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.

From what I can see the new legislation is if the landlord doesn't respond. It doesn't appear to cover if the landlord responds saying "no".

Yes, it appears to force them to the table, not necessarily force them to agree. I think the biggest problem has been getting a substantial proportion of freeholders to the actual table. They've been able to metaphorically put their fingers in their ears up till now.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Yes, it appears to force them to the table, not necessarily force them to agree. I think the biggest problem has been getting a substantial proportion of freeholders to the actual table. They've been able to metaphorically put their fingers in their ears up till now.

The issue is once you start forcing Freeholders to do things to their buildings against their will in legislative terms you set dangerous presidents over private property and involvement of the state.

But i suspect another issue and key blocker for a lot of retrofibre builds is the fact a lot of Freeholders are just passive investors who want as little as fuss as possible, and want to generate the biggest returns. Never understood how you can do that really with private residency buildings.

Have a read through the consultation paper. In respect of the ministerial foreward, it says:

The Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act, which received Royal Assent in March 2021, creates a new route through the courts that operators can use to access blocks of flats and apartments if a landowner is repeatedly unresponsive to requests for access. The Act will prevent a situation where a leaseholder is unable to receive a service due to the silence of their landowner.

I do not take the responsibility of allowing an operator into a property without the permission of that property’s owner lightly. In that context, this consultation is seeking to develop a balanced regulatory structure to sit alongside the Act.

To my reading of it all, they aren't looking for automatic, untrammelled access to private property but appeal via an independent tribunal (or the Scottish courts) to address your second point, that is to get the silent/deliberately unresponsive (about 40% of requests it's claimed) freeholders to at least respond / engage. They aren't being forced to agree, just respond. If after repeated requests that still don't respond, only then via the tribunal/courts can the CPs use their code powers.

Governement have to do something to address concerns of residents, whom have requested a service to their property, as the current situation results in a deadlock and disenfranchisement, simply by one party not bothering to respond. The property owner / freeholder would maintain the legal right to say "no". They're not legislating away that right, but they must engage.

Edited by Pheasant (Mon 09-Aug-21 15:34:25)

Have I missed something or is this a most useless piece of legislation? A law to make landlords say 'No' in writing??

This Act amends the Code, and they need to be read carefully together to see the effect, but on the face of it, as pointed out by others, the Act seems to provide for proceedings and an enforceable order only in the situation where there has been no reply from the landlord.

Now landlords/agents don't fail to reply because that is a thing they positively desire to do. The failure is merely a symptom of something else - the staff do not understand the issues, they don't have the capacity to deal with it, there is a web of leases to sort out, the rights and service charge provisions are unclear, they will need to instruct lawyers, they have no asbestos report, there is no mechanism for getting paid for the work, they want to screw more money out of someone, they are lazy unhelpful people or whatever. These factors will persist even when the operator starts sendiing them warning notices under the Act.

So what are they going to do? Are they going to allow proceedings to take place which they will have to deal with and will end up with a solution being imposed on them? Or are they going to write back and say 'No', so they can maintain the status quo, control the negotiations, or continue to have none, as they choose.

There may be thousands of landlords not replying, but that does not mean they are all recluses on whom you can impose a service provision in their absence. They don't want to engage and make it happen, and they can continue the same way just by giving a simple reply.

Obviously what needs addressing is the failure to engage, some tribunal or arbitration system charged with making it happen unless there are good reasons not to.

Suggesting a good read of the actual lease document may be helpful. It will probably be a standard " off the shelf lease"

Probably will state that you are entitled to various services EG: Gas, Water, electric, Telephone and other services etc.

It may mention Cables, ducts, conduits etc.

There will probably be enough in the lease that will enable you to install F.T.T.P.

You may require the help of a knowledgeable lawyer to achieve this .

My lease (1975) mentions water soil gas electricity through such conduits and cables as are now present. No mention of optical or telephone or communications or any right to install new ones through the common parts of the building.

Not surprising as the lease is between the flat owner and his landlord (who may be a freeholder or a superior leaseholder), and the installer would be a third party, the Communications Provider, with the landlord keeping control of what work is done in their building.

So there usually needs to be a new wayleave agreement between the CP and the landlord giving permission to install in their property, and giving the CP some certainty that their apparatus can remain in place and they can maintain it. It is this document that is typically not readily forthcoming from the building managers.

In reply to a post by Thinker27:

…
Obviously what needs addressing is the failure to engage, some tribunal or arbitration system charged with making it happen unless there are good reasons not to.

Firstly need to see what transpires out of this consultation. Then secondly gauge the change once it has been put into effect - it may transpire there will not be a sea of automatic ‘no’ coming from the 40% (or whatever the claim is) from presently non responsive freeholders.

I wouldn’t at all be surprised if there was some push to amend the Act somehow after this consultation. Indeed whos to say, it may be further tweaked or updated in due course. At least now there is a legal toehold to begin to address the situation.

There are some options available to you but they are rather large.

As said above you as leaseholder pay for the management company. You can go thorough a Right to Manage (RTM) and replace the management company currently appointed (by the freeholder). The newly appointed management company of your choice may have a different view to the incumbent. You will need a large proportion of leaseholders to agree to this route.

Buy the freehold. Again collectively you have the right to buy the freehold on the property as a collective of leaseholders. More work than a RTM but it is possible.

Dave