Flat maintenance company not allowing FTTP to be installed

Hi all,

If this is the wrong forum to be posting I apologise and wish for it to be moved to the correct one.

First off, let me start by letting you know I know very little about Wayleaves/property maintenance companies and so I am seeking your advice on this. My friend purchased his flat a couple of years ago and with that pays a monthly fee to a property management/maintenance company per month, as is appaently standard when you own a flat that has a leasehold (most of them).

Where he lives the BT PCP cabinet is on the pavement directly outside his front window but it has not been twinned to a fibre cabinet. A different PCP cabinet 3 metres away from his one serves most properties in the immediate vicinity and was twinned back in 2012/2013 but unfortunately Openreach have no plans to upgrade his one.

As if this wasn't galling enough, Virgin Media and Hyperoptic aren't available to the block of flats and a Three 5G tower that was planned to be installed last year opposite the block was opposed by the residents there so the block is stuck with ADSL being their only option for internet. The exchange is over a mile away so he gets 9Mb down, 0.9Mb up on a good day.

Recently the alt-net FTTP supplier Toob (www.toob.co.uk) have been installing in Southampton and after contacting them they've said they're unable to install to the block as the property management/maintenance company have rejected the offer. We've contacted them ourselves and they've basically said that they're aware of slow internet in some of their blocks but that they're unwilling to have "a load of different suppliers" servicing their buildings, and so they're going to see about getting one supplier but that there's no ETA on when this may happen.

In fairness Toob say they have some disagreements with that statement so they're going to do some more fighting but I'm curious as to your thoughts on this and whether a maintenance company has this power to deny their "residents" (he bought his flat remember!) access to superfast broadband. Surely it'll cost the management company nothing and if anything they'll be benefitng from wayleave payments?

The block in question is so186ph Midanbury Court

Your thoughts and help on this are appreciated

Edited by digitalface (Sun 08-Aug-21 19:41:14)

In short, yes, the landlord can refuse.

This is worth reading for one law change around wayleaves for multi dwelling units (MDUs, or flats to most of us). But this is to change the law where landlords are being unresponsive - there is no law that requires landlords to allow broadband into their buildings (they are their buildings, your friend only leases the flat they don't own it or the building it is in).

I suspect there is little your friend can do except maybe get together with other leaseholders to petition the landlord.

I think he does own it.... on a leasehold basis

My friend purchased his flat a couple of years ago

Then he owns a lease (i.e. the right to live in the apartment for a number of years). He doesn't own the building itself.

Its one reason I would never have a leasehold or covenanted property. Both come with restrictions (admittedly some are limited in their definitions) on what you can or cannot do with your property. With leasehold, the landlord holds the cards. You could take the LL to Court to see if the restrictions are considered fair but it wouldn't be cheap.

Me? I'd badger the landlord. Letters are wonderful things and if you send enough maybe they might start moving, especially if one pointed out that slow broadband doesn't help in selling flats! Time to go modern.

If Toob wanted to push the issue then they can use their code powers to force a resolution to this, but I can forgive them for not wanting the hassle.

Really I can't understand the attitude of building owners to not wanting these services in their properties. The worries about the installation being a lash-up and penetrating fire breaks are genuine, but they can be resolved by choosing the correct language in the wayleave document and having an inspection of the cable routes performed post-install.

In reply to a post by candlerb:

Then he owns a lease (i.e. the right to live in the apartment for a number of years). He doesn't own the building itself.

Having read this thread, there does seem to be some confusion.

The landlord is never the maintenance company, instead the landlord together with the leaseholders employ the maintenance company.

A couple of years ago with one of my flats that I rent out the maintenance company refused to put in a satellite TV service. Together with the other leaseholders we managed to get another maintenance company. Usually the landlord is more open to ideas if they can see a benefit that would mean the building would be worth more.

In reply to a post by 69bertie:

Me? I'd badger the landlord. Letters are wonderful things and if you send enough maybe they might start moving, especially if one pointed out that slow broadband doesn't help in selling flats!

Perhaps it would be clearer to use the term "freeholder" rather than "landlord".

The freeholder often doesn't have any interest in whether the leaseholders are able to sell their leases easily, nor what price they achieve, unless the leases are coming up for renewal in the near future.

In some blocks of flats, the freehold is held communally via a company in which each leaseholder has one share. In this case it's much easier to have the building managed in the interests of the occupiers, rather than the freehold owner.

Yah this is the key element we need to be discussing.

The MDU (Block of flats) in this case will be owned by a Freeholder, and will often by operated by themselves or a property management company.

In this case, it sounds like this is a 3rd Party Property Management company. I'd advise that the leaseholder contacts the freeholder directly to discuss this, preferably with the support of other leaseholders which the freeholder will be able to force the hand of the PM company (if they agree).

However, if the property management company is also the freeholder, it sounds the OP may have a more tricky journey.

As a freeholder myself of several MDU's across the Midlands / SouthEast i do recognise why some are hesitant to install FTTP into their buildings retrospectively, especially depending on the duct network within the property / and it's build date. However, my experience with Openreach and last week City Fibre is that they are more the happy to put up cash in the faces of the freeholders but also do 99% of the work (the latter 1% being access facilitation / supervision).

Edited by Whitehall11 (Mon 09-Aug-21 11:32:45)

In reply to a post by ian72:

In short, yes, the landlord can refuse.

This is worth reading for one law change around wayleaves for multi dwelling units (MDUs, or flats to most of us). But this is to change the law where landlords are being unresponsive - there is no law that requires landlords to allow broadband into their buildings (they are their buildings, your friend only leases the flat they don't own it or the building it is in).

I suspect there is little your friend can do except maybe get together with other leaseholders to petition the landlord.

The legislation got through parliament and received royal assent earlier in the year, but to my knowledge the detailed mechanics/process of the actual tribunal process itself are still in industry consultation with the 'stakeholders' until the autumn.

It's probably going to be some time in 2022 when the law will finally become "actionable" with all the ensuing process and procedure in place for the CPs / telcos to be able to get unresponsive landlords before any tribunal.

As said, for now best for the OP's mate to form a lobby group of like-minded residents that together petition the freeholder if they want a particular broadband service to be installed. The voice of many is harder for them to ignore.