B.T Grid on Property

Owain_Moneysaver

It's more likely your drive has sunk rather than the BT box rising up, and it will be cheaper and easier to get some gravel or concrete to raise the level of the drive. 

unforeseen

In addition if the infrastructure provides or supports any of the telecoms services that are utilized by any facilities upon that land - then any wayleave payment is not applicable.

Incorrect. If it only supplies you then no wayleave will be paid however if third parties are also supplied then you can get a wayleave payment

I get a payment for a telegraph pole on my land. I am one of 12 lines on that poke. 

Roger.Wilco

unforeseen said:

In addition if the infrastructure provides or supports any of the telecoms services that are utilized by any facilities upon that land - then any wayleave payment is not applicable.

Incorrect. If it only supplies you then no wayleave will be paid however if third parties are also supplied then you can get a wayleave payment

I get a payment for a telegraph pole on my land. I am one of 12 lines on that poke. 

Thanks @unforeseen that is interesting.

My house has both a pole and pit within the boundary of the front garden; where the pole both serves others within the street and is the incoming service and the pit serves both myself and my neighbor via an underground service with my neighbor's service running under my drive.

When I purchased my house five and a bit years ago - I went through the process of contacting BT regarding acquiring the wayleave details the agreement in-place and any dues.  As I wanted to landscape the front garden and change the ground level and lay-of-the-land.

The reply from BT was that which I wrote above. 

That as my service derives from both the pole and pit - I have no recourse.  But it didn't matter as the wayleave agreement was signed by the developer in the '80's when the house was built and the payment was made to him with no future dues.

As I've been wanting to challenge BT - but didn't have any alternative information.  May I ask you for further details for your situation?

• What year was your wayleave agreed?
• Was the wayleave in-place before your land ownership or during?
  
• Was the wayleave agreement modified from the boiler-plate?

Any response appreciated.

iniltous

If BT or OR have already paid the developer and the equipment was in place before you moved in then I doubt you are due any payment, presumably your solicitors should have pointed out this when purchasing the property, how old is the property, poles on relatively new builds is very uncommon , unless it’s a very small development ( 6 property’s or less ) and the rest of the area is overhead anyway
As far as challenging the right of equipment to exist in private land, if a request were made to remove equipment from private land ( the only recourse if a wayleave payment asked for and is refused when no wayleave exists  ) it is presumably also the case that your service is deemed not to be needed and wouldn’t be re-provided from an alternative place, you in effect rescind your right to service under the USO
There are standard wayleave rates , but they won’t make you wealthy ( AFAIK  it was £90 for a eternal wayleave for a pole that gives access rights , so others can be served from that pole and you cannot stop OR accessing it to do future provision or maintenance)
The jointbox  seems an odd addition, if the pole effectively received the service ( from another pole ) , and yours and your neighbours service runs down the pole , into the box then ducted to yours and the neighbours property ( rather than overhead from the pole ) suggests this was done for nothing more that aesthetics, if the box receives the service and your service was ducted  from the box initially and the pole was later to service other property’s, then how could that pole even be erected without agreement ?

iniltous

Separately, getting a wayleave payment and being served from ( for example ) a pole in your land, if the pole went in to serve a neighbour  first , and a wayleave payment made then the home owner with the pole (and wayleave payment in the bank ) then asks for service themselves , no issue , if the wayleave was paid to the person who also ordered the first service from that pole , the planner may have sanctioned the payment , as neighbouring property’s were likely to want service and the pole represented the best way of delivering it, there is always flexibility , the right to service under a USO, possible future uptake and cost.

Roger.Wilco

iniltous said:

... presumably your solicitors should have pointed out this when purchasing the property, how old is the property,

When I purchased the house - the searches came back with detail like a 200 yo water spring & well; a 100 yo boundary oak; and a strip of land that nobody seems to own - but didn't come back with anything regarding telecoms.  I knew the pole was there during the house inspection - but it wasn't until cleaning the front garden I realized the pit was there.

As far as challenging the right of equipment to exist in private land, ...

The OP - I believe they were wanting to challenge the right for the equipment to exist on private land.  In my case - I was wanting to change the lay-of-the-land by landscaping the area where the pole & pit are located and needed to understand what was possible.

The jointbox  seems an odd addition, ... suggests this was done for nothing more that aesthetics, ... ?

Most probably - the area prior to the 1940's was a farming area. Then during the 1940's became an MOD area and in the 1950's various military houses were built; then council houses and private houses.  My house was one of the last in the area and was built in the 1980's and replaced an old farming cottage.  Therefore, over the five years I've been living in the house I've found a few anomalies regarding the land which can be explained by some of the history.

I'd suggest that the pole was installed first - maybe initially around the 1950's when the initial military/council houses were built.  Then sometime later when the other houses were built - the pit was installed - being fed from the pole - where all newer houses were then connected from the pit.  As my house was the last to be built - it was easier to put the pit near the pole but within my boundary.

unforeseen

Roger.Wilco said:

unforeseen said:

In addition if the infrastructure provides or supports any of the telecoms services that are utilized by any facilities upon that land - then any wayleave payment is not applicable.

Incorrect. If it only supplies you then no wayleave will be paid however if third parties are also supplied then you can get a wayleave payment

I get a payment for a telegraph pole on my land. I am one of 12 lines on that poke. 

Thanks @unforeseen that is interesting.

My house has both a pole and pit within the boundary of the front garden; where the pole both serves others within the street and is the incoming service and the pit serves both myself and my neighbor via an underground service with my neighbor's service running under my drive.

When I purchased my house five and a bit years ago - I went through the process of contacting BT regarding acquiring the wayleave details the agreement in-place and any dues.  As I wanted to landscape the front garden and change the ground level and lay-of-the-land.

The reply from BT was that which I wrote above. 

That as my service derives from both the pole and pit - I have no recourse.  But it didn't matter as the wayleave agreement was signed by the developer in the '80's when the house was built and the payment was made to him with no future dues.

As I've been wanting to challenge BT - but didn't have any alternative information.  May I ask you for further details for your situation?

• What year was your wayleave agreed?
• Was the wayleave in-place before your land ownership or during?
  
• Was the wayleave agreement modified from the boiler-plate?

Any response appreciated.

1. 2007
2. During. I applied for it approx 3 months after buying the property. 
3. It appears to be a standard wayleave agreement. 1 off payment of £157