Can broadband providers install their infrastructure in apartments without a wayleave agreement?

Paul_845

Hello,

Very nice to meet you all 

I live in a block of 6 apartments and I am the leaseholder (and mortgage payer) of my apartment.

Last year, I came home to find ugly white boxes had been drilled to the outside all 6 apartments in the 'common parts' and an awful 9-foot white plastic strip outside my property which looks an eyesore.

To cut a very long story short (believe me, it's long!), CityFibre had installed their infrastructure outside everyone's property because one apartment had requested it. I had no prior knowledge of these works going to take place.

I called the managing agents and they told me they were unaware CityFibre were onsite. They also hinted of a 'loophole' existing in which broadband providers can install their hardware without consent, but they couldn't provide any evidence of this, so I am assuming this is hearsay and they are fobbing me off. We already have FTTC broadband, so it isn't as though we have no internet access at all.

I realise these works were carried out in the common parts, but surely some permission needs to be sought, and if it has been sought, some care be taken to keep with the appearance of the building?

The managing agents seem unable (or unwilling) to provide me with much information and I am getting quite frustrated that CityFibre can seemingly waltz in and drill whatever they want to the walls...

Anyway, my question is, do loopholes exist in which CityFibre (or anyone) can install their infrastructure in private residential apartments without a wayleave agreement being sought from the freeholder?

Thank you for taking the time to read through my semi-rant!

DullGreyGuy

Dont they need power and switch in the building like Hyperoptic?

Paul_845

DullGreyGuy said:

Dont they need power and switch in the building like Hyperoptic?

The cables in the 'CityFibre' junction box in the electricity cupboard all seem to be fibre optic. The cable leading to the outside also seems to be fibre optic.

Presumably, only fibre optic cable are present in our property and any electrical devices reside in the street cabinet.

iniltous

City Fibre is a passive optical network ( PON ) it needs no power in the network, the OLT ( the headend ) and ONT ( in the customer’s address) are powered not the ‘fibres’  in the middle.
As far as do CF have permission to arbitrarily enter a MDU and fit their kit , no they don’t , although the law was changed to make it easier for occupants in MDU’s  not be excluded by freeholders or managing agents by them  not engaging with a network provider or the occupant wanting FTTP , a network  provider cannot simply rock up and start doing work , even if one occupant has asked for FTTP directly to the network operator, the network still need to get permission and wayleaves first from whoever is authorised to grant them , as an individual occupant has no right to grant permission for work in common areas .

FWIW , the way these things are supposed to work , either the network operators ( City Fibre or whoever ) approach the freeholder / managing agent with a proposal to pre-fit FTTP , pretty much in the manner you state , an access point  outside each unit , cabling in the common areas , if the freeholder grants access / wayleave etc , the work is done and the addresses appear on CF website as having access to their network, the other way is an individual occupant approaches CF saying they want service, ( so CF  know they have demand even if it’s only one potential customer ) but the rest is the same , they need permission and wayleaves , they may or may not provide every unit an access point , but the underlying network will have capacity for all units

 If CF  approaches to the freeholder without any request for service from an occupant, the freeholder is  in a better position to refuse ( if that’s what their position is ) stating no one has even asked for service , but TBH , CF would be taking a ‘punt’ , pre fitting FTTP when no one may take up the service once its installed,  if an occupant has approached  CF first  ,  on that basis CF can approach the freeholder with an expectation that permission will be granted , the law change requires the freeholder to seriously consider the proposal, and not deny it without good reason, previously they didn’t even need to respond to proposals, now it’s unless there is good reason, they should grant permission.

TBH it doesn’t matter , permission is still required, you wouldn’t have a veto if permission was given, and the freeholder has to seriously consider granting permission, but the law change doesn’t give networks the right to enter what is private property.

I would suggest you need to find out from the freeholder if permission was ever given , CF have no requirement to provide you with details ( but may do so ) , the freeholder presumably should either confirm permission was sought and granted, or be pis*ed off enough to get CF to remove their illegal kit from the building 

DullGreyGuy

iniltous said:

City Fibre is a passive optical network ( PON ) it needs no power in the network, the OLT ( the headend ) and ONT ( in the customer’s address) are powered not the ‘fibres’  in the middle.

Ok, so different to Hyperoptic that has fibre to a box in the building and is then ethernet from the box to each of the units. 

Eldi_Dos

Paul_845 said:

Hello,

Very nice to meet you all 

I live in a block of 6 apartments and I am the leaseholder (and mortgage payer) of my apartment.

Last year, I came home to find ugly white boxes had been drilled to the outside all 6 apartments in the 'common parts' and an awful 9-foot white plastic strip outside my property which looks an eyesore.


Anyway, my question is, do loopholes exist in which CityFibre (or anyone) can install their infrastructure in private residential apartments without a wayleave agreement being sought from the freeholder?

Is this white plastic strip a trunking and does it run above the entrance to your flat?

I would be concerned that in a fire that cables would not be contained and could drop down.
Ask your management agent about this and ask your local fire prevention officer to do a inspection.

Paul_845

iniltous said:

City Fibre is a passive optical network ( PON ) it needs no power in the network, the OLT ( the headend ) and ONT ( in the customer’s address) are powered not the ‘fibres’  in the middle.
As far as do CF have permission to arbitrarily enter a MDU and fit their kit , no they don’t , although the law was changed to make it easier for occupants in MDU’s  not be excluded by freeholders or managing agents by them  not engaging with a network provider or the occupant wanting FTTP , a network  provider cannot simply rock up and start doing work , even if one occupant has asked for FTTP directly to the network operator, the network still need to get permission and wayleaves first from whoever is authorised to grant them , as an individual occupant has no right to grant permission for work in common areas .

FWIW , the way these things are supposed to work , either the network operators ( City Fibre or whoever ) approach the freeholder / managing agent with a proposal to pre-fit FTTP , pretty much in the manner you state , an access point  outside each unit , cabling in the common areas , if the freeholder grants access / wayleave etc , the work is done and the addresses appear on CF website as having access to their network, the other way is an individual occupant approaches CF saying they want service, ( so CF  know they have demand even if it’s only one potential customer ) but the rest is the same , they need permission and wayleaves , they may or may not provide every unit an access point , but the underlying network will have capacity for all units

 If CF  approaches to the freeholder without any request for service from an occupant, the freeholder is  in a better position to refuse ( if that’s what their position is ) stating no one has even asked for service , but TBH , CF would be taking a ‘punt’ , pre fitting FTTP when no one may take up the service once its installed,  if an occupant has approached  CF first  ,  on that basis CF can approach the freeholder with an expectation that permission will be granted , the law change requires the freeholder to seriously consider the proposal, and not deny it without good reason, previously they didn’t even need to respond to proposals, now it’s unless there is good reason, they should grant permission.

TBH it doesn’t matter , permission is still required, you wouldn’t have a veto if permission was given, and the freeholder has to seriously consider granting permission, but the law change doesn’t give networks the right to enter what is private property.

I would suggest you need to find out from the freeholder if permission was ever given , CF have no requirement to provide you with details ( but may do so ) , the freeholder presumably should either confirm permission was sought and granted, or be pis*ed off enough to get CF to remove their illegal kit from the building 

Very comprehensive reply which has shed light on many of my concerns. Thank you very much.

I intend trying to find out if a wayleave agreement was signed this week. In the meantime, I have two final spin-off questions, if I may:

1. If I find out that a wayleave was signed for a single flat to get FTTP, are CityFibre in the wrong for installing their boxes and trunking outside the remaining properties who did not ask for it?

2. If a homeowner (me) deems CityFibre's junction boxes and trunking ugly, am I within my rights to ask them to reroute these wires?

With regard to question two, it seems their ugly trunking outside my property could have been avoided if they had taken the time to run a separate length of fibre optic cable over a longer route, or at least run it up my door casing so it blended in.

Ultimately, it is the appearance I have strong issues with, not with the person/people wanting faster internet speeds.

Once again, thank you for your reply 

Paul_845

Eldi_Dos said:

Is this white plastic strip a trunking and does it run above the entrance to your flat?

I would be concerned that in a fire that cables would not be contained and could drop down.
Ask your management agent about this and ask your local fire prevention officer to do a inspection.

Thank you for your reply.

The trunking is 40cm to the right of my front door. The trunking itself is 4cm wide x 2cm deep, encasing a fibre optic cable of around 3mm.

iniltous

I have no direct knowledge of CF and their process, but assuming permission were granted , so the building freeholder / managing agent or whoever ( not an individual occupant ) agreed in principle to CF installing their FTTP , I would imagine a joint site visit would take place ,firstly to locate things such as the duct entry point , if the building risers were accessible etc. as well as ‘walking the route’ with the building representative, pointing out the block positions and individual cable routes within common areas , there are quite strict regulations around making wiring safe from falling in the event of a fire etc , assuming this was done , then presumably the freeholder signed off this method without any consultation with you or your neighbours, they may have taken the view that it’s not really anything they needed to consult on , CF and the building manager should both be aware of fire regulations.

 TBH , if CF gained permission they would look to leave each individual unit with an access point outside, so any subsequent order from an individual apartment the installer wouldn’t have to access the common areas  again , just the short distance from the distribution outside ( often near the apartment door ) to inside the unit, so in that respect, cabling the entire ‘floor’ is standard practice and is what ( if permission were given ) CF would seek to do , rather than providing each individual unit  ‘ from scratch’ accessing the common areas each time an order is received …, so in effect although a single order may have driven the ‘build’ the entire building would be made FTTP ready .

Are the corridor ceilings ‘false’  removable tiles suspended from the actual ceiling, if so , often cable trays ( containment ) are provided in the space between the tiles and the actual ceiling, so cables, pipes , heating , cooling ducting etc , can be run safely and done so invisibly, but if the ceilings are ‘concrete’ , there is no way to totally conceal retrofit cabling , and visible external cable trunking is the only practical solution ,  it’s pure speculation on my part ,  but it’s possible if the ceilings are false , and cable containment exists, the CF survey may said they would use that ( so no visible cables ) but the actual installation people ( often contractors ) take the quick, cheap and easy solution , and put up the visible plastic capping instead of what was agreed , and the freeholder never bothered to check the quality or method of the installation against the RAMS , risk assessment method statement that was agreed , and insisted they return and provide what was agreed.

As far as do you have any right to complain, it’s impossible to say , obviously the questions to ask ( of the freeholder ) are  did  CF ask and were granted permission , and if they did , has the installation been done as per the method agreement, if the answer is ‘Yes’  to both , then I suspect that will be the end of it , if CF  didn’t either ask for permission or have not installed in the agreed way , then the freeholder should act , but ultimately that’s  up to them , and unfortunately, not you .

FWIW , I can’t see CF simply marching into a private building and lashing up a distribution network without permission, or with the ‘agreement’ of a solitary occupant, but you never know , something to consider, if the building is part of a large estate of many buildings, then CF may have an overarching agreement with the organisation that individual building managers are unaware of ,so it may seem CF didn’t have permission , it also is worth noting that CF likely paid a fee to the freeholder for the right to install their network, so there is ( albeit a fairly small ) financial consideration , it’s  likely to be only a few hundred ££ at best , but obviously if your building is 6 units , and the freeholders has a hundred buildings with 6 units in each , they may give a blanket wayleave to CF for all units in all buildings.

Paul_845

Hi iniltous,

Sorry for the late reply. I am still waiting for the managing agents to get back to me - I seriously think they are ignoring me now. The lack of communication with them is very poor considering I pay this company service charge.

In reply to your post, thank you, and once again a very comprehensive and commonsensical reply.

With regards to your paragraph 3, there are no false ceilings. It's basically 3 floors with 2 apartments per floor. Just simple brick and front doors.

Your last paragraph makes a lot on sense. I cannot see CityFibre just waltzing in either without authorisation.

I sent the managing agents (specifically the 'property manager') an email a  month ago and they haven't responded to it. I sent them an email yesterday, asking if they received the email I sent a month ago and they haven't responded to that either.

On five separate occasions, my request for the property manager to return my call was ignored, so I'm not holding my breath. I will try calling again tomorrow, failing that, I may even consider turning up at their office or lodging an official complaint for essentially ignoring a service charge paying customer.

iniltous

If one or more of your neighbours now has CF , you could potentially ask them how they obtained service , did they approach CF initially, or CF did show availability first , then they contacted CF , or did a door to door sales organisation offer service , did CF at any point suggest to their customers that the customer had to arrange any required permission etc .
I’m more familiar with Openreach , they provide some details about the type of installation required for addresses within their catchment area , CF may have something similar, have you tried using your address in CF ordering portal ( obviously don’t go through to completion ) what do they say for your address ( if anything ) .

As stated earlier, it’s common for providers , once permission is granted , to ‘block wire’ every potential customer, so that the infrastructure is as close to the potential customers as possible ( so the least amount of work remains if and when requests for connection come along ) , it’s not common to ‘wing it’ , sneak in , provide infrastructure without permission, and hope no one complains, I suspect CF have done nothing wrong , it just so happens that the building owner didn’t consider individual owner’s opinion of the visual impact of the wiring.