BT pole on my property

Davesnave

What do the explanatory notes referred to, explain?

My update is that I've had no action, though I've had more apologies from the surveyor, whom I emailed again. It seems he has been emailing his boss, asking for priority to be given to my pole, but it's falling on deaf ears. He copied his last email to me to his boss.

So, I now have the boss's email address....:D

calicocat

DELETED USER wrote:

I'm currently pursuing them about a metal bracket attached to the side of my house that holds a BT phone line going to the neighbour's house. They should at least be paying rent on it.

We had a huge box on the side of the cottage that housed everyone's connections to the main line....thinking about it that may well have been why they put it underground so they didn't have to pay us any more money. we had been in the house a few years before it cropped up, and i'm sure they had to pay us back dated monies for the pole and lines being on our land. I'll bet this happens with loads of older properties, we didn't get water rates or bills for ages....turned out the local small hospital was still paying for everything for miles around their hospital grounds.

Ninnut85

Davesnave wrote: »

What do the explanatory notes referred to, explain?

My update is that I've had no action, though I've had more apologies from the surveyor, whom I emailed again. It seems he has been emailing his boss, asking for priority to be given to my pole, but it's falling on deaf ears. He copied his last email to me to his boss.

So, I now have the boss's email address....[IMG]file:///C:\DOCUME~1\Rox\LOCALS~1\Temp\msohtmlclip1\01\clip_image001.gif[/IMG]

It seems to me they are contradicting themselves. Their wayleave website states for a pole to be on private land a wayleave must be in place, which it isn't. Then they send me a letter stating that they can in fact put a pole where they like and not have to move it until a court order is given. So which is it? It's ridiculous they can just put poles where they like and get away with it.
Anyway, here are the explanatory notes, apologies for the long post but this is all the notes they sent me.

"a) Land includes buildings (schedule 1 to the interpretation act, 1978.

b) BT PLC is a person to whom the electronic communications code applies by directions under section 106 of the communications act 2003. In accordance with the provisions of the electronics communications code. BT plc has installed electronic communications apparatus on the property and has the right to retain it thereon. If within 28 days of giving notice under paragraph 20(1) requiring alteration of the apparatus BR plc servers a counter-notice stating BT plc is not willing to comply with such notice and make such alteration, you may not enforce compliance with your notice without an order of the county court. In that case the county court shall decide whether BT plc shall be requires to alter the apparatus in accordance with your notice.
c) The county court may only make an order under paragraph 20 if it is satisfied that such an order is necessary to enable improvements to be carried out to the property and that such alteration will not substantially interfere with the service provided by BT plc’s network. The county court will only make an order if it considerers that BT plc has, or can obtain by exercising its powers under the electronics communications code, all rights as me be appropriate for the purposes of making the alteration.
d) In certain circumstances BT plc is entitled to state in such country-notice that BT plc is willing to comply with your request but subject to the condition that you reimburse BT plc reasonable expenses. If you do not agree to reimburse BT plc reasonable expenses incurred in making the alteration BT plc will not make such alteration unless and until an appropriate order to such effect is issued by the county court.
e) A notice given by BT plc under the code must be in a form approved by the office of communications (“ofcom”) as adequately indicating to the recipient the effect of the notice and of so much of the code as is relevant to it and to the steps that may be taken in respect of it by that person under the code. In any proceedings under the code, a certificate issued by ofcom and stating that a particular form of notice has been so approved by them will be accepted in a court of law as conclusive evidence of the matter certified: the form of the present notice has been approved.
f) These notes are intended to provide a simple and readily understandable explanation of the effect of the notice, of the relevant parts of the code, and of the action in response to the notice which is available to you under the code, as required by paragraph 24(1) of the code. However you are strongly advised to consult the code itself (particularly paragraphs 12, 13, 14 and 24) as soon as possible after the receipt of this notice, and if necessary to obtain legal advice on the matters referred to in the previous sentence.
g) Copies of the code (schedule 2 to the telecommunications act, 1984 as amended by schedule 3 to the communications act 2003) may be obtain from ofcom at the following address:
h) Your attention is drawn to sections 394 to 296 of the communications act 2003 and paragraphs 2 and 2A of schedule 2 to the telecommunications act 2003. A notice given under the code may be delivered (in person) to the addressee, or left at his proper address, or sent by a registered post service or by recorded delivery: in the case of the body corporate, the notice may be given or sent to the secretary or clerk of that body. In case of a firm the notice be given or sent to a partner in the firm or person having the control or management of the partnership business. In the case of an unincorporated body or associations the notice may be given or sent to a member of the governing body of the body or association.
(i) Pursuant to paragraph 2A of the code, the proper address of any person is defined (for the purposes of section 394 of the communications act 2003 an the application of section 7 of the interpretation act 1978 in relation to that sections as:-
(i) (Where applicable) the address with which you have furnished BT PLC for service under the code; or
(ii) the address given by section 394 of the communications act 2003 i.e. in the case of a body corporate, the address or the registered or principal office of the body; in the case of a firm, unincorporated body or association; in the case of a person to whom the notice is given or sent in reliance on any of sub-sections (4) to (6) of section 394 of the communications act 2003, the proper address of the body corporate firm or (as the case may be) other body or association in question; and in any other case, the last known address of the person in question.
Your attention is drawn to sections 395 and 396 of the communications act 2003 which relate to notices transmitted electronically. For such transmission to be deemed to be delivery of the notice the recipient or the person on whose behalf the recipient receives the notice must have indicated t the person making the transmission the recipient’s willingness to receive such notices in be a guide to, or definitive interpretation of, the communications act 2003 nor the code and you are strongly advised to consult the communications act 2003 and the code itself in relation to the requirements for notices given under the code and to seek your own legal advice if necessary.
j) Where it has not been practicable after reasonable enquiries to ascertain your name and address, the notice may be addressed to the “occupier” of the land (describing it) or, where appropriate, to the “owner” of any interest in the land (describing both the interest and the land) and either be delivered to some person on the land or (in the absence of any such person) be affixed (either directly or by means of a copy) to some conspicuous object on the land”

Kayalana99

Ninnut85 wrote: »

It seems to me they are contradicting themselves. Their wayleave website states for a pole to be on private land a wayleave must be in place, which it isn't. Then they send me a letter stating that they can in fact put a pole where they like and not have to move it until a court order is given. So which is it? It's ridiculous they can just put poles where they like and get away with it.
Anyway, here are the explanatory notes, apologies for the long post but this is all the notes they sent me.

I didn't read all that extra bit but in short the answar is most likey both!

Basicly what their saying its illegal - but unless you take them to court they aren't going to do anything about it...basicly they are asking you if its really worth the trouble of taking it to court cause most people would probally not bother.

I know some of these 'cut it down' posts have been light hearted but I think a simple reply would be well I don't want it on my land so Im cutting it down you've been given 14 days notice...would be sufficent... and hell why not.

Davesnave

If they have been copied verbatim, those explanatory notes are riddled with errors.

I love the sentence, "These notes are intended to provide a simple and readily understandable explanation of the effect of the notice, of the relevant parts of the code, and of the action in response to the notice which is available to you under the code." :rotfl:

It seems that this is the sort of notice you should receive if there is a wayleave in place. Basically, once you have accepted the pole in its position, the only way they will move it thereafter is if you pay them, or a County Court orders them to move it, and even then you might have to pay.

It looks as if someone in their office has misunderstood the situation and responded inappropriately.

If there's no wayleave, they have no right to keep the pole there longer than 28 days, once you order them to remove it. That's what I did. Mind you, it took many months and attempts to get the persons in their offices to understand the situation, or respond at all. Why should they? After all, they don't seem accountable to anyone.

With my experiences, including the recent one, where their surveyor's instructions resulted in a map which placed the pole 25 metres away from the agreed position, I have to conclude that their office staff are not of the calibre we might expect. Your experiences, and the text you've quoted, just reinforce this. They should, at the very least, be offering you an agreement and the wayleave payment.

It's worth noting that when I was negotiating with their surveyor, the option of removing the pole from my land to the nearby roadside was discussed. Although I eventually rejected this idea, because it would have interfered with a neighbour's only decent view, the surveyor pointed out that it would be much more costly. He hinted that Openreach might refuse on cost grounds and use its statutory powers to override such a request. Not exactly a threat, but a veiled way of saying, "We can do what we like."

I still haven't got what I'm entitled to, but I'm hopeful that my pole will be relocated reasonably soon. Either way, I have the money and there's always Plan B.

Meanwhile, if you want to make waves, say by contacting your MP, good luck, and if you need back-up, just PM me.

MacMickster

Dear BT

I have just bought a woodburner, and have what I believe to be a tree trunk in my garden which appears to be dead, so I will be cutting it down and chopping it up as a source of fuel.

I noticed that some of your telephone wires appear to have become attached to it - obviously an error as you have no legal right to do this on my property without permission.

As a gesture of good will I will allow you 4 weeks to remove your wires from this tree trunk. If you do not do so then I will have to have this done professionally and invoice you for the cost.

If you wish a surveyor to enter my property to inspect the lines then I will allow him to do so, given 7 days notice accompanied by your cheque for £200 to meet my costs in supervising such access.

I trust that you will find my terms extremely generous, considering that when I tried to resolve this matter in discussion with your customer services team I discovered that you adhere to the traditional anglo-saxon definition of "servicing" the customer.

With kindest regards etc etc

Ninnut85

Hopefully this will get a better responce

"Further to the counter notice issues by yourselves on 29th August stating my request to remove the telegraph pole from my property has been rejected.
Please can you provide me with evidence of a wayleave agreement that clearly shows legal right for the pole to be on my property. Please see enclosed a copy of the email I received from Julie Breeze “Wayleave Archive & Data Capture Consultant” dated 01/05/2013 stating there is no wayleave in place for the pole.

If evidence is not provided confirming a wayleave agreement is in place or the relocation of the pole from my property is discussed within 28 days then I will be having the pole removed from my property and an invoice for the costs will be forwarded to yourselves.

Regards,

Mr Ninnut"

[Deleted User]

"Accidentally" walk into it one day and sue them for personal injury compensation on an illegally placed pole.

Seriously though, they always say "no" the first time, just to see if you will go away and they can get out of doing anything about it. Just keep pushing and when it becomes obvious you are not going away they will get on with moving it.

Davesnave

Ninnut85 wrote: »

Hopefully this will get a better responce

"Further to the counter notice issues by yourselves on 29th August stating my request to remove the telegraph pole from my property has been rejected.
Please can you provide me with evidence of a wayleave agreement that clearly shows legal right for the pole to be on my property. Please see enclosed a copy of the email I received from Julie Breeze “Wayleave Archive & Data Capture Consultant” dated 01/05/2013 stating there is no wayleave in place for the pole.

If evidence is not provided confirming a wayleave agreement is in place or the relocation of the pole from my property is discussed within 28 days then I will be having the pole removed from my property and an invoice for the costs will be forwarded to yourselves.

Regards,

Mr Ninnut"

I agree with challenging their counter notice, but although people like Mc Mickster make light of terminating other people's connections and causing criminal damage, it isn't something I'd recommend.

I also never threaten people with something I'm not totally prepared to do. I live in the country, where we often have a helicopter rather than an ambulance, so cutting anyone's link to 999 is out of the frame. I only found out recently that a second neighbour is connected to 'my' pole.

In my case, persistence has paid off. This week, 6 men in 3 vehicles came to relocate my pole. It took most of the day, but hey, I've overpaid BT for incredibly slow broadband for years.

I shall now cash my cheque and make damned sure the neighbour who parked it on my land surreptitiously in 2007 gets to hear exactly how much I've been paid.

Ninnut85

Well it might have been a bit abrupt and demanding but it appears to have made them take me more seriously this time.

Just received the following email:

"
Dear Mr Ninnut

Thank you for contacting Openreach, apologies for the delay in replying .

Your case is now being investigated on case reference ******

We will keep you informed as soon as we have more information.

Meanwhile, if you need any further assistance with this matter, please email [EMAIL="complaints@openreach.co.uk"]complaints@openreach.co.uk[/EMAIL].

Please include the case reference in your email

Thanks and regards

Carol Owen
Openreach Complaints Management"