Wayleave - extra cables being added?

--Tony--

Section62 said:

--Tony-- said:

I would have to check the wayleave but I think it is for power only.

Have you checked the wording yet?

As you say, they could also consider going down the code powers route. Don't bank on getting much sympathy from the court if your mum does end up in that position.  Adding one additional 'wire' to existing poles doesn't make a significant difference, especially if all the work can be done without setting foot or wheel on your property.  Courts don't like having their time wasted, and a whatabout argument in relation to other cable companies possibily in the future adding more wires is not going to carry much weight - the court's concern would only be with the one extant proposal.

Is your mum the sole owner of the property? You also use 'our' and 'us' so it isn't clear what the ownership arrangement is.  Be aware that if your mum is the sole owner then if it comes to a 'legal' route then Airband and the courts would want to deal with her, unless you have POA etc to deal with the matter on her behalf. Does she want the stress that this could cause?

It is my mums property and she is the sole owner, I am trying to help as she had not bothered with the letters and I took it on to assist her, she does not like dealing with things like this and asked me to help. I use "our" as we are a family.

I have asked her to look at the paperwork but am still waiting for her to do this.

I would have thought the court would not have much time for a company that is not willing to negotiate as opposed to the home owner who is open and willing to negotiate but getting nowhere. All the conversations to date I have stated we are very open to negotiation.
I consider it wasting the courts time when this company could have negotiated a wayleave with an payment of around £2.

Section62

--Tony-- said:

It is my mums property and she is the sole owner, I am trying to help as she had not bothered with the letters and I took it on to assist her, she does not like dealing with things like this and asked me to help. I use "our" as we are a family.

Don't underestimate the stress that something like this can cause, even if you 'win'.

--Tony-- said:

I would have thought the court would not have much time for a company that is not willing to negotiate as opposed to the home owner who is open and willing to negotiate but getting nowhere. All the conversations to date I have stated we are very open to negotiation.
I consider it wasting the courts time when this company could have negotiated a wayleave with an payment of around £2.

The thing is you don't (yet) know that they need (an additional) wayleave to do what they want to do.

Therefore your attempts to negotiate could be viewed by the other side as mere obstruction.

I can understand why you are adopting the position you are, but you hopefully appreciate that from the other side it could be viewed as obstructive and vexatious.  Your argument they could have the wayleave for £2 could be flipped to 'why are you making all this fuss over gaining £2?'.

Courts don't always adopt the position of fighting the good fight for the little guy.  Sometimes they look at the 'public good' of providing utilities (including faster broadband) and question the motivation of someone who costs a commercial organisation hundreds/thousands of wasted pounds over what may be deemed to be a trivial matter.

On a point of principle you are (probably) right.  On whether it is a good idea to do what you are doing and will get a positive outcome... that is an open question.

--Tony--

Section62 said:

--Tony-- said:

It is my mums property and she is the sole owner, I am trying to help as she had not bothered with the letters and I took it on to assist her, she does not like dealing with things like this and asked me to help. I use "our" as we are a family.

Don't underestimate the stress that something like this can cause, even if you 'win'.

--Tony-- said:

I would have thought the court would not have much time for a company that is not willing to negotiate as opposed to the home owner who is open and willing to negotiate but getting nowhere. All the conversations to date I have stated we are very open to negotiation.
I consider it wasting the courts time when this company could have negotiated a wayleave with an payment of around £2.

The thing is you don't (yet) know that they need (an additional) wayleave to do what they want to do.

Therefore your attempts to negotiate could be viewed by the other side as mere obstruction.

I can understand why you are adopting the position you are, but you hopefully appreciate that from the other side it could be viewed as obstructive and vexatious.  Your argument they could have the wayleave for £2 could be flipped to 'why are you making all this fuss over gaining £2?'.

Courts don't always adopt the position of fighting the good fight for the little guy.  Sometimes they look at the 'public good' of providing utilities (including faster broadband) and question the motivation of someone who costs a commercial organisation hundreds/thousands of wasted pounds over what may be deemed to be a trivial matter.

On a point of principle you are (probably) right.  On whether it is a good idea to do what you are doing and will get a positive outcome... that is an open question.

Thanks, I do appreciate you taking the time to help.
I will hopefully find out shortly what the wayleave says.
In the mean time, does the wayleave with western power actually give others the right to use the poles? Maybe I'm looking at this wrongly but I would have thought the contract would be exclusively for Western power not anyone else?

Section62

--Tony-- said:

In the mean time, does the wayleave with western power actually give others the right to use the poles? Maybe I'm looking at this wrongly but I would have thought the contract would be exclusively for Western power not anyone else?

It depends what it says.

Many of the wayleaves I've seen have been incredibly vague and talk only of 'apparatus' or 'poles and wires'.

Legally it will be a case of whether the wording specifies electrical supply cables [owned by Western Power] or if it just gives them [and associated parties] the right to maintain the poles on the land along with cabling between them.

It used to be standard practice in many areas for GPO/BT cables to be added to electricity company poles rather than GPO/BT having their cables on their own poles.  IIRC there was some degree of breakdown in that relationship post-privatisation with BT gradually moving their equipment onto new poles in some places.

However, if the wayleave dates from a time where shared use of the poles was the norm, it might perhaps be more likely that the wording is constructed in an open way which gives another party the right to use the poles as well.

However, without knowing exactly what the wayleave says, all this is speculation.

Apodemus

Section62 said:

--Tony-- said:

In the mean time, does the wayleave with western power actually give others the right to use the poles? Maybe I'm looking at this wrongly but I would have thought the contract would be exclusively for Western power not anyone else?

It used to be standard practice in many areas for GPO/BT cables to be added to electricity company poles rather than GPO/BT having their cables on their own poles.  IIRC there was some degree of breakdown in that relationship post-privatisation with BT gradually moving their equipment onto new poles in some places.

However, if the wayleave dates from a time where shared use of the poles was the norm, it might perhaps be more likely that the wording is constructed in an open way which gives another party the right to use the poles as well.

I've been involved with a couple of land holdings where an external review of wayleaves has resulted in additional income to the owners. I'm not sure which company did the external review, but there are clearly commercial businesses that will do this for you if you are willing to pay for the service.

--Tony--

Eldi_Dos said:

Mistral001 said:

If there is a wayleave at present over your property for the two poles on the roadside, they probably do not need permission to do any work regrading these poles whether it is replacing the poles or the cables etc and they probably can enter your property to do that work so I do not know why they mention cherry pickers on the road.  

If the wayleave for the poles states they are for the transmission of power that does not give them the right to instal telecomm cables on them, which is why I asked OP to check.

My mum has read the Wayleave and it says:

lines for the transmission of 3 phase current at a frequency of 50 cycles per second and a pressure of 11000 volts and will consist of 3 power conductors suspended not less than 17ft from the ground.

Based on this they have no leave to add further cables.

Section62

--Tony-- said:

My mum has read the Wayleave and it says:

lines for the transmission of 3 phase current at a frequency of 50 cycles per second and a pressure of 11000 volts and will consist of 3 power conductors suspended not less than 17ft from the ground.

Based on this they have no leave to add further cables.

More importantly, if it is an 11kV line then it wouldn't be a great idea for a telecoms company to start using cherry pickers to attach their own cable to the poles.

Is it really an 11kV line?

--Tony--

Section62 said:

--Tony-- said:

My mum has read the Wayleave and it says:

lines for the transmission of 3 phase current at a frequency of 50 cycles per second and a pressure of 11000 volts and will consist of 3 power conductors suspended not less than 17ft from the ground.

Based on this they have no leave to add further cables.

More importantly, if it is an 11kV line then it wouldn't be a great idea for a telecoms company to start using cherry pickers to attach their own cable to the poles.

Is it really an 11kV line?

I don't know really, my mum has a small farm in the middle of know where and the cables look like any other cables that run down the side of a road, the wayleave is from the 1960's so maybe they were future proofing.

Section62

--Tony-- said:

Section62 said:

--Tony-- said:

My mum has read the Wayleave and it says:

lines for the transmission of 3 phase current at a frequency of 50 cycles per second and a pressure of 11000 volts and will consist of 3 power conductors suspended not less than 17ft from the ground.

Based on this they have no leave to add further cables.

More importantly, if it is an 11kV line then it wouldn't be a great idea for a telecoms company to start using cherry pickers to attach their own cable to the poles.

Is it really an 11kV line?

I don't know really, my mum has a small farm in the middle of know where and the cables look like any other cables that run down the side of a road, the wayleave is from the 1960's so maybe they were future proofing.

A farm in a rural area may well have an 11kV overhead supply.  Typically they look something like this -

The more common 230/415v supplies typically have the cables positioned vertically one above the other, or where upgraded to modern standards, bundled together like a thick rope.

As worded, the text you've quoted wouldn't give them the option of a 230/415v supply with the ability to upgrade later.  It is specific to 11kV three-phase at 50Hz.

I can't state as fact that communications equipment can't be installed on poles with electricity supply equipment operating at 11kV, but from experience in a different situation I believe that may be the case (for Health and Safety reasons).

Eldi_Dos

@--Tony-- ,Appears your suspicion that they were trying to bamboozle Mum was well founded,which is a sad indictment.

Seems to me you have a choice to make, try for free broadband as part of new wayleave or dig your heels in and run the risk of being the last luddite in Canute Close. Bear in mind if you dig your heels in too deep they might decide it is easier to go for a reroute and run cable along existing poles till at adjacent ones either side of Mums property then put up new telecomm poles on opposite side of road and bypass need for new wayleave over Mums property. This would end up with you having more infrastructure around property which I believe you had concerns about.

Please keep us informed how this pans out as I would find it interesting.