Advise concerning unauthorized BT line installed on freeholders land

m0bov

NeilCr wrote: »

Thought about changing agents?

We did and the new one is so much better than the old one it's untrue. Answers queries promptly, keeps us up to date on progress, advises on legislation, talks to residents, attends site when she says she will, advises us if we ask etc etc.

The process was a bit of pain and the departing agent wasn't exactly very helpful but it's been worth it

I would change for sure but it comes down to price and historically we have changed every few years. Who do you use btw?

NeilCr

m0bov wrote: »

I would change for sure but it comes down to price and historically we have changed every few years. Who do you use btw?

A localish based company. Unless you are South London/Kent they wouldn't be much use to you. They came in price wise fine, too. If that's your area PM me and I'll tell you (he said all Secret Squirrel like!)

Had FirstPort before and they were awful. From experience it's best to have someone with an office in the vicinity.

Doozergirl

m0bov wrote: »

My you seem very bitter...

Pot calling the kettle black!

Loanranger

m0bov wrote: »

My you seem very bitter...

My, you are so off the mark.

I have a nice life, thanks and can prioritise important issues over chaff and understand when people are telling me to give it up. You should try it.

unforeseen

m0bov wrote: »

All the properties have BT lines plus Cable. However external aerials are not permitted in the lease.

Are you sure about that? It's quite rare for ALL properties to have both.

da_rule

NeilCr wrote: »

This might be worth a read

https://robbratby.com/uk-telecoms-law/electronic-communications-code-and-telecoms-planning-issues/

I'd have thought (but don't know for sure) that BT (or whoever) should have spoken to the landowner before commencing work. There is a bit in there about what happens if the landowner refuses consent. And I thought this relevant (?)

"A constraint on an operator’s rights is contained in paragraph 2(1) which states that the written agreement of the occupier of the relevant land is required for the operator to be conferred such rights"

Have you got a Managing Agent? As a director that's the first place I'd have gone for advice, to be honest.

I am quite interested in this. We have a meeting with our MA tonight and I'll ask her opinion!

ETA.

I emailed her instead. Her view was that they should speak to the landowner first.

I guess, if you do want to carry this on you could contact BT to ask who they consulted with landowner wise about doing this work on your land.

Unfortunately this refers to the old code, which has now been replaced.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, an occupier can confer code rights on to an operator.

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4A of the Communications Act 2003 clearly sets out that “A code right in respect of land may only be conferred on an operator by an agreement between the occupier of the land and the operator.”

Paragraph 105 of the same Schedule goes on to say that “References in this code to an occupier of land are to the occupier of the land for the time being.”

Therefore, an occupier can enter into a code agreement. However this will not necessarily bind the owner of the property. If you read the Schedule and do a key word search for “owner”, you will see that, where you are not bound by an agreement you can require the operator to do certain things to remedy damage to the land or even remove the apparatus.

NeilCr

da_rule wrote: »

Unfortunately this refers to the old code, which has now been replaced.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, an occupier can confer code rights on to an operator.

Paragraph 9 of Schedule 4A of the Communications Act 2003 clearly sets out that “A code right in respect of land may only be conferred on an operator by an agreement between the occupier of the land and the operator.”

Paragraph 105 of the same Schedule goes on to say that “References in this code to an occupier of land are to the occupier of the land for the time being.”

Therefore, an occupier can enter into a code agreement. However this will not necessarily bind the owner of the property. If you read the Schedule and do a key word search for “owner”, you will see that, where you are not bound by an agreement you can require the operator to do certain things to remedy damage to the land or even remove the apparatus.

Fair enough. Not my area of expertise as is obvious.

In this case it would appear the telecoms firm has not consulted with the landowner before installing equipment for someone else on their land.

Is it possible for you to answer a few basic questions for simpletons like me who struggle with acts and schedules

Should the telecoms firm engage with the landowner before installing equipment on their land?

If they don't can the landowner require them to remove it? You mentioned 18 months earlier to get this done but that does seem a long time if the telecoms firm have failed to follow due process

As a layman I'd still be asking BT/whoever who gave them permission to install equipment on my land. Is that a reasonable approach?

I think that's what the OP would like to know

Thanks!

da_rule

NeilCr wrote: »

Fair enough. Not my area of expertise as is obvious.

In this case it would appear the telecoms firm has not consulted with the landowner before installing equipment for someone else on their land.

Is it possible for you to answer a few basic questions for simpletons like me who struggle with acts and schedules

Should the telecoms firm engage with the landowner before installing equipment on their land?

If they don't can the landowner require them to remove it? You mentioned 18 months earlier to get this done but that does seem a long time if the telecoms firm have failed to follow due process

As a layman I'd still be asking BT/whoever who gave them permission to install equipment on my land. Is that a reasonable approach?

I think that's what the OP would like to know

Thanks!

The operator can not enforce code rights against an owner if the owner is not a party to the agreement.

An owner who is not bound by the code can require the land to be restored, but only if the occupier who authorised the code rights is no longer in occupation and there is no one else in occupation who is bound by the code. This is unless the code agreement was entered into in breach of a covenant that is enforceable by the owner of the property.

You can ask BT anything you like. Their response will probably be that consent was given by an occupier of the land, and for the purpose of the code that is all that’s required.

Also, it’s Schedule 3A of the Act, not 4A as I incorrectly stated earlier.

NeilCr

da_rule wrote: »

The operator can not enforce code rights against an owner if the owner is not a party to the agreement.

An owner who is not bound by the code can require the land to be restored, but only if the occupier who authorised the code rights is no longer in occupation and there is no one else in occupation who is bound by the code. This is unless the code agreement was entered into in breach of a covenant that is enforceable by the owner of the property.

You can ask BT anything you like. Their response will probably be that consent was given by an occupier of the land, and for the purpose of the code that is all that’s required.

Also, it’s Schedule 3A of the Act, not 4A as I incorrectly stated earlier.

Thanks again

Just one more point. Sorry!

The occupier (not the owner) of the house wanted a landline (fair dos) - but seems to have consented to the installation of equipment on someone else's land (the communal grounds) completely.

Does that make a difference? I can see that what you are saying works in a landlord/tenant situation but there is a third party in play here.

Or, maybe, I have just confused myself! Pretty likely at this time of night and having shared a bottle of wine with a friend....

da_rule

NeilCr wrote: »

Thanks again

Just one more point. Sorry!

The occupier (not the owner) of the house wanted a landline (fair dos) - but seems to have consented to the installation of equipment on someone else's land (the communal grounds) completely.

Does that make a difference? I can see that what you are saying works in a landlord/tenant situation but there is a third party in play here.

Or, maybe, I have just confused myself! Pretty likely at this time of night and having shared a bottle of wine with a friend....

This would come down to interpretation of the lease and subsequent tenancy agreement. Does the leaseholder have a right to use (and therefore occupy) the communal land? As it is communal, then yes they probably do. The question then becomes whether the tenant, by virtue of their tenancy agreement, also enjoys the same rights over the communal land as the leaseholder (their landlord).