Virgin Media Community

[Anonymous]

if the person renting the house doesn't tell vm its rented they have no way to know.
They would just install with the permission of the tenant. At hat point you'd have to go after the tenant for breach on lease agreement if that was in there.

The company that installed it at the time wouldn't have know and it would be unreasonable to require checking of deeds for all work.

I think the courts would take into account that the tenant gave permission and as the current occupier and it would be upto them to get permissions.

When i had services installed i checked with my landlord but the installers never asked. its assumed the permission is allowed

[michaelCB]

Interesting but totally illegal to assume permissions especially as the first installation was without consent. 
I don’t wish to digress but using your theory I can install a cable across your front door as I assume I have permission. 
VM have never been granted permission to enter my property. 
Sorry in law your argument is a non runner.I would ask contributors to post only fact please as this esoteric argument does not have credibility. 
VM have no rights to my property full stop whoever they think gave them permission 

[jpeg1]

That's an interesting argument.  You are suggesting that a utility supplier should investigate the bona fides of the person giving them authority to install in the property where they live.

How long would that take I wonder, and how much would it cost every applicant? 

VM have been given permission, but clearly it was given by someone not authorised to do so. The non lawyer in me would suggest your remedy would be against the person who broke the terms of the lease.

But I trust that VM will avoid any legal case by removing the cable

[Roger_Gooner]

It's a fact that VM signed a contract with the customer who was living at the property. If that person didn't ask for your permission then this is between the two of you. The installation is now regarded akin to a utility, so you must not remove it yourself.

[michaelCB]

I would love to see that argument tested in law   “Akin to utility” sorry as per previous post please don’t guess, it doesn’t help and only serves to dilute the issue  on that basis any contract I sign without authorisation then you are a obliged to honour   Really!

[michaelCB]

Hi Jpeg1 interesting theory. 
just as VM investigate and vet an applicant for service through  credit agencies prior to granting access, there is only one person authorised to sign a contract relating to my property, and that is me  any other is of course invalid  I think we would all agree with this no matter who says he is authorised 

so I hope to bring this thread back to the real issue now we have all had our say  

Legal VM cable removal by VM

[jpeg1]

I don't think anyone disputes that your tenant should not have given permission.  Only that he did, and the consequences..

You won't see this tested in court. VM will get round to moving it eventually.  Do let us know when they do.

[michaelCB]

VM have PM me to say they will send a field manager out to look at the installation. 

good news on our way to a solution I hope. 

I thank all contributors, I will of course keep this thread “open” And post progress and hopefully a solution

[Anonymous]

your tenant has permission to allow access. you do not have the right to deny or control who can enter the property that you rent.
The right to access are not the landlords but the tenents. you have less right over the access to the prioerty then the tenent at the point of renting it

[Anonymous]

Meaning of Without Lawful Excuse

Section 5 of the Act sets out a defence to criminal damage charges, though not to aggravated criminal damage under s.1(2) – see s.5(1). A person has a lawful excuse if

• he believed at the time that those whom he believed to be entitled to consent to the destruction of or damage to the property in question had so consented, or would have so consented to it if they had known of the destruction or damage and its circumstances; or
• at the time of the act or acts alleged to constitute the offence he believed:
  • that the property, right or interest was in immediate need of protection; and
  • that the means of protection adopted or proposed to be adopted were or would be reasonable having regard to all the circumstances.