Openreach pole situated on land i own - can anyone advise

nunu123

Good Evening,
I have always had outstanding help, from the users on this forum, regarding matters in the past.
I am hoping that someone who has been in a similar situation might be able to advise me.

I purchased a plot of land from the council, which happens to have a BT pole situated on it. Having contacted the council regarding it, the informed me that they have never entered into a Wayleave Agreement of any sort with Openreach, and that I should request a search of Openreach Historical Wayleave Archive to see if any such agreement has been in place.

I emailed a request to the Historical Wayleave Archive Team, and they were able to confirm that there is no agreement relating to the pole on the land.
I then sent a Statutory Notice to remove the telephone apparatus from the land, citing ' the need to alter the apparatus in question, is for improvement to our land'. Bear in mind I simply wanted them to relocate the pole less than 2 metres away from the spot which it is currently on, something which I think is very reasonable.

I received a response from the Openreach Infrastructure Solution Team, and it is as follows:

'In regards to the notice I do wish to make clear that it is overriding responsibility (and legal requirement) to abide by the Terms & Conditions of the Electronic Communications Code in relation to the "existing code" under Schedule 2 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the "new code" under Schedule 3A of the Communications Act 2003. Together, the existing and new codes takes into account the rights, responsibilities and requirements of both "The Operator" (BT) and any other interested parties to ensure this can be achieved.

Having considered your notice I must advise you that we do not consider this to be a valid as it does not fulfil the requirements set out in Paragraph 37 of the new code. I can see from our records that the apparatus in question was installed in 1972, as such certain transitional provisions still apply in relation to the right to require alteration of this apparatus. I would also like to point out that the apparatus's pre-dates a requirement for Wayleaves (introduced in 1984). At this time of instalation both the land and telephone apparatus were in public ownership and as such no written Wayleave would have been entered into for the apparatus given that at the time we were also a Public Body, the General Post Office (GPO).

In this particular case, as the need to alter the apparatus in question is for improvement to your land, the transitional provisions and therefore the terms of Paragraph 20 of the existing Code applies, and under sub paragraph (8), any expenses incurred by the Operator (BT) for the alteration of any apparatus will be reimbursed by the developer. These rights apply irrespective of a written Wayleave been in place.

We will be happy to undertake a survey and quote for the proposed alteration to the apparatus. If you are interested in this service then please contact Openreach Infrastructure Solutions.

If you are not willing to meet the cost for the alterations of our network, then I have to inform you BT does not intend to relocate the apparatus.'

And there you have it. I am assuming, this is the standard tactic used by Openreach to put people off this type of action.However, I feel our request is a very reasonable one. In the Notice we were happy to extend the time frame given to Openreach to find a suitable location.
As per guidelines, we informed them of our intention to build on the land, and gave a 2 year notice in writing.

i would really appreciate it if someone could advise me on how to navigate this matter. Many thanks in advance for your help.

Browntoa

They , as they point out , have the rights to have the pole there

Lots of poles predate wayleave agreements.

BT have the legal rights to have a pole where they like if needs required one . It's in their licencing.

You either pay or leave it

ComicGeek

Seems pretty clear cut from their response - get them to do the survey and provide a quote for the works. It's something that you should really looked into before you purchased the land - not sure why you would expect them to move it at their own cost.

G_M

Your issues seem twofold:
1) is/was a wayleave required (and if so I guess should they be paying you annually for it)?
2) can you make them move the pole?

Well your starting point must be to research the various Codes and Acts they refer to. Read them and understand them.

I have not done so, so cannot comment. You may be right that their response is simply to "put people off this type of action." but my instinct is not.

They clearly explain why a Wayleave was not required, and this is clearly something you can check.

And they clealy offer to investigate moving the pole, though understandably as it is for your benefit they ask (demand?) that you pay the associated costs.

nunu123

Thank you for your responses. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. However, having downloaded a copy of the EC Code from the GOV website, I can tell you, that they have put mis information in this letter regarding the cost of the removal.
I wanted to know how I could challenge what is written in the letter.
Again, thank you.

stator

What makes you think they have to move the pole for free?

nunu123

Well, the EC Code actually states that's Providers cannot enforce payment by the land owner.

custardy

nunu123 wrote: »

Good Evening,
I have always had outstanding help, from the users on this forum, regarding matters in the past.
I am hoping that someone who has been in a similar situation might be able to advise me.

I purchased a plot of land from the council, which happens to have a BT pole situated on it. Having contacted the council regarding it, the informed me that they have never entered into a Wayleave Agreement of any sort with Openreach, and that I should request a search of Openreach Historical Wayleave Archive to see if any such agreement has been in place.

I emailed a request to the Historical Wayleave Archive Team, and they were able to confirm that there is no agreement relating to the pole on the land.
I then sent a Statutory Notice to remove the telephone apparatus from the land, citing ' the need to alter the apparatus in question, is for improvement to our land'. Bear in mind I simply wanted them to relocate the pole less than 2 metres away from the spot which it is currently on, something which I think is very reasonable.

I received a response from the Openreach Infrastructure Solution Team, and it is as follows:

'In regards to the notice I do wish to make clear that it is overriding responsibility (and legal requirement) to abide by the Terms & Conditions of the Electronic Communications Code in relation to the "existing code" under Schedule 2 of the Telecommunications Act 1984 and the "new code" under Schedule 3A of the Communications Act 2003. Together, the existing and new codes takes into account the rights, responsibilities and requirements of both "The Operator" (BT) and any other interested parties to ensure this can be achieved.

Having considered your notice I must advise you that we do not consider this to be a valid as it does not fulfil the requirements set out in Paragraph 37 of the new code. I can see from our records that the apparatus in question was installed in 1972, as such certain transitional provisions still apply in relation to the right to require alteration of this apparatus. I would also like to point out that the apparatus's pre-dates a requirement for Wayleaves (introduced in 1984). At this time of instalation both the land and telephone apparatus were in public ownership and as such no written Wayleave would have been entered into for the apparatus given that at the time we were also a Public Body, the General Post Office (GPO).

In this particular case, as the need to alter the apparatus in question is for improvement to your land, the transitional provisions and therefore the terms of Paragraph 20 of the existing Code applies, and under sub paragraph (8), any expenses incurred by the Operator (BT) for the alteration of any apparatus will be reimbursed by the developer. These rights apply irrespective of a written Wayleave been in place.

We will be happy to undertake a survey and quote for the proposed alteration to the apparatus. If you are interested in this service then please contact Openreach Infrastructure Solutions.

If you are not willing to meet the cost for the alterations of our network, then I have to inform you BT does not intend to relocate the apparatus.'

And there you have it. I am assuming, this is the standard tactic used by Openreach to put people off this type of action.However, I feel our request is a very reasonable one. In the Notice we were happy to extend the time frame given to Openreach to find a suitable location.
As per guidelines, we informed them of our intention to build on the land, and gave a 2 year notice in writing.

i would really appreciate it if someone could advise me on how to navigate this matter. Many thanks in advance for your help.

2 metres,200 metres. The cost will be very similar.
Of course they would also be other matters os to who owned the land 2 metres away.
Its been there since 1972. As said,you really should have looked into this before purchase.
You seem to have decided poles should be moved on anyones whim.

G_M

nunu123 wrote: »

Thank you for your responses. Hindsight is a wonderful thing. However, having downloaded a copy of the EC Code from the GOV website, I can tell you, that they have put mis information in this letter regarding the cost of the removal.
I wanted to know how I could challenge what is written in the letter.
Again, thank you.

Quote the relavant wordingtogether with link to source, and we can perhaps help.

nunu123

The land has always been owned by the council. The pole be re sited on a boundary pavement, which is council owned. Our local council has a policy of not signing Wayleave Agreements.
It's not really a matter of whims, The land isn't exactly huge. I would like to request a copy of their records, as to when it was placed there.

nunu123

Unfortunately, I don't have it to hand. The Code also encourages mediation so that both parties can come to an agreement.