NSW NBN New Development charge

Hi all, just looking for any recent experiences with this one, and who is liable to pay, LL or (first) renter?

This is apparently a one-off $300 fee that "comes with the unit", as in the next tenant will not have to pay it once it's paid for once through whichever ISP we end up going with. It's added to the owners investment, essentially. Other internet is not available to the unit, other than Wireless Broadband of course.

This seems fuzzy depending if you see it as say, wanting a working phone line, or wanting Foxtel.
I can see both opinions online so I was wondering if anyone has had experience with this recently, and what happened.

 

It's a very disappointing fee and I wish it didn't exist.
The developer/owner has paid their developer contribution to NBNCo to have the dwelling connected (around $600 per unit) so it shouldn't be their role to pay the $300.
But the $300 is a high charge for a tenant/new owner to pay as well. If it was $99 I'm sure there would be a lot less questions and angst about it.
For my lower income tenants I have gone halves with them as owner on the $300 even though I don't have to as it is 1.5 weeks rent and more than they can afford. THe other tenants chose to pay or it go with wireless internet

 

In NSW The rules are a bit uncertain :
Factsheet 23: Utilities

A existing point may need to be connected but a property with no connection is the tenant issue. The lease should ideally indicate whether a service is or is not connected / available.

 

If it were my property, I'd pay it - then advertise property has NBN infrastructure etc. I don't feel it's reasonable to make a tenant pay for this.

 

Infrastructure and part of the house = LL

 

I'm pretty sure they don't actually do anything extra for the $300. It is just NBNco's way of splitting the costs of providing the new connections $600 to the developer and $300 to the new household (new owner or tenant).

 

thank you for your responses thus far. This move is costing us an arm and a leg as is (as most moves do!) so this extra $300 was a huge shock. My husband works often from home so we can't go without good internet and will likely just have to cop it and hope for the best when we ask our LL.

 

Any 5G options?

 

I just checked and unfortunately not

 

Common in units that are newly developed. The premises lead-in is is covered for the Strata to the MDF. But each unit has to pay to connect. In NSW the issue comes down to state law and the lease. Tenants should be aware of this catch especially for new builds. If a connection point is evident the landlord may need to connect it if the lease doesnt say ""its not connected". If there is no connection point OR the lease indicates no connection (and there is a connect point that isnt actually connected) then the tenant will need to pay.

Telephone, television and internet connections
A landlord is not required to provide telephone, television and internet connections with the premises. However, existing phone/TV/internet sockets are facilities provided with the premises for use of the tenant. As such, the landlord is obliged to ensure such facilities are in reasonable condition and to maintain them – unless this is specifically excluded in the tenancy agreement. (Also see Factsheet 06: Repairs and maintenance; and the case Varghese v Liang & Huang (Tenancy) [2008] NSWCTTT 973).

In the case Varghese v Liang & Huang (Tenancy) [2008] NSWCTTT 973, the premises had a phone socket. The tenant assumed there was a working landline but there was not. The Tribunal found that the landlord is responsible for ensuring a landline is available unless there is a specific exclusion in the tenancy agreement.

At the start of the tenancy, note on the condition report whether or not socket/s work. If they do not, negotiate with the landlord/agent about having them fixed. Get any agreement in writing.

New connections
If you want a new connection installed you must have the landlord’s consent. They must not unreasonably withhold consent if the work required for the installation is of a ‘minor nature’ (see the NSW Fair Trading factsheet ‘Asking to make an alteration’ at fairtrading.nsw.gov.au).

You (tenant) will have to pay for installation (although the landlord may agree to pay or contribute to the cost). You pay for repairs to connections you have installed.

Its also wise for any lease to exclude warranty for connection at all times or during a power failure. Most people wouldnt have a clue that NBN has no use without external power unlike a standard phone. You dont want a power failure to mean nanna cant use her call alert or ring an ambulance and then be sued.

 

I had this recently in a new unit, I knew the $300 cost was coming so we discussed it with the tenants prior to lease signing and made it a condition of the agreement. Much easier to manage expectations of the tenant and the owner prior to the lease starting.

Otherwise I would negotiate splitting the cost with the owner.

 

Hi Mel, do you mean you told them they would need to pay this $300 before they signed the lease, or you told them the owner would cover it? I would have discussed this prior to signing but sadly I never knew this existed, this is the first time I move into a new development since 2016.

 

In this case, we agreed with the tenants that any internet cost including the $300 NBN charge was their responsibility and had that formally written into the lease agreement. I think it would be a case by case basis generally.

 

Hi Caz,

As a general rule, Landlords would be best to pay for this charge as it relates to the commissioning of the NBN, and nothing to do with an ongoing plan. For context if the tenant was made to pay, its like advising the tenant a dishwasher is available, but they need to pay a plumber to connect the hoses.

From experience, its a minimal cost and is a once off. It's important to start your relationship with your tenant on a good note to ensure a mutual and respectful relationship throughout the lease. Attempting to on-forward these style of fees often leads to disgruntled tenants and affects their ability to act reasonably when real issues arise.

 

You seem like a very level-headed person!! In the same vein, I'm afraid to ask for it to be covered because I don't want to start my relationship off seeming like a needy tenant, something I always avoid at all costs. These new owners are overseas and seem very very rigid so far, so I don't like my chances. I wish this was accounted for in the legislation when it was introduced in 2016.

 

As a general rule the lease terms and premises will determine who pays. Its common in new builds that there is no plugs, connections or lines present to suggest that internet connection is present. Therefore no phone, no data. If they want foxtel I'm not paying for connection either.
NSW RTA requires electricity, water etc and that any connections are maintained. That presents a issue for many homes in areas where copper is turned off and NBN replaces it. The tenant must pay in NSW as its not a connection that can be maintained. Its new. This comes up time after time with the tribunal who award the cost to the tenant to pay. The tribunal doesnt split costs - It decides who is liable under the relevant lease.

If a tenant says "I want gas" in an electricity only building do you pay for gas connection ?
Or Ï want solar...

 

I just can't bring myself to see it as the same thing as wanting Foxtel or gas added into an electric building... both of those require someone to come over and physically install something that wasn't there before, and in both cases there's viable alternatives like electricity and free to air. There is nothing to install here - it's already been installed. This seems very unique to me, hence why we're seeing some landlords saying absolutely they would pay, and others not.

That famous case of the renter who won at Tribunal based on seeing a phone jack and thus could assume there was a phone line... I will need to see what the connection points look like in the unit, if it's clearly labelled "NBN" or something similar.

 

One of those murky areas, IMHO. A phone service, if the cabling is installed, would be considered as an existing service. Should be noted on the inspection report as well.

It is a building cost, it doesn't travel with the tenant so I would consider it an owner's cost (why else would they have installed the cable and not the initial connection?

No different to old school phone line situation - Linky

 

I don’t think those case law examples are really relevant. They were to do with a charge to physically install new lines to a property.

NBn have muddied the waters by introducing a new service charge to the retail customer that should have been an initial charge to the developer/builder.

the infrastructure is all physically there. This is simply a connection fee

 

This is no different from the previous initial charge to set up the phone (as per my email link above - Telstra was charging $300 years ago for this).