Renter fuming over $300 internet set up fee landlord refuses to pay

A pricey set up fee at a NSW rental has caused fiery debate among tenants over who is truly responsible for paying it.

Debate has raged over a rental set up bill that a landlord has demanded be paid by their new tenant, despite it being a one-off payment that will stay with the property into the future.

The property has yet to be occupied by tenants and, as such, has not yet been equipped with NBN – a service that since 2016 has come with a $300 mandatory set up fee.

A woman who secured a new rental recently in NSW claimed her landlord was insisting she absorbed the cost and had “declined” to pay the fee.

“I’m about to move into a brand new house. My internet provider said as no one has lived at that house there hasn’t been a connection and before we can access internet this needs to happen,” she posted to social media.

“It is a one off $300 starter connection fee and my landlord had declined to pay it. So this means I would need to pay it for everyone else after me to also enjoy internet connection.

“I don’t see how this is reasonable and fair or how this fee is a cost to me.”

Her argument was further complicated by the fact there was an existing connection however it was never properly connected to the line.

According to the Tenants Union of NSW, initial set up fees for internet services are the responsibility of the tenant, but it was hotly debated whether the tenant’s service should be considered a new connection.

Debate has raged over a rental set up bill that a landlord has demanded be paid by their new tenant, despite it being a one-off payment that will stay with the property into the future.

The Union outlined that new connections could only be installed with landlord consent, however a landlord could not “unreasonably refuse consent”.

The tenant argued, “it’s not a new connection”, saying “it’s already there but because no one has been in the house it’s not connected properly to the line”.

Hundreds responded arguing in support of the tenant, given the connection would benefit every renter of the house after her.

Many who responded shared similar stipulations, with many revealing their landlord ultimately ended up paying upfront or eventually reimbursing them.

“If it’s a house you are buying, yes this is normal. If you are renting, you can ask the real estate to ask the owners to pay for it. We had to do the same thing, however the owners reimbursed us,” one of more than 300 respondents said.

“Landlord has to pay and he should be aware of this. He is trying his best to make you pay but you should call his bluff,” another said.

“We had to do this when we moved in as well. I sent it to the real estate and the owner covered the payment,” someone else wrote.

“Imagine being so tight you won’t even pay 300 bucks as a landlord, that you can claim back on tax. My landlord from a few years ago paid it for me, as it benefits their house, so why wouldn’t you pay it?” another wrote.

Some however came to the defence of the landlord, arguing it was the tenant that wanted the internet service and therefore should be the one to pay.

“So you want a service but want it for free? Right. I don’t think that’s how it works,” one wrote.

“How long are you planning on staying there? Just pay it. If you couldn’t afford $300 I wouldn’t want you renting my place too much of a no pay risk,” someone else said.