Advise concerning unauthorized BT line installed on freeholders land

m0bov

babyblade41 wrote: »

NeilCr wrote: »

It's pretty likely that if there is a covenant to stop additional telecoms lines then there will be be one forbidding running a business from home.

m0bov for clarity.


They maybe working from home and not actually running a business ..I just think this is someone having too much time to spare.

Not really when you have a legal responsibility.

m0bov

AdrianC wrote: »

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

Who said anything about a pole?

AdrianC

Simonr66 wrote: »

I think many of you are missing the point

I don't think so.

under the terms of the lease permission is required to make any alterations and cannot be unreasonable withheld.

Since withholding permission for an additional phone line would clearly be unreasonable, we're talking about a minor sin of omission. Slapped wrist, must remember next time, very sorry.

The covenant has been breached so what is to stop other residents doing what ever they like and breach covenants.

Is the OP the beneficiary of the covenant?

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.

A phone line...?

Doozergirl

m0bov wrote: »

They already have a bt line

So what?! They've paid handsomely to buy the property and lease the communal element of the land. Two lines is hardly unusual.

I'm not sure what you think stand to gain.

m0bov

akira181 wrote: »

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?

There is no human right for a phone line that I'm aware of.
BT have since made save the hole in the pavement. Its negative impact is a thick grey cable run along the front of a long wall, plus a bright red post. All on communal land.

There is no greed, the freehold company is owned by the leaseholders.

Only petty if you feel the need to care for or maintain a pleasant living environment is petty.

m0bov

Doozergirl wrote: »

So what?! They've paid handsomely to buy the property and lease the communal element of the land. Two lines is hardly unusual.

I'm not sure what you think stand to gain.

They are tenants and the leaseholder had no knowledge of the line. Therefore they don't lease the land.

AdrianC

m0bov

Can we clarify, please...

You're posting here from the perspective of the joint freeholders.
The leaseholder is also one of the freeholders.
The line was installed by the leaseholder's tenant.

Right?

If so, then...
The freeholder (entity) can try to enforce against the leaseholder.
The leaseholder can try to enforce against their tenant.
The freeholder cannot try to enforce directly against the tenant.

However... the leaseholder's enforcement is realistically limited to an s21 notice. The freeholder's enforcement is, from what you've said here so far, on very shaky grounds. If the leaseholder had asked, then the freeholder could not unreasonably refuse permission to install a phone line. It would be one heck of a stretch to claim so.

We do not know what this covenant says, or whether you are the beneficiary.


BT are within their rights to install whatever infrastructure is required, wherever it's required, to support their customers. Damaging their infrastructure would indeed be criminal damage. Even if the tenant cancels the account, the cable would not necessarily be removed.

Really, this is all sounding VERY petty. Is there any chance of a photo of the offending infrastructure, so we can see what's causing all of this?

Doozergirl

m0bov wrote: »

They are tenants and the leaseholder had no knowledge of the line. Therefore they don't lease the land.

They sublease whatever the leasehold covers. It is their home and they are entitled to use it as if it is their own. When they move out, which they inevitably will, then the leaseholder can even look at removing it, perhaps. Nothing is permanent.

You have no reasonable argument, you are being unreasonable.

I've been on these boards for 14 years and have never seen such pettiness by a freeholder. I have been a freeholder myself and I wouldn't dream of ruining someone's quiet enjoyment, or my own time, for a phone line. It's absurd.

System

AdrianC wrote: »

I don't think so.



Since withholding permission for an additional phone line would clearly be unreasonable, we're talking about a minor sin of omission. Slapped wrist, must remember next time, very sorry.



Is the OP the beneficiary of the covenant?



A phone line...?

The phone line in irrelevant the issue is that permission was required and says so in the lease, this wasn't applied for. So if another resident wants to change something that requires permission and just goes ahead with it how can the Freeholders hold them to account when the defence is well they did it.


Sometimes its just a matter of principal and after all morals are based on principals.

AdrianC

Simonr66 wrote: »

The phone line in irrelevant

No, the phoneline is VERY relevant.

the issue is that permission was required and says so in the lease, this wasn't applied for.

Correct. But that permission could not have been unreasonably refused.
Yes, the tenant was remiss in not informing their landlord. Bad tenant. Here's your s21 notice.
The landlord could not have informed the freeholder, since they didn't know.

But the end result is that the phone line would have been allowed anyway, had it been requested.
If the tenant moves out and/or the BT contract is cancelled, then the leaseholder can talk to BT about removing the unnecessary infrastructure - but it wouldn't surprise me if there was a fee due for that. Whether the leaseholder wants to try to recharge the tenant for that is, of course, entirely his business decision.

So if another resident wants to change something that requires permission and just goes ahead with it how can the Freeholders hold them to account when the defence is well they did it.

In exactly the same way as now. They need to ask, but permission cannot be unreasonably withheld. If the request was not reasonable, then permission can be retrospectively refused, and removal can be requested - but that test of reasonableness depends very much on what's in question.

Sometimes its just a matter of principal and after all morals are based on principals.

No, it's a matter of what the written contracts say. No more, no less. Morals and principals should have gone into drawing those contracts up in the first place, but are set in concrete thereafter.