Advise concerning unauthorized BT line installed on freeholders land

Doozergirl

NeilCr wrote: »

I think it may be a different issue if it's been done on communal ground with the post etc. What's to stop everyone doing it now the precedent has been set. Maybe with bigger posts, more cabling etc. If it's within the confines of the house then, yes, I'd leave well alone.

One of the problems with covenants is that once one is broken it opens the door for others with "bigger and better" ideas.

Presumably BT could use the same post, like they use the same telegraph pole for multiple houses. BT aren't actually in the habit of making an utter mess, given how many of us have phone lines - the impact on the average street scene is next to nil.

NeilCr

Doozergirl wrote: »

You can run a business that has zero impact on anyone.

They could just be an avid gamer or like streaming 4k cat videos. Either way, using the internet is not a genuine cause for enforcing any kind of covenant. If a tenant is allowed quiet enjoyment, then a leaseholder must be.

Yes you can.

You can also run a childminding business where the parents park in residents car parking spaces as we found out. When we raised the issue with the tenant she pointed us to someone who had an accountancy business on site which we didn't know about. "If they can break the covenant running a business why can't I?"

The joys of covenants,

NeilCr

Doozergirl wrote: »

Presumably BT could use the same post, like they use the same telegraph pole for multiple houses. BT aren't actually in the habit of making an utter mess, given how many of us have phone lines - the impact on the average street scene is next to nil.

Possibly. Trust me, though, that wouldn't stop people doing all sorts of things when they found out they could

But, if the post etc is on communal ground then the tenant has authorised work and had it carried out on ground they do not own.

Is it any different to say you coming home to your house and finding your next door neighbour has put cabling, a post etc on your property.

Of course if it is not on communal ground then all this is superfluous!

;)

AdrianC

NeilCr wrote: »

But, if the post etc is on communal ground then the tenant has authorised work and had it carried out on ground they do not own.

Is it any different to say you coming home to your house and finding your next door neighbour has put cabling, a post etc on your property.

Woah, hold on...

If your next door neighbour ordered a new phone line from BT, and the installation of that required a new pole etc, then BT would be within their rights to install it on your land, AIUI.
https://forums.moneysavingexpert.com/discussion/5555779/bt-telegraph-pole-erected-outside-property
https://www.mirror.co.uk/money/bt-installed-cable-doorstep-said-13484567
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/205745/Final_Cabinet_and_Pole_Siting_COP_Issue_1.docx

akira181

Without more information, it sounds like a combination of pettiness and greed. "I wasn't asked so I'm making an issue out of practically nothing and what compensation can I get?"

If a new phone cable was required, then the old one was either inadequate or insufficient. A phone line and high speed internet are now considered basic human rights, you can't exactly be "compensated" for that.

If it's shoddy, request BT to fix it properly. Other than that, what is your issue with a new line? Does it negatively impact your property or quality of life in any way?

m0bov

Doozergirl wrote: »

You can run a business that has zero impact on anyone.

They could just be an avid gamer or like streaming 4k cat videos. Either way, using the internet is not a genuine cause for enforcing any kind of covenant. If a tenant is allowed quiet enjoyment, then a leaseholder must be.

They already have a bt line

System

I think many of you are missing the point, under the terms of the lease permission is required to make any alterations and cannot be unreasonable withheld. The covenant has been breached so what is to stop other residents doing what ever they like and breach covenants. A precedent has been set here and with todays entitled attitudes the freeholder has every right to put a stop the this kind of behaviour that could devalue the asset.

m0bov

AdrianC wrote: »

BT do not need a wayleave to install a cable to a property.

Does the lease explicitly specify that the leaseholder cannot install an additional phone line? If it's a covenant, are you the beneficiaries of the covenant?

The line is run across communal property not owned by the leaseholder.

m0bov

markin wrote: »

"but apparently a new line was needed" I would think that means its faulty, If it wasn't installed with a spare line or pairs then should the freeholder not be paying for a new line anyway then?

Not if its within the property, there is nothing in the lease which makes provisions for a phone line.

m0bov

da_rule wrote: »

As they have a code agreement, they do not need a wayleave.

How can they get a Code Agreement when they have not approached the freeholder?

Thanks.