun-2012 18:39

Landlords aren't required by law to provide a TV aerial.

alasta

6889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3363

Trusted

Subscriber

#635136 3-Jun-2012 18:40

I would have thought that most people would already have a UHF aerial given that prime and several regional stations have been on UHF for some years.

alasta

6889 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3363

Trusted

Subscriber

#635139 3-Jun-2012 18:42

Out of interest does anyone know roughly how much it costs to professionally install a UHF aerial (hardware and labour), and whether it's common for landlords to object?

dwknight

74 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 17

#635142 3-Jun-2012 18:46

After the Feb earthquake, seeing the mayor and everyone else addressing us and letting us know what was going on was the only thing keeping many people sane.
I do agree that in the current environment, while the old analog signal is being broadcast, landlords should not have to install an aerial.

But I don't think people realise just how damaging losing this signal is going to be. I'm not talking about missing out on Shortland Street, I'm talking about missing out on an essential source of information than can, and does, save lives.

Apple TV

Stream your favourite shows now on Apple TV (affiliate link).

sbiddle

30853 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9996

Retired Mod

Trusted

Biddle Corp

Lifetime subscriber

#635153 3-Jun-2012 19:11

dwknight: After the Feb earthquake, seeing the mayor and everyone else addressing us and letting us know what was going on was the only thing keeping many people sane.
I do agree that in the current environment, while the old analog signal is being broadcast, landlords should not have to install an aerial.

But I don't think people realise just how damaging losing this signal is going to be. I'm not talking about missing out on Shortland Street, I'm talking about missing out on an essential source of information than can, and does, save lives.

I'm seeing you talk about two different issues in your posts

- Should a landlord provide an aerial when no aerial exists

- Should a landlord upgrade an existing aerial

As discussed there is no legal requirement for a landlord to provide a TV aerial. If a VHF aerial does exist I think it would be reasonable to approach a landlord and ask if they would be willing to install a UHF aerial.

Dunnersfella

4100 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 887

#635169 3-Jun-2012 19:39

dwknight: After the Feb earthquake, seeing the mayor and everyone else addressing us and letting us know what was going on was the only thing keeping many people sane.
I do agree that in the current environment, while the old analog signal is being broadcast, landlords should not have to install an aerial.

But I don't think people realise just how damaging losing this signal is going to be. I'm not talking about missing out on Shortland Street, I'm talking about missing out on an essential source of information than can, and does, save lives.

As we had no power immediately after the major quakes, then TV would not help whatsoever. A battery operated radio may help?
I believe people will always try to angle for free things - but hey, a moochers gonna mooch.

grant_k

3539 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 124

Trusted

#635171 3-Jun-2012 19:51

Dunnersfella: As we had no power immediately after the major quakes, then TV would not help whatsoever. A battery operated radio may help?

I was thinking the same thing. Don't Civil Defence always tell you to keep listening to your radio?

A far more sensible idea than being glued to a TV and unable to move. Radios can be easily carried around and pretty much all vehicles have them too.

gzt

18682 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7823

Lifetime subscriber

#635175 3-Jun-2012 19:56

If there was one there already they might be expected to maintain it. If it was VHF i can't see any obligation to upgrade it to UHF, but UHF but many landlords would on being asked.

Go ask your landlord and find out if they are willing to install one.

If not then install it yourself or consider a sky install deal.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4