In article <2Jaai.1533$p8.381@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, news@t-
onywoolf.co.uk says...
>
> "Mugwump" <mugwump@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.20d34458c0e498e49896b3@news.easynews.com. ..
> > In article <Lc8ai.1476$p8.1087@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, news@t-
> > onywoolf.co.uk says...
> >> "Mugwump" <mugwump@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:MPG.20d2191fc2a843819896b2@news.easynews.com. ..
> >>
> >> >I knew it was somewhere.
> >> >OFT consider any term limiting the tenant's right to change utility
> >> >supplier as unreasonable.
> >> >
> >> >'Guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements' Ch 4 refers.
> >>
> >> This is in the list of "potentially unfair terms"
> >> "Against changing the phone or utility supplier"
> >> "The tenant should have the choice of
> >> supplier although he may be required to
> >> keep the landlord informed of any change
> >> and to return the account to the original
> >> supplier at the end of the tenancy. "
> >>
> >> Is there a lawyer in the house (not a barrack room one)?
> >>
> >>
> > uk.legal.moderated seem to believe it is unenforceable
> > http://groups.google.com/groups?as_u...individual.net
>
> I think that means the landlord's clause in the tenancy agreement is
> unenforceable. Not much help.
>
>
So what was the question? I thought the discussion was whether the OP's
friend (Landlord) could force a tenant to use an ADSL service that was
possibly unsuitable.

IMO most tenants would run a mile if they had to take on a cost, over
and above the rental, that was not vitally necessary. Different kettle
of fish if it formed part of the rental. In that case however, it would
need to stay in the landlord's name and he pay the costs of it.