Openreach Community FTTP Query

Hi

I am new to the site and I'm hoping someone might be able to advise on my particular issue.

I have recently moved to a private road (freehold) where some (about half) residents (through the local residents association) clubbed together in 2017 to pay for installation of FTTP to their houses. My property was not part of the initial installation. However, upon searching for a new broadband contract I have been offered full FTTP by BT. My residents association is now seeking £2500 to cover their 'infrastructure build costs' - a cost I view as their 'early adopters' premium. Would they have a legal basis to charge me this amount (I signed up to no covenants / restrictions when purchasing the house). My understanding is that the infrastructure is owned by Openreach and my new ISP will pay for the cable to my house.

Any help / advice appreciated as £2500 is a sum I cannot afford at the moment and I am struggling with my current connection!

In reply to a post by BBGiraffe:

Hi

I am new to the site and I'm hoping someone might be able to advise on my particular issue.

I have recently moved to a private road (freehold) where some (about half) residents (through the local residents association) clubbed together in 2017 to pay for installation of FTTP to their houses. My property was not part of the initial installation. However, upon searching for a new broadband contract I have been offered full FTTP by BT. My residents association is now seeking £2500 to cover their 'infrastructure build costs' - a cost I view as their 'early adopters' premium. Would they have a legal basis to charge me this amount (I signed up to no covenants / restrictions when purchasing the house). My understanding is that the infrastructure is owned by Openreach and my new ISP will pay for the cable to my house.

Any help / advice appreciated as £2500 is a sum I cannot afford at the moment and I am struggling with my current connection!

Nice new neighbours eh!

Unless your conveyancing solicitor found there was a specific covenant or clause as part of your purchase contract or in the property deeds, then I think you’re entitled to tell them to jog on.

It’s like me trying to ask my neighbour now (who has native FTTP available to order) courtesy of my FTTPoD order several years ago to pay me a random sum of and whenever they decided to hook up to the FTTP outside their property. He’d tell me (quite rightly) where to stick it.

As far as it goes I just did them a future favour, but it’s no business of mine trying to extort money from them after the event.

I am no lawyer but my understand is the FTTP infrastructure is owned by Openreach even if if was gap funded by the local community. The fact that Openreach chose to also enabled your property while providing the infrastructure to their properties is irrelevant.

So no I would not pay them £2,500 and if they believe they have a legal right then ask them to prove it.

Edited by deleted (Thu 28-Jan-21 16:31:02)

Just ignore it. And continue to do so. They did NOT build the infrastructure BT/Openreach did.

As you have no covenants (assuming your solicitor was thorough) then what grounds do they have?

If they continue to push, ask them for evidence that YOU are personally liable and if they persist, pull in your solicitor and when they lose, send them a bill for his time/advice.

I've never lived on a private road, when you bought the house did you enter into any agreements / covenants with a residents association or management company?

I find it hard to believe anything like this would ever be enforceable... but I'm not a lawyer.

Even if you have covenanted to pay residents' association / management company fees for the upkeep of the private road and common areas, the detail will be key - does it allow for charging historical costs in such a way?

I suspect, even if there is an agreement to contribute to upkeep of the street or common area that it wouldn't provide for such charges.

Did you sign any covenants during the purchase process?

Even if they are tied to upkeep costs, then why are they asking the OP to pay rather than the previous owner of the house? In the conveyancing, there should have been a check that there were no outstanding fees or charges and if they were they would have been identified and the previous owner asked to settle.

How did your residents association even become aware that you were ordering an FTTP service?

depends whether you premise has its own DP or shared , it if has your own dp and was not included in the build (was this a personal funded build by the community) , you should not be able to order a service as your DP will not be enabled for fibre.

I paid for FTTPoD on my private road. By myself. It was rather expensive (this was done under the old 3 year minimum contract when they didn't look to enable neighbours).

I've since helped my neighbours convince Openreach to 'enable' their properties by complaining to Openreach CEO, etc. Now the whole postcode is enabled at no additional cost to them, and I think it's awesome! I would have paid for it anyway (as I did), and life is too short for slow broadband so couldn't be happier for them.

In reply to a post by Fastman3:

depends whether you premise has its own DP or shared , it if has your own dp and was not included in the build (was this a personal funded build by the community) , you should not be able to order a service as your DP will not be enabled for fibre.

CBT on the pole serving my place, also serves my nearest two neighbours. No one else on the private road can order native FTTP that I'm aware of, although it does pass several houses on the way to me - I'm at the very end.

My nearest two neighbours served by "my" CBT can order native FTTP as they wish. It's there and ready to go. I paid to get the FTTP fibre there, but as said I have no interest trying to extort money to pay for my install FTTPoD install cost from 2018. I would have asked them years ago had they been interested (actually those folks subsequently sold and its new folks, the other neighbour is a new build almost directly under the CBT).

yours was a fod order so that would be only specific premises - so that will be quite different from a CFP in 2017 , depends if this was funded community or funded by Gigabit vouchers

most interesting

Straight up On Demand FTTP reverts to native FTTP after 12 months, enabling the original initiator together with any nearby neighbours (served by the same CBT as the requestor) to order native FTTP services without further charge or penalty.

If the OP for argument sake did a public Openreach broadband line search and it said “FTTP is available and a new ONT may be ordered” and/or he was not altered to that there could be any adverse charges during his conveyancers property searches or disclosure by the seller - I’d say he has a fair right to call foul.

At what point in time does CFP derived FTTP become native FTTP - that is without further charge or penalty?

At what point in time does CFP derived FTTP become native FTTP - that is without further charge or penalty?

When it becomes ready for service. Any community funds will have been paid for the initial build. Any property that is covered by the CFP that didnt contribute will be able to order the same as those that contributed. There is no distinction at that point.

Would be interested to hear how this all came about with your residents association.

e.g. Did you have someone suddenly banging on your front door demanding money or was it after a chat with a nosey neighbour

Edit: Have other newbie neighbours been asked/forced to hand over the money ?

Edited by deleted (Thu 28-Jan-21 22:17:49)

The residence association have no right to claim this fee for something that isn't theres. The infrastructure for any differently funded roll out of FTTP such as FoD or CFP is still owned by OR, and no one else has any legal right to charge you for accessing the FTTP network bar OR.

Whats most likely happened as previously mentioned is your Residents Assoc is trying to recoup costs of an FTTPod or CFP project that included your house on the plans, but the previous occupiers didn't want to fund. Regardless, if the DP that serves you is FTTP enabled with a CBT you will be able to order a FTTP service with no strings (As in from the residents assoc).

Sounds like they're salty that the previous owner didn't want to pay up and are now trying to get some cash back. Don't pay it!

Edit: Agree with Dect, sounds like neighbours trying to mooch some monies off you!

Edited by Whitehall11 (Thu 28-Jan-21 22:20:23)

In reply to a post by witchunt:

At what point in time does CFP derived FTTP become native FTTP - that is without further charge or penalty?

When it becomes ready for service. Any community funds will have been paid for the initial build. Any property that is covered by the CFP that didnt contribute will be able to order the same as those that contributed. There is no distinction at that point.

Thanks clarifies it.

OP can order FTTP without any penalty. Sounds like a “guilt payment” being forced by neighbours. That’s life peeps.

In reply to a post by Whitehall11:

Sounds like they're salty that the previous owner didn't want to pay up and are now trying to get some cash back. Don't pay it!

Edit: Agree with Dect, sounds like neighbours trying to mooch some monies off you!

Agreed. Tell the [censored] to go swivel.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Tell the [censored] to go swivel.

Won't be getting an invite to the hot tub party if they do that

It is an issue that your solicitor should have found out about before you made the purchase as I would have thought you would have to do about the road(?) that leads to the property. What if anything was the seller asked and what was his reply?

You could also ask the residents association why they think that you should pay that amount and whether anyone else has moved to the area after FTTP was installed and then paid this amount.

You could be in the situation where there is no legal obligation for you to pay for the upkeep of the road that comes to your house but there is a moral and practical one.

Michael - if there is/was a substantial sum actually due (or any inkling for that matter) for utilities connection to the private road /residents association, then the previous seller is legally obliged to declare it in the Property Information Form which is a legal document that comprises parts of the contract of sale. Any regular payments that are due to the residents association/private road association must also be declared here.

Secondly the conveyancing solicitor should have searched the particulars of the residents association, including annuals accounts filed etc. If the CFP was done via the residents association, then it ought to have been disclosed or mentioned somewhere in the accounts or particulars, especially if there was a bearing on funds due from residents belonging to the body.

In my opinion the whole thing sounds like a bit of a sham. There actually is no legal basis for anyone to claim monies now for the past FTTP construction - for future connection to the infrastructure. As noted above the infrastructure belongs to Openreach. It does not belong to the residents association any more than my FTTP serving infrastructure would “belong” to me even though I paid a substantial figure to have it constructed.

Morally there is no implication on the OP either. The resident association is just trying it on.

Wow - thank you all so much for the advice and the clear message is I should be OK - albeit with some very annoyed neighbours who were originally 'bulldozed' into signing up to the community scheme. I have checked all my paperwork upon house purchase and there is no mention of the scheme / estate charges payable. I have been advised that the whole estate did have FTTC running at 30Mbps available at the time the scheme was implemented, but a couple of home businesses on the local estate needed more capcity so it appears as though threats of decreases in house value and being 'unable to use the internet' were employed to encourage participation.

In terms of how I became aware, I was chatting to a neighbour going though the same exercise (an OpenReach van was outside their house) and they eventually paid up to keep peace with the neighbours. Can I 100% assume that there s no way that the community boradband installation contract could have been structured so that the local residents association have some kind of ongoing / residual economic interest / charge over the infrastructure.

The next consideration is how to get the installation completed without the neighbours noticing - what they wont know can't upset them!

In reply to a post by BBGiraffe:

The next consideration is how to get the installation completed without the neighbours noticing - what they wont know can't upset them!

Don't tell too many fibs which can be found out! If you know where to look...

ONT exists with active service. No spare ports are available. A new ONT may be ordered.

BBG - I would just go ahead and order it. If theres any costs to pay it's between you and your ISP/CP.

If someone want to lay claim that you owe them money now for a scheme was was constructed before you even owned your new house, then good luck to them proving it.

No one likes to tick off their neighbours, especially when you're newly arrived, but by the same token you shouldn't be bullied into paying something for which you have no legal obligation - unless they can prove otherwise.

For heavens sake don't go spending money on solicitors or any of that jazz.

I organised a CFP in 2018/19 with similar characteristics - a private estate, most residents of which wanted fibre and were prepared to pay for it, and some who weren't. At the request of the payers, I asked OR what the situation was with the the non-payers going forward. They were clear that there was a chance that free-loading would be an option for the non-payers. (Not a certainty, given constraints on capacity.)

Roll forward a year or two and our fibre went live. (In the end we didn't pay for it, as OR refunded our contribution.) And, sure enough, at least one neighbour who didn't want to join the CFP + pay now has fibre.

My advice (and I am not a lawyer) would be to have a careful look at the legal paperwork and see if you have rights to use the communal amenities of the estate. In particular, OR will - I imagine - need to pull fibre through pre-existing ducting into your house. I'd imagine you have the right to use such commonly held facilities. If so, just go ahead and order, and - if the neighbours complain - say they should take it up with OR.

Edited by deleted (Fri 29-Jan-21 10:00:10)

In reply to a post by BBGiraffe:

Can I 100% assume that there s no way that the community broadband installation contract could have been structured so that the local residents association have some kind of ongoing / residual economic interest / charge over the infrastructure.

I really don't believe so, I have discussed this with Openreach several times as every community fibre partnership I have come across have enabled extra non-contributing properties and I have always been told by Openreach there is nothing the contributing properties can do about it. If it was possible every community would be doing it.

In reply to a post by PianSomB:

they should take it up with OR.

+1

Thanks again for the reassurance - I think I'm going to move ahead and place the order. It has been a number of years since the community scheme completed and my neighbours have enjoyed the benefits of the faster connection during that time so I cant see there being to much of a problem beyond 'buyers remorse' for those that didn't need it - trying to recover their sunk costs form a new neighnout is not reasonable.

On the flip side, it does feel a little inequitable that a non pariticpant can freeload of a community or FTTP OD installation right away but the infrastructure is there, it is owned by OpenReach and thus I see no reeason not to make use of it. Perhaps for the future, a small one off connection charge could be levied by OpenReach to support the ongoing national roll out strategy in these types of scenarios.

To be totally honest, if you had been living there at the time it was installed and had refused to contribute and then had immediately ordered once it was available I would have had full sympathy for the local community who had contributed but your case is very different. Also I note no one here has posted in support of the residents assocation.

All the best and hope it doesn't sour the relationship with your new neighbours

Edited by deleted (Fri 29-Jan-21 11:28:27)

In reply to a post by BBGiraffe:

... trying to recover their sunk costs form a new neighbour is not reasonable.

I think that sentence sums it up perfectly. Both legally *and* ethically/morally. As the new neighbour you had no idea that you would be expected to "cough up" cash and nor should you have to.

In reply to a post by BBGiraffe:

On the flip side, it does feel a little inequitable that a non pariticpant can freeload of a community or FTTP OD installation right away but the infrastructure is there, it is owned by OpenReach and thus I see no reeason not to make use of it. Perhaps for the future, a small one off connection charge could be levied by OpenReach to support the ongoing national roll out strategy in these types of scenarios.

I really wouldn't beat yourself up about that. As I said earlier both my neighbours theoretically can get notionally 'free' FTTP should they so desire. If they did would I be so bold as to knock on their front door demanding 50% or 33% of what it cost me to get the fibre here. Of course not! I think that is morally bankrupt and only the "Victor Meldrew's" of this country would countenance let alone pursue that line of thought.

To add to all of this....

The CFP or FTTPod will of benefited from what Openreach defines as 'Properties Past' which gives the organisers a discount from Openreach on the total project cost if they can enable another property that hasn't signed up to be part of the agreement, but falls within the infrastructure.

So in fact, it is they that should be greatful!

The person who sold the OPs property may not have been asked the right questions or may not have responded correctly. I suspect both have happened where I live.

IMHO the OP should ask the residents association why they think the money is due. The way Openreach charge some people (early adopters) such as yourself but not others who benefit is not particularly fair. I am fortunate that where I live I have Gigaclear FTTP and everyone pays much the same.

Have heard of one Gigaclear area where some householders have had to pay more for the install at a later date, something to do with a cluster not expressing interest at the same time as other neighbours

In shot lots of variations exist

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

The person who sold the OPs property may not have been asked the right questions or may not have responded correctly. I suspect both have happened where I live.

Or in all likelihood the answers provided by the seller were truthful and accurate, in the strictest legal sense; that is there is nothing actually demanded or indeed due to be paid.

In accordance with what other folks above have to say in respect to a CFP situation - you can't force anyone to pay into funding the infrastructure *and* by the same token you can't as it stands with Openreach stop them (or indeed *unknowing* future owners) from taking up services in future, that rely on the infrastructure.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

IMHO the OP should ask the residents association why they think the money is due.

I believe the OP has established why the resident association think they are due money; they are trying to claw back previously sunk monies to reduce their own personal or business outlay. It's as simple as that.

If they believe they have a legal claim, then like anyone else - provide an invoice. But as said above, they really don't (have ANY claim) and therefore can't (legally at least) demand payment. Of course doesn't stop them trying to 'persuade' or for that matter guilting the OP into paying - as morally dubious as that is in my view.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

The way Openreach charge some people (early adopters) such as yourself but not others who benefit is not particularly fair. I am fortunate that where I live I have Gigaclear FTTP and everyone pays much the same.

As I've said numerous times, I'm not bothered if my immediate neighbours take up FTTP effectively gratis. I don't think that's unfair on me - it was *MY* original requirement and came at my instigation. Nothing fair or unfair about that in my opinion.

You should also ask yourself: supposing you *did* pay this money, where would it go? It won't go to Openreach, and the CFP has already been paid for in full.

Are the residents association proposing to redistribute this money between the people who originally paid for the CFP? Somehow I doubt it. If not, then it just goes into somebody's slush fund.

In my opinion, the residents association are looking at this the wrong way. The CFP connected all the people who wanted to be connected, and Openreach also enabled some extra properties who didn't want FTTP at the time *for free*.

That's a net benefit, not a loss, to the community.

Order your FTTP, and enjoy it.

Totally agree.

It's even dodgier territory if some person or persons within the residents association are spreading false or misleading information to other residents, that there is some rightful or legal "claim" to recoup previous expenditure on the scheme.

Are or were folks being sold a false promise...??

I agree with most that has been said. But I think that speculating about the legal position is rather fruitless. You need to find out for sure.

I wouldn't rush to take a position on the payment, but talk and listen and I expect that the best decision will present itself. In particular, talk to the residents' association, find out how they are constituted and what legal powers, if any, they have. But equally important, find out what they do for the estate, whether they are nice people, and whether you would like to be part of it. Even if they don't have any rights to infrastructure, they may have some powers of management over the estate that you would be better participating in from the inside.

In my experience how you get on with neighbours can have a big impact on how much you enjoy your home.

If you decide that you would like to be on board with the RA but cost is a big issue, see whether the scheme is structured (or could be) such that your contribution will be diluted by future joiners, and if your contribution could be reduced or spread over a long period. I think it would be in my mind that their investment has contributed to the enjoyment and value of my home, but you may find other factors that sway you one way or the other.

If their demand proves a stumbling block to your participation or to good relations, they should be aware that you probably won't be the last person to find it so.

I agree with some of your sentiments, i.e. a calm measured response and wanting to get along and maintain good relations with your neighbours, ultimately to enjoy your home. All quite true and certainly listening does no harm. There are ultimately limits to both courtesy and goodwill, and at some stage you need to decide whether this all good and neighbourly or perhaps just taking the micky....

I agree also only the OP knows his particular circumstances with respect to his day to day relations with his private road neighbours. Also in respects to what ACTUAL legal rights and obligations his residents association actually bears on his property and enjoyment of it. However as he is a freeholder I would hazard they have quite little, if anything really. If its anything like the residents management company that maintains my private road, a token annual amount is paid for road maintenance and that's about it! Anything else of material consequence would be a covenant or some other restriction noted in your title deeds.

I would be utterly amazed if the residents associations had actual legal recourse to recover funds, from any residents (present or future), for already completed infrastructure that is not actually owned or run by them but by Openreach - like it is anywhere else in the country. How would they have that power legally? If they did surely it would have been flagged up in any property searches.

As the OP has said, "I signed up to no covenants / restrictions when purchasing the house". He is able to order FTTP from BT without penally. What business is this of anyone else now?

I keep harping on - but this is exactly the same as me ordering my FTTPoD and then demanding three years later that my neighbours who can now connect to it for free should pay me back a portion of what I paid Openreach indirectly via my CP. The notion is ridiculous.

In reply to a post by Thinker27:

I agree with most that has been said. But I think that speculating about the legal position is rather fruitless. You need to find out for sure.

There's nothing to find out.

The network belongs to OpenReach.
The property has WBC FTTP available.

If there are no excess construction charges being charged by OpenReach then there's nothing to pay.

It matters not if a build is native FTTP, FTTPoD or a CFP.
Nobody but OpenReach can charge for installation.
Nobody but OpenReach has any rights to the network.

The residents have (incorrectly) assumed that as they contributed to the build cost that they have some claim to recoup part of these costs.
They do not.

Even if the OP lived there at the time the CFP was done they still wouldn't have to pay.

OpenReach are quite open about the fact that anyone organising a CFP has no say in what properties can and cannot order a service once the build is complete.
They can only have a say in what areas of a town are covered / what the boundary of the CFP is.
Anyone within that boundary will be covered.

Half the battle organising a CFP is that anyone who is honest when drumming up interest would have to tell the community that if you don't pay and everyone else does then you still get the same access.

If I want to do a CFP in my street covering numbers 1 - 20 and everyone except numbers 11 and 12 are contributing, I can't ask OpenReach to skip these properties.
They are free to order after the build is complete.

The OP's residents association are either misinformed or are chancing their luck that the OP will contribute.

All the wannabe lawyers need to take a back seat.

If your neighbour chapped your door randomly tomorrow telling you that you couldn't order FTTP from a private business would you go rushing to pay for legal advise?

The ins and outs of CFP's are well known. There are many members on these forums who have organised them.
There are many members who have forked out a small fortune to bring FTTP to their community only to see those who didn't contribute being able to order.
That's how a CFP works.

The OP has rightly placed an order.
A bit of a fall out with the neighbours is the worst that can happen.

Edited by j0hn83 (Fri 29-Jan-21 21:35:52)

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

OpenReach are quite open about the fact that anyone organising a CFP has no say in what properties can and cannot order a service once the build is complete.

True. Yes, they are

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

Even if the OP lived there at the time the CFP was done they still wouldn't have to pay.

No, this is not true. If all capacity is used by CFP clients then a new client would have to pay to get fibre

Post deleted by Whitehall11

Edited by Whitehall11 (Fri 29-Jan-21 22:02:15)

No, this is not true. If all capacity is used by CFP clients then a new client would have to pay to get fibre

And there in lies the crux of this whole argument. The CFP or whatever funding model has created a CBT that has a spare port that is destined for the OP's property, regardless of any monies put forward by the freehold propertys residents. This would be a totally different convo if the OP wanted FTTP but couldn't get it.

I'm in the middle of dealing with my CFP at the moment and we only need 50 / 116 houses on the plan to hit the build costs. The free rider problem is an inherent market failure within the school of economics, the trick is to keep your mouth shut if you're trying to avoid it!

In reply to a post by Whitehall11:

The free rider problem is an inherent market failure within the school of economics, the trick is to keep your mouth shut if you're trying to avoid it!

Contributors versus non-contributors is possibly the biggest deal breaker for a lots of people thinking of financially participating in a CFP.

I've even heard one resident say they should pay less because they live nearer to the aggregation node.

On very early CFP's OpenReach also skipped some properties at the request of the organiser.
That's not the case now and hasn't been for some time

OpenReach now install full capacity for every property passed. Over capacity installed.
A large enough CBT for everyone on the DP is installed.

If your property isn't enabled (doesn't show WBC FTTP) then yes you have to pay to be covered.

With regards to paying for additional capacity, you've been a bit selective in quoting my post.

If there are no excess construction charges being charged by OpenReach then there's nothing to pay.

That would come under excess construction charges.
OpenReach pay the 1st £1,000 anyway.

In reply to a post by PianSomB:

No, this is not true. If all capacity is used by CFP clients then a new client would have to pay to get fibre

Hi PianSomB, I have a few questions...

First of all, what is a CFP client?

How does OpenReach know who is a "CFP client"?
How does the ordering system prioritise CFP clients?
What is there to stop a non CFP client taking a CBT port before a CFP client?
What exists that means a resident who is not a CFP client is more likely to have to pay for capacity upgrades than a resident who is a CFP client?

As someone who deals with CFP schemes regularly it's not an expression I have come across before.
All the CFP schemes I have been involved in have seen all properties be able to order at or around the same time.

In reply to a post by dect:

In reply to a post by Whitehall11:

The free rider problem is an inherent market failure within the school of economics, the trick is to keep your mouth shut if you're trying to avoid it!

Contributors versus non-contributors is possibly the biggest deal breaker for a lots of people thinking of financially participating in a CFP.

I've even heard one resident say they should pay less because they live nearer to the aggregation node.

Maybe Ofcom should stop Openreach from being so greedy. If people want to join an existing scheme they could be charged and the money passed back to the original people (or properties) who paid.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

Maybe Ofcom should stop Openreach from being so greedy. If people want to join an existing scheme they could be charged and the money passed back to the original people (or properties) who paid.

Openreach are not being "greedy" by providing extra capacity to serve properties which didn't explicitly agree to the CFP. On the contrary, you could say they're being "generous" by including extra FTTP ports for free. I'd say they are being "sensible" because they'd only have to go round adding the extra FTTP capacity sooner or later, as they transition the whole country eventually to FTTP.

Note that there is no such thing as a "CFP client", because Openreach doesn't know (or care) who the individuals are who contributed to the cost of the CFP. Openreach contracts with a single legal entity, which could be the residents association, or a local business, or a community interest company (CIC) set up for that purpose. All Openreach knows is that there's an entity, and that entity pays the total bill. How the entity chooses to fund that amount is entirely up to them.

In this case, it sounds like the residents association believe they somehow "own" the network that they marshalled the money for. They don't.

mihael chare

The way Openreach charge some people (early adopters) such as yourself but not others who benefit is not particularly fair. I am fortunate that where I live I have Gigaclear FTTP and everyone pays much the same.

really so you are now an expert on operneach as well then are you

michael chare

Maybe Ofcom should stop Openreach from being so greedy. If people want to join an existing scheme they could be charged and the money passed back to the original people (or properties) who paid.

greedy what are you on about ,

In reply to a post by candlerb:

In this case, it sounds like the residents association believe they somehow "own" the network that they marshalled the money for. They don't.

At the moment it’s all just “talk” from what the OP says. Doesn’t sound like he’s willing to bend to their demand either.

However at some point it needs to be make it clear to the RA directors that they don’t. Nor do they have *any* authority to dictate payment for future connections to Openreach infrastructure . It’s almost bordering on blackmail.

I’m sure both Ofcom (and possibly Openreach) would have something quite interesting to say to the RA directors about such “Robin Hood FTTP payment” demands”.....

In reply to a post by PianSomB:

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

Even if the OP lived there at the time the CFP was done they still wouldn't have to pay.

No, this is not true. If all capacity is used by CFP clients then a new client would have to pay to get fibre

It's very true thank you very much

People who don't contribute to a CFP don't have to pay if their property is WBC FTTP enabled under the scheme.
That's true for anyone who lives there at the time or anyone who moves to the area later on.

As mentioned in the post(s) above, OpenReach don't even know who contributed to a CFP. It's a point I overlooked in my original reply.
Capacity isn't somehow reserved for "CFP clients".

What you've done there is make a general pedantic point about capacity. It's nothing specific to a CFP. It's a bit misleading to how a CFP works.

*As with any install (not just a CFP), installation charges and excess construction charges may apply. Subject to capacity. "Insert other small print here"

In reply to a post by Fastman3:

michael chare

Maybe Ofcom should stop Openreach from being so greedy. If people want to join an existing scheme they could be charged and the money passed back to the original people (or properties) who paid.

greedy what are you on about ,

By not charging more to customers who benefit from an original scheme and passing the money back to those who did pay towards it, Openreach are likely to be able to attract more (indirect) customers hence my argument about greed. Of course it is nice for the new customers but it is not so nice for the original contributors and the current situation may dissuade some from joining such schemes.

In reply to a post by Benxfo:

In reply to a post by PianSomB:

No, this is not true. If all capacity is used by CFP clients then a new client would have to pay to get fibre

Hi PianSomB, I have a few questions...

First of all, what is a CFP client?

How does OpenReach know who is a "CFP client"?
How does the ordering system prioritise CFP clients?
What is there to stop a non CFP client taking a CBT port before a CFP client?
What exists that means a resident who is not a CFP client is more likely to have to pay for capacity upgrades than a resident who is a CFP client?

As someone who deals with CFP schemes regularly it's not an expression I have come across before.
All the CFP schemes I have been involved in have seen all properties be able to order at or around the same time.

Hello Benxfo

"CFP client" is an English phrase I made up for "those residential and/or business premises for whom Openreach has contracted to provide a fibre broadband service under a Community Fibre Partnership contract". Feel free to use this going forward if you wish to

Openreach knows who they are, as they are specified in the contract.

I do not know how or if they are prioritised in OR's ordering system. That is OR's problem. If someone nabbed a slot that they had built with a CFP client in mind they'd have to do an upgrade, I guess. Though they may just prevent this by not allowing orders by non-CFP clients until the CFP is closed (under the voucher system we used CFP clients had 12 months to place an order with an ISP).

Interestingly, one of my neighbours had to wait a couple of months longer than the rest of us in our build, as OR had mis-specified the CBT and had to install a replacement (or additional) one. So, demonstrably, capacity issues do arise in the real world.

By being a CFP client a resident or business is getting the right to fibre provision. A resident or business who is not a CFP client does not have such a right, so there is a possibility that they may have to pay for a capacity upgrade to get the service. (Another of my neighbours was in this position, and was looking at setting up another CFP, as an alternative to FTTPoD. I don't know what they decided in the end.)

Private land so Ofcom unlikely to care, unless this is affected millions of homes and pace of change would be a year of consultation on it at least.

First step would be go back to posters solicitors and double check nothing was mentioned about telephone/broadband contributions or whether has been rolled into a generic utilities clause e.g. residents pay a share for utility work. If a clause like that exists then solicitor can advise on whether past work carries over to you or not in terms of cost burden.

If association continues to be keen then best course might to be say talk to my solicitor who would outline why (if that is the case) you are under no legal obligation to pay.

If solicitor missed this potential cost when doing the original search/purchase then you are very likely liable to pay, and recourse with solicitor over having missed something becomes the issue. There can be lots of odd things written into paperwork for private roads/areas.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

By not charging more to customers who benefit from an original scheme and passing the money back to those who did pay towards it, Openreach are likely to be able to attract more (indirect) customers hence my argument about greed. Of course it is nice for the new customers but it is not so nice for the original contributors and the current situation may dissuade some from joining such schemes.

I cannot imagine the administrative overhead of keeping track of FTTP deployments and the dates and original funding contributed to the scheme, and then Openreach paying back to a CIC/Ltd company requiring the company to remain active and submit accounts for x years following the original deployment. You'd need a system of Openreach reporting to CPs the amount of additional cost for each potential customer, and then everybody in the chain of processing that payment will incur costs to do so.

As has been mentioned, the idea of CFP is that the community as a whole funds a deployment. If there are people within that community that are cynical enough to show no interest in contributing only to later take advantage of the deployment then that's for the community to deal with.

By being a CFP client a resident or business is getting the right to fibre provision.

nop this is incorrect - it gives them the ability to gain a service - they choose whether to or not but would have to assume they need the voucher

if you did not fund and you are on a DP that is enabled you have exactly the same rigfht as someone who did not fund to purchase a serivice (any thing else is incorrect)

Openreach would have provided the Gap based on premises either covered in the contract or on the Same DPs as the premises covered in the contract

the CFp client is unhelpul and incorrect and signicanlty misleading

By all means the OP should double check with his conveyancing solicitor to make sure that nothing has been missed. If there has been a miss, that another ballgame. We have to so far take him at his word that there is no charge, covenant etc that he’s aware of. Advice or checks such as this should be covered under his existing legal fees for the property purchase. The OP shouldn’t have to pay more for this.

Beyond that, personally, I wouldn’t be spending money on additional external legal advice. Unless of course someone provides substantive / written demand for monies showing who is owed money and why and the OP then want to dispute it and get legal advice.

On your point about Ofcom and “private land”, I don’t think that’s necessarily accurate or relevant. After all we’re all on private land...either owned by ourselves, a landlord, the crown or a public authority. That doesn’t change matters, which pertain to parties that neither own nor operate the assets or infrastructure claiming for what are effectively telecommunications infrastructure charges - for access to what is publicly accessible infrastructure....that comes under the remit of Ofcom. Whether Ofcom want to investigate is up to them, but they are the telecoms regulator.

Personally if the BT broadband checker shows order-able FTTP at the promises, then in the OP’s position I would just get on and order it.

If additional charges are due (to the CP and/or Openreach) then his CP would be informing him as part of the order. If any wayleaves or property consents are required that would be flagged up at that point too.

In reply to a post by jpm:

As has been mentioned, the idea of CFP is that the community as a whole funds a deployment. If there are people within that community that are cynical enough to show no interest in contributing only to later take advantage of the deployment then that's for the community to deal with.

And how would the community do that? Openreach could just not connect new customers until they have agreement from the community which paid. Such an approach would incur some administrative cost but perhaps would be stopped 5-10 years after service first provided.

In reply to a post by PianSomB:

Openreach knows who they are, as they are specified in the contract.

No they don't. They don't ask who contributes to the scheme. They only have a contract with the organiser.

I do not know how or if they are prioritised in OR's ordering system.

They aren't. As above they don't even know who contributed, so they can't keep a port for them.

Though they may just prevent this by not allowing orders by non-CFP clients until the CFP is closed (under the voucher system we used CFP clients had 12 months to place an order with an ISP).

They don't do this either. All properties that are part of the CFP usually go live at the same time.
OpenReach can't enable those who contributed before those who didn't because they do not know who contributed.

Interestingly, one of my neighbours had to wait a couple of months longer than the rest of us in our build, as OR had mis-specified the CBT and had to install a replacement (or additional) one. So, demonstrably, capacity issues do arise in the real world.

Of course they do. They occur on all deployments.

By being a CFP client a resident or business is getting the right to fibre provision.

Not true. Everyone covered by the CFP gets equal access to the network.

A resident or business who is not a CFP client does not have such a right, so there is a possibility that they may have to pay for a capacity upgrade to get the service. (Another of my neighbours was in this position, and was looking at setting up another CFP, as an alternative to FTTPoD. I don't know what they decided in the end.)

You cannot order FTTPoD for a property that is already WBC FTTP enabled.

What you're suggesting is just plain untrue. There's no preference given to anyone who contributes to a CFP.
There's no such thing as a CFP client.
OpenReach don't ask who contributes.

OpenReach install enough ports and capacity for all properties enabled under the CFP.
If they didn't you would get situations where people who contributed potentially £1,000's towards the scheme can't get a connection because someone who didn't contribute ordered before them.

There is no such thing as a CFP client.

You're not just misinformed, you're actually making examples up.

Edited by j0hn83 (Sat 30-Jan-21 15:53:26)

There is one possibility.

Perhaps the RA had a decent bank balance and at meeting (SGM, EGM) with all residents agreed to put up the funds needed on the basis that anyone taking up service would pay a specified amount. And if something like that happened, there would be formal minutes. But then could they be applied to new residents? Possibly.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

And how would the community do that? Openreach could just not connect new customers until they have agreement from the community which paid. Such an approach would incur some administrative cost but perhaps would be stopped 5-10 years after service first provided.

Your suggestion would result in a small clique of like-minded neighbours in a community scheme holding veto powers over residents being connected to infrastructure that had *already been paid for* for up to a decade after it is completed.

There is nothing wrong with the current scheme - if members of a CFP scheme do not like the idea of properties being enabled that aren't contributing then they don't have to sign the contract with Openreach.

Edited by jpm (Sat 30-Jan-21 16:09:16)

In reply to a post by MHC:

There is one possibility.

Perhaps the RA had a decent bank balance and at meeting (SGM, EGM) with all residents agreed to put up the funds needed on the basis that anyone taking up service would pay a specified amount. And if something like that happened, there would be formal minutes. But then could they be applied to new residents? Possibly.

Gosh the OP should’ve let on he lives on Kensington Palace Gardens!

Heck if they’re anything like my road management company, there’s barely enough cash in the bank to cover pothole repair let alone a full blown CFP deployment.

Seriously something like that would turn up on a conveyancers searches. I’ve still got all my stuff, accounts and CH declarations. If it’s kosher it will be available to all members of the RA.

All this talk of extra money that has no legal obligation is getting my hot...

I think with my CFP i'll get ready to survey the other 70 houses who don't contribute to the CFP (who will be given FTTP as a result), and bill them when i see the FTTP lines being connected!

Should make me a nice few pennys! (Sarcasm)

In reply to a post by Whitehall11:

All this talk of extra money that has no legal obligation is getting my hot...

I think with my CFP i'll get ready to survey the other 70 houses who don't contribute to the CFP (who will be given FTTP as a result), and bill them when i see the FTTP lines being connected!

Should make me a nice few pennys! (Sarcasm)

Just paint a large cross on their front doors so everyone knows who didn't pay

In reply to a post by Whitehall11:

All this talk of extra money that has no legal obligation is getting my hot...

I think with my CFP i'll get ready to survey the other 70 houses who don't contribute to the CFP (who will be given FTTP as a result), and bill them when i see the FTTP lines being connected!

Should make me a nice few pennys! (Sarcasm)

Hey look no one is holding a gun to your head to do this and you should not in turn hold a gun other folks head's either (metaphorically).

If you're socialising the cost of (what will be publicly accessible) infrastructure, be prepared fo the upside as well as the downside.

If you think your building some fee paying private members network, then you're in for an unfortunate surprise.

In reply to a post by jpm:

Your suggestion would result in a small clique of like-minded neighbours in a community scheme holding veto powers over residents being connected to infrastructure that had *already been paid for* for up to a decade after it is completed.

Some sort of an appeal system could well be needed.

There is nothing wrong with the current scheme - if members of a CFP scheme do not like the idea of properties being enabled that aren't contributing then they don't have to sign the contract with Openreach.

So then fewer people may want to join such schemes which makes it even more difficult for them to get started.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

Some sort of an appeal system could well be needed.

Let us all know how you get on when you present that idea to Openreach.

j0hn83 - there is no need for you to be rude.

It seems you didn't read what I wrote. I said nothing at all about contributions.

Anyway, enough time wasted on this, which has gone WAY off topic.

I am sure many of the previous contributors have offered good advice. The fact remains that none of us has seen any of the documentation.

Your solicitor should have investigated all relevant matters, including your rights of access over the unadopted road, who pays for maintenance of the road, and the nature of your relationship with the residents' association. We don't even know whether the Association is an informal body or a legally constituted company. If it is a company, do all of the residents own shares, or is the company limited by guarantee? Is your property freehold or leasehold? If it is leasehold, who owns the freehold?

I suspect that the Residents' Association has no right to require you to pay anything. However, these are legal questions, so you really should seek advice from the solicitor that acted for you, when you purchased the property.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

So then fewer people may want to join such schemes which makes it even more difficult for them to get started.

If Openreach have to readjust their projections based on the worst case scenario of seeing no income from 30% of a CFP until 10 years into the future due to difficult resident groups then it will just push the prices of these schemes up.

michael chare - riduculos comment as ever

crealy no idea idea how CFP works, is funded