Who obtains a wayleave from whom?

Irratus_Rusticus

Hi,

Leaseholders do not obtain a wayleave from a provider, surely?

Our postcode has recently been upgraded to Ultrafast FTTP. As we are a leasehold development, the infrastructure stopped at the boundary to the freehold, with access points in the ground provided more or less in front of each block of two flats, but not actually at the buildings. 

According to OpenReach, the ‘provider’ gets a wayleave contract from the landholder to run fibre across the land to buildings and communal areas, leaving the resident in the block free to choose any FTTP provider of their choice. Openreach provide an 'Apartment Wayleave Form' for flat dwellers to complete and submit to Openreach naming the freeholder and managing agent.

According to government guidance, wayleaves are contracts between the landowner/landlord and a telecom provider.

Our freeholder has written to all leaseholders encouraging us to get in touch with their “fibre broadband consultant” to provide the name of the “internet supply provider” that the leaseholder wishes to obtain a wayleave from to “ensure a seamless installation of fibre at your premises”.

This might just be a typo and meant to say "for" but leaseholders are feeling paranoid they will have to tell the freeholder every time they change provider. The world of leasehold is full of opportunities for consent fees but changing utlities, phone or internet providers have not fallen under this.

iniltous

TBH , the probable ‘provider’ the freeholder wants you to indicate will be the network provider ( Openreach for example ) and not the individual ISP you would chose , if you indicated ‘Sky’ for example ( delivered over Openreach ) and subsequently changed to BT , then there is no material difference, the OR network and ONT remain the same  , it’s only the router that would be different and for someone using their own router , no difference whatsoever ( apart from the router configuration ) , if it’s an Alt Net presumably you would indicate that particular one offering availability.
Have you checked the actual availability, often with MDU , Openreach leave an appropriately sized ‘node’ outside the building or buildings , but until the appropriate permissions, wayleaves etc are obtained, no work within the building is carried out , with a small MDU , it may be possible to show availability but with a caveat ‘ potential wayleave required’ 
What does your address show at this checker 

https://www.broadbandchecker.btwholesale.com/#/ADSL
 
look for something like this

Our records show the following FTTP network service information for these premises:-Single Dwelling Unit Residential UG Feed with no anticipated issues.
TBH , a wayleave isn’t normally needed for anything other that the common building areas , as obviously corridors, stairwells etc are not ‘owned’ by the individual apartment but the freeholder , any work on the individual leaseholders property shouldn’t need the freeholder to consent , and the individual ISP that the leaseholder may chose to use , will assume the network provider has the necessary permission to install 

Irratus_Rusticus

Thank you Iniltous for very informative reply.

The broadbandchecker site tells me WBC FTTP is available - 'Single Dwelling Unit residential UG partial Direct In Ground'.

Does 'partial' signify anything bad?

I've checked our local authority and they used CityFibre for the roll out. CityFibre's website confirmed my postcode is ready for FTTP. They provide a form to complete if in a flat - similar to OR.

They did not run any cables to the buildings. Just left access point adjacent to each 2 flat block on the edge of the private land.

The freeholder's consltant mentioned in OP say on their website that they do all the installation too, including surveys -wayleave consent etc. Say this is free for leaseholders.

If leaseholders do not legally have to use the freeholder's 'consultant' in place of OR or CF, paranoia would push us to go for CF in our situation. That is, sign up with one of CF's partner providers.

Take it we are free legally to do this? 

iniltous

There is no connection between City Fibre and Openreach apart from CF can use Openreach ducts etc, they also provide their own ‘exclusive to them’ infrastructure, this  likely to be the access points you refer to , but with Openreach ( not CF ) the BTw checker states ‘partial DIG’ means the existing Openreach copper cable is buried directly in the ground ( not in duct ) and that means any FTTP order made would require excavation, some of which would be in the public footpath , as well as the private area ,and possibly either internal wiring or external wiring on things the freehold needs to consent to, ( like outside walls ) so installation may need the freeholder permission if it’s through ‘land’ that’s not yours , or walls , corridors etc , but CF would also need to obtain this permission if they installed their service, same as OR , they don’t use each other’s network.

TBH , the details of what your freeholder requires is upto them , if they want to use the term ‘consultant’ that’s fine , it seems they want you to indicate what network provider you will  use ( CF or OR) presumably so they can supervise, and possibly demand payment for granting access .

As far as Openreach ( I can’t speak for CF process) It seems as though your address is not being treated as a MDU ( even if it is one )  your address shows availability and should be a 2 stage installation process , so no wayleave agreement is made  in advance ( where  the entire MDU complex is wired in advance irrespective of orders being made ) , it’s much more of a loose arrangement, on the first stage , a visit from OR to establish what’s needed is made , normally at this point you should indicate if you don’t have the ‘authority’ to grant permission to excavate or run cables through common areas ,  that ought to start the ball rolling as far as getting permission from the freeholder , obviously depending on the freeholders stance could determine the speed things progress, or even stall, if they demand payment for example, it could be that this so called consultant could give prior permission , so when OR ( for example ) turn up , you can pre approve the work without needing any other consent , you need to check with the freeholder ( consultant) what they expect.

TBH , I’m not sure what this statement means 

I've checked our local authority and they used CityFibre for the roll out. CityFibre's website confirmed my postcode is ready for FTTP. They provide a form to complete if in a flat - similar to OR.

Your  local authority didn’t use CF for any rollout , CF have the same rights and obligations as any utility with code powers ( same as Openreach) , CF are a private company, if the council have a preference for CF , that’s up-to them , but they didn’t commission City Fibre , they cannot bar Openreach in public areas like footpaths  and roads, but if for example the flats were ‘council owned’ then they can use whoever they like and disallow others , but if the flats  are ‘private’ which seems to be the case  ,then the council preferences are irrelevant.

Irratus_Rusticus

iniltous said:

[...]
TBH , the details of what your freeholder requires is upto them , if they want to use the term ‘consultant’ that’s fine , it seems they want you to indicate what network provider you will  use ( CF or OR) presumably so they can supervise, and possibly demand payment for granting access .
[...]
...on the first stage , a visit from OR to establish what’s needed is made , normally at this point you should indicate if you don’t have the ‘authority’ to grant permission to excavate or run cables through common areas ,  that ought to start the ball rolling as far as getting permission from the freeholder , obviously depending on the freeholders stance could determine the speed things progress, or even stall, if they demand payment for example, it could be that this so called consultant could give prior permission , so when OR ( for example ) turn up , you can pre approve the work without needing any other consent , you need to check with the freeholder ( consultant) what they expect.

Thank you again for such informed responses. I guess the bottom-line question for us leaseholders is whether there could be some catch down the fibre line...

Partly it is about intended meaning of terms: network provider, fibre provider, 'operator' and even internet supply provider.

As things stand none of our leaseholders have fibre. A nice little earner for someone. In absence of freeholder's letter, each leaseholder would otherwise select their preferred provider deal, say from Vodafone, and then complete a form on the Openreach or CityFibre website etc as advised by Vodafone, for OR or CF to go get consent to install across the private land etc.

The Telecoms Infrastructure Leasehold Properties Act gave network providers power to make leasehold landlords co-operate. The 'code rights' clock starts when a leaseholder requests a telecoms service from an "operator" and the freeholder does not co-operate. Ofcom keeps a register of operators with powers under the new code.

We are invited to contact this 'consultant' whose website says they actually do fibre installations, to log an interest in which "internet supply provider" we wish a wayleave "from", which presumably meant to say "for". If that, as you say, means log an interest in either OR or CF, no paranoia would arise.

Question is, if this 'consultant' is in fact an installer, would one approach from one leaseholder trigger the 'code rights' and the freeholder would then sign a sweetheart deal with the 'consultant' to install the cables etc across his property. What if the consultant then has a bespoke limited set of providers?

iniltous

All my comments are in relation to Openreach as I have never had an dealings with CF , but OR wouldn’t defer to a freeholders  self appointed ‘installer’ , any  work done  becomes  OR responsibility, so it always by Openreach or by an OR appointed contractor.

Its conceivable that this consultant will want to be involved, but I cannot see how that can work , on a new development site ( so if these apartments were being constructed today ) the developer could approach OR and the developer installs the OR supplied cabling etc. but under OR instruction and liable to be checked for compliance to the standards OR set , perhaps although not new sites they think they can subvert the newsites processes into a retro build environment, but that’s not really how OR would deal with these normally.

TBH , it suggests to me ( unless this is all City Fibre focused ) that your freeholder/consultant is trying to insert themselves into a process that never was designed for that sort of intervention, I would think you need to ask what exactly this consultants role is , and what by registering with them , you are committed  to ,  without knowing that,  it’s all speculation 

Irratus_Rusticus

iniltous said:

... I would think you need to ask what exactly this consultants role is , and what by registering with them , you are committed  to ,  without knowing that,  it’s all speculation 

Thank you again for such informative reponses. I took your sensible comment and emailed the 'consultants' without giving any personal details other than I am a leaseholder who received a letter from the freeholder wishing to know what the consultant would do if I did register. I asked if they already had a contract with the freeholder to instal the 'second stage' fibre on the private land to the blocks and whether leaseholders had the right to go to their preferred fibre provider directly and use one of the main folks like OR or CF as necessary. May choose not to reply.

Struck me that the freeholder's letter merely 'encouraging' contacting their 'dedicated' consultant might reveal two things: (a) there is no exclusive install contract in place, as why wouldn't the 'consultant' just carry out the work up to the access points of each flat, and (b) the consultant NEEDS approaches from leaseholders to trigger entering into a wayleave contract with the freeholder, which seems to match how it would work with Openreach or Cityfibre if they received a request for fibre per their website submission form?

'A leaseholder requesting a telecoms service from an operator' is the first step to trigger the new code rights under the Telecoms Infrastructure Leasehold Properties Act 2021 for registered 'operators' with Ofcom. The consultant is not listed on the Ofcom register.

iniltous

You mention a form a leaseholder needs to complete ,
it would work with Openreach or Cityfibre if they received a request for fibre per their website submission form?
I’m unaware if any ‘form’ on Openreach website, and TBH , as the Openreach contract is with the ISP , and not the consumer it seems counterintuitive for there to be one , although I can see the value in a form to register an interest in getting FTTP in a  MDU, could you provide a link ?

Your development doesn’t seem to fit into the standard ‘model’ Openreach use , a MDU ( what OR would consider to be a MDU ) generally is a building with a common entrance , so each unit  ‘front door’ is enclosed within the building itself not fronting onto the public footpath , and the existing copper wiring is ‘internal’ , likely provided when the building was constructed, with these MDU  availability isn’t shown until the building owner/management have been approached ,and an agreement reached regarding wiring the entire building ,  the necessary internal survey  and wiring operations completed and an ‘access point’ provided outside each unit within the building.

There can be other types  of flats/apartments that don’t fit into this , a large house converted to flats , a ( often local authority or ex local authority ) where the existing copper wiring was from external wall blocks , and each ‘flat’ was cabled externally  from the wall block , or small MDU’s  , say 4 flats in a purpose built building , 2 flats on the ground floor and 2 on the first floor , if they are currently served by underground means , the new optical ‘cable’ for the first floor units would need to run up the wall of the ground  floor unit , hence a potential ‘wayleave’ issue 

Irratus_Rusticus

Here is the link to Openreach help that I found...
https://www.openreach.com/help-and-support/obtaining-wayleaves
 and here is the form they offer...
https://www.openreach.com/forms/apartment-wayleave-form

Here is the flat advice link I found on CityFibre...
https://cityfibre.com/help-support/i-live-in-a-flat-how-will-i-be-connected

and here is their wayleave info page with a form...
https://cityfibre.com/residentwayleaves

You are correct that our blocks mostly have no communal hallways and each flat has a private front door directly onto the footpath. There are some small  communal hallway blocks too, but I just checked the link you provided above and the report gives the same information:  'Single Dwelling Unit residential UG partial Direct In Ground'. There is a comment under "FTTP Install Process" that says 'KC12 Assure'. No idea what this means.

The original telecoms copper feed is not run on the surface of the blocks, so presumably built in. Accessed by engineers via small manhole in front of blocks. Many years ago Virgin Media ran cable to all the blocks to individual access points and, as you say, ran their upstairs cable up the outside walls. Nobody mentioned wayleaves to residents. But that was long before existing freeholder bought the freehold.

iniltous

KCI2 assure is a 2 stage installation, basically a non contractual date for the first stage visit , where the issues identified at survey , in your case possibly more than 1 issue , the DIG cable issue , where it’s clear excavation is required because no duct exists , and potential wayleaves issues , straightforward installs ( a house fed from a pole for example ) would be single stage .

As you state your front door fronts onto the footpath, it depends if that footpath is adopted by the local authority, if it is , your freeholder has no veto , they don’t own the footpath, but they may consider they have a say in the external fabric of the building, as a CSP ( a grey plastic box ) would be fitted on the exterior wall , issues such as this are discussed on the first stage visit and potentially delay ( or cancel ) the second stage date depending on the specifics .

A typical Openreach 2 stage install for a DIG dwelling , first stage team arrive, ready to excavate from the last ducted point of the Openreach network, either a toby box fitted specifically for the address or a jointbox in the footpath , they provide a duct  from that point to a convenient spot on the customer’s dwelling ( on the wall ) , but in the case of a first  floor flat , permission may be needed from the ground floor flat owner  , the first stage leave a connected cable coiled ready for the second stage , if the customer points out they cannot give permission for the excavation , or the ground floor occupants refuse any apparatus on thier wall , the job is paused , and potentially cancelled , the onus on the customer to obtain necessary permission.

The OR form you link to , is applicable when OR definition of a MDU has been met ,  your SNN ( network survey note ) is Single Dwelling Unit Residential ( SDU ) it would be Multiple Dwellings Unit Residential ( MDU ) ,rightly or wrongly OR have called your address SDU .

 Because OR have ‘labelled your dwelling SDU , not MDU , they would proceed in the SDU 2 stage fashion, your freeholder has decided they want to be involved, OR ( from the network survey ) have taken the view that they are not necessarily involved.

Irratus_Rusticus

Thank you yet again, tho I confess some of the technicalities are over my head no matter how often I re-read and do further research!

I hope it is okay to refine my OP on the same thread as my knowledge is increasing, even if slowly.

Can I perhaps rely on one safe ground?:  A freeholder cannot sign a wayleave contract with a network installer without the stakeholders (leaseholders) being consulted?  I read on Cityfibre that if a wayleave contract is signed, the freeholder could have one network installer for all his/her portfolio, and Cityfibre advise the rather obvious: it's important to leaseholders that the wayleave agreement is with open access network providers to give the leaseholders maximum choice. The so-called consultant's website boasts that they can provide "at least one ISP"! 

I have now logged my interest with Openreach who advise me to sign up with one of their fibre providers, which I'm happy to do, but this still leaves the wayleave form to fill in and that asks for a reference number that must be formatted as "MP or SP00000000". No idea where I get that so was planning to make one up! Only way seems to me I can test the water about the consultant?