Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    • Coeus
    • By Coeus 12th Nov 16, 9:35 AM
    • 283Posts
    • 159Thanks
    Coeus
    BT Telegraph Pole Erected Outside Property!
    • #1
    • 12th Nov 16, 9:35 AM
    BT Telegraph Pole Erected Outside Property! 12th Nov 16 at 9:35 AM
    Greetings Everyone!

    Hope you are all well.

    Anyone had any experience with a telegraph pole being installed outside there property?

    I recently have unfortunately spoiling the views for myself and our neighbours

    I can make a complaint as noted on the pole itself - I have drafted in reads the below:

    12th November 2016

    FAO: Pole Objection Team

    Dear Sirs,

    I am writing to object to the overhead apparatus installed immediately outside my property under paragraph 17 of the electronic communications code (telecommunications act 1984 schedule 2 as amended by schedule 3 to the communications act 2003).

    This relates to the installation of electronic communications apparatus consisting of plant and new pole installed on 10-11-16. Installation details as follows:
    ē Engineer ID and job number: XXX
    ē Ref: XXX

    My objection is made as the occupier of the above property under note (b) having an interest the land, the enjoyment of which, or any interest in which, is because of the nearness of the land on or over which the apparatus has been installed, capable of being prejudiced by the apparatus.

    From the photographic evidence attached the installation of this equipment obviously impacts the aesthetic value of my property and as such negatively impacts on its value. The photos provided do not yet show the connection of the phone lines to the property XXX but I can assume this will directly cross from the pole to the building again impacting the aesthetic value of my property.

    I request that the equipment is removed and an alternative solution is found following a consultation process with the affected neighbouring properties. Alternatively I would seek to be compensated for the loss in value to my property.

    Please respond in writing to the above address or email: XXX
    Do you think I will get anywhere?

    Many thanks in advance!

    Coeus.
    Hope For The Best, Plan For The Worst
Page 5
    • Hermione Granger
    • By Hermione Granger 13th Feb 18, 8:53 PM
    • 824 Posts
    • 1,279 Thanks
    Hermione Granger
    But as your opinion was based on the report it would follow your opinion was incorrect. Opinions are often based on information, if the information was incorrect, the opinion will be incorrect.
    Originally posted by lincroft1710
    As you say, opinions are often based on information but often doesn't mean always.
    If the information was incorrect, the opinion may be different but then again, it might still be the same especially if someone's opinion wasn't based solely on that information.
    • Deastons
    • By Deastons 14th Feb 18, 8:05 AM
    • 26 Posts
    • 9 Thanks
    Deastons
    But as your opinion was based on the report it would follow your opinion was incorrect. Opinions are often based on information, if the information was incorrect, the opinion will be incorrect.
    Originally posted by lincroft1710
    My opinion has nothing to do with this. I was just stating that your fictional report was incorrect.
    • lincroft1710
    • By lincroft1710 14th Feb 18, 5:07 PM
    • 10,378 Posts
    • 8,515 Thanks
    lincroft1710
    But my opinion will remain that there can be an incorrect opinion.
    • NotRichAtAll
    • By NotRichAtAll 14th Feb 18, 9:58 PM
    • 705 Posts
    • 533 Thanks
    NotRichAtAll
    could be worse

    • boo_star
    • By boo_star 14th Feb 18, 10:56 PM
    • 1,378 Posts
    • 756 Thanks
    boo_star
    could be worse

    Originally posted by NotRichAtAll
    Although thatís hilarious it looks like the property was built behind the post rather than the post being erected in front of the driveway.

    But itís amazing that nobody noticed that, at least when they were building the house.
    • DoaM
    • By DoaM 15th Feb 18, 9:07 AM
    • 3,993 Posts
    • 4,038 Thanks
    DoaM
    Although thatís hilarious it looks like the property was built behind the post rather than the post being erected in front of the driveway.
    Originally posted by boo_star
    Correct - note the lack of dropped kerb to the "driveway". A car cannot legally enter or exit that driveway to the public highway.
    Diary of a madman
    Walk the line again today
    Entries of confusion
    Dear diary, I'm here to stay
    • hybernia
    • By hybernia 15th Feb 18, 2:36 PM
    • 256 Posts
    • 205 Thanks
    hybernia
    Apparently, this is one of a trio of 5-bed detached houses built by a Walsall builder in Lichfield Road, Walsall. They were being sold by Walsall estate agent Acorns & Co. Two without the telegraph pole are apparently sold subject to contract but this one doesn't seem to be on Acorns' books any more. No surprise there. What is a surprise -- to me, at any rate -- is why anyone with half a brain would spend £370,000 on the product of a builder whose competence in house construction seems so evidently . . . inadequate.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4912420/Fawlty-Towers-style-house-built-pole-driveway.html

    Apologies to the OP for going O/T but thanks to NotRichAtAll for flagging up one of the funniest stories I've heard in a long time.

    EDIT: the pole must have been moved????? A search of the agent's properties confirms that all three houses now have 'Sale Agreed'.
    Last edited by hybernia; 15-02-2018 at 2:40 PM.
    • unholyangel
    • By unholyangel 15th Feb 18, 4:29 PM
    • 11,906 Posts
    • 9,175 Thanks
    unholyangel
    Although thatís hilarious it looks like the property was built behind the post rather than the post being erected in front of the driveway.

    But itís amazing that nobody noticed that, at least when they were building the house.
    Originally posted by boo_star
    If I remember right (seen that picture & accompanying story before), it was built the wrong way round - drive should have been to the right and stair/footpath to the left.


    Correct - note the lack of dropped kerb to the "driveway". A car cannot legally enter or exit that driveway to the public highway.
    Originally posted by DoaM
    I dont believe the lowered kerb is key to whether an offence is committed.

    The legislation makes it a general offence and then gives 2 exceptions to the offence - one for saving a life/extinguishing a fire (or other like emergencies) and the other says its not an offence to drive on any land within 15 yards of the road (as in part of the road the cars are driven) for the purpose of parking.
    Money doesn't solve poverty.....it creates it.
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

3,464Posts Today

8,529Users online

Martin's Twitter