Hi Simon, thanks for your ongoing support and for the offer to help from your end.
This is where I think Chorus have failed the property owner. They do not have sufficient checks in place to ensure the consent provided is valid. Being able to have anyone declare they have the authority to provide consent, with the same stroke of a pen that also gives that consent is far to open to this situation occurring.
Unfortunately my experience to date with Chorus has been quite the opposite. An attitude of denying any fault, any culpability and pushing it all back to being my problem, as if I've created it! Despite the threat of the Disputes Tribunal, they still did not waiver in this stance, instead continuing to hide behind their insufficient consent form. Now that they have received the summons following my application, they are engaging and have offered to meet on site. To what end I'm still not sure.
As mentioned above, they are now engaging direct with me, while the tenant is also finally pulling finger and talking to them with the pending Tenancy Tribunal hearing now a reality. I think to involve someone else at this stage may make things even messier than they already are. But your offer is very much appreciated. I do have one question you maybe able to help with and will email you regarding this.
And this is a large part of my frustration. The attitude that Chorus have is that the ultimate property owner does not have rights in this situation! I can't contact Vodafone, I'm not the account holder, I can't order Chorus to remove/relocate as I'm not the end user and it's not a request from Vodafine. They believe that their system of consent allows them to install their property on my property without my consent, and it I want to remove it, they threaten to charge me for damage to their network which is on my property!
Even when the point that they have the indemnity in their end user document is raised with them, they try to claim that they can't recharge the end user as they don't have a direct billing relationship with them.... WHAT?! But they can charge the property owner, that they have no relationship whatsoever, with rightfully removing someone else's property from their property?
Originally posted by SimonW
View Post
Originally posted by SimonW
View Post
Originally posted by SimonW
View Post
Originally posted by SimonW
View Post
Even when the point that they have the indemnity in their end user document is raised with them, they try to claim that they can't recharge the end user as they don't have a direct billing relationship with them.... WHAT?! But they can charge the property owner, that they have no relationship whatsoever, with rightfully removing someone else's property from their property?
Comment