BT FTTP install without landlord's consent?

I ordered BT FTTP last week on a 9-month student contract as I will only be in the property for 10 months, so this saves me money over a 12-month contract. I booked the install for this coming Monday and am moving in this Friday. Additionally, I am getting £100 cashback from TCB and this has already shown as pending in my cashback account.

A few days ago, I got a call from my landlord reminding me to call virgin media to book broadband. I told him that I was looking at BT instead (not letting on that I had already ordered it) and he said that their properties were all virgin media and that there were no BT lines. I pointed out to him that there was a BT socket on the wall, and he realised there was. However, he has told me that it is not possible to bring in a new line for fibre as "they don't do drilling" (they being the property management company) and so I would have to use the existing copper line. No thanks...

I'd rather not go with virgin media as I have had problems with their service in the last year and was looking forward to getting rid of them in this house. Additionally, virgin media works out quite a bit more expensive for the same download speed. Not to mention that virgin's upload speed and router are rubbish.

All Openreach would do is put a small box outside and run a wire to a tiny box on the wall inside. I honestly doubt the landlord would even notice this at the end of the tenancy and I could even get Openreach to put the inside box (ONT) behind a desk to further hide it.

Obviously, I shouldn't do this as I have been as good as told not to, but what are the chances the landlord will actually notice it once it's done at the end of the tenancy, and what would be the repercussions if they did? Surely they can't justify much of a charge on my deposit for pulling out a cable and filling a couple of holes if they wanted it gone?

Two things.

Firstly its not your house to mess up, its your landlords and you signed a document to that effect ..

Secondly the only way out of this would be if the the fibre and copper cable can come thru and existing outside to inside hole.

Otherwise you are looking at your deposit being not returned ..

Was it a call from your actual landlord, or the letting management company they appointed?

How did they know anyway?

Obviously, you're right about it not being my house, I just question whether the landlord would actually care/notice such a small change to the property in practice. I certainly wouldn't care, but then I'm obviously more receptive to technology and wiring changes than most landlords!

On the second point, is it likely that Openreach would be able to pull out the existing copper cable and feed the new fibre line through the existing hole? I got the impression from the landlord that this would be acceptable. If not, I think I'm just going to have to be stuck paying for virgin 2 months after I leave.

to be honest, it will benefit them when you leave and others have the choice, but as said it's not your house, so I'd be careful

Edited by BuckleZ (Mon 16-Aug-21 15:34:54)

In reply to a post by pluralist:

Was it a call from your actual landlord, or the letting management company they appointed?

How did they know anyway?

I'm not actually entirely sure, they always seem to be a bit vague about this kind of distinction. I believe I was technically speaking to an employee from the management company who owns the property. He said he worked for his parent's company.

He didn't know I hadn't sorted anything per-say, he just phoned with the guise of a friendly reminder, but was probably mainly to give me his virgin media referral link!

There is always the option of getting him to ask someone higher up, ie. his parents, but I doubt this would do me any favours...

In reply to a post by Harry9s:

He didn't know I hadn't sorted anything per-say, he just phoned with the guise of a friendly reminder, but was probably mainly to give me his virgin media referral link!

I smell a rat .... If "his" really means his. Not theirs.

Did he know you were even thinking about BT? Or did he ask what you were doing about broadband? Are you sure he is actually anything to do with the letting, and not just a scammer? Did he know your name?

Assuming you are not the first tenant, is there an existing VM box outside?

Who did you sign up with? They are the people to ask, direct.

Edited by pluralist (Mon 16-Aug-21 15:55:22)

He had no idea I was thinking of going with BT, he hadn't asked me about it at all until then. It seems like almost everyone in the area uses virgin as the average student doesn't know BT even does FTTP, let alone that they do 9 and 12-month contracts for it.

The guy who called me was the person who showed me around the property originally, so it's not a scam or anything, he probably just fancies the £50 bill credit from me signing up using his/their code.

That said, he was perfectly happy for me to go with BT if it was using the existing copper line, just not to drill for a new fibre line. Shame BT doesn't do G-Fast anymore, that would have been suitable.

Personally from what you have said I would do a quick land registry check and find out who actually owns the property and try to contact them directly and explain. What you got to lose?

Would the landlord notice?
Well if it was me I would notice as there would be a new grey box on the outside wall, and if it's anything like as obvious as on my house it would be seen when approaching the property from the drive, in fact I was pondering whether to spray it black so it blends in. If on the otherhand your landlord doesn't personally inspect the property they might not have the slightest idea, on the last but one change of tenant we had, I took the agent to hand over the poor end of tenancy inspection.

A LR check will cost you £3.00 from https://www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-... set up an account first is likely the easiest. It is an instant service and you download as a PDF.

A couple of ideas, if BT or rather Openreach remove the existing cable and drill out slightly larger for the copper plus the fibre, or if they had some shotgun copper and fibre in the van, it would just be "one" "cable".

Cheers!

In reply to a post by Ancient_Mariner:

A LR check will cost you £3.00 from https://www.gov.uk/search-property-information-land-... set up an account first is likely the easiest. It is an instant service and you download as a PDF.

Would be £3 well spent.

In reply to a post by Ancient_Mariner:

A couple of ideas, if BT or rather Openreach remove the existing cable and drill out slightly larger for the copper plus the fibre, or if they had some shotgun copper and fibre in the van, it would just be "one" "cable".

Makes good sense but as the OP has said that currently they have only been given permission to use the copper Openreach line I personally would be getting permission before getting Openreach fibre installed.

Not much different to the "Grey Box" often used for copper installs

If the landlord complains you could point out that BT are switching off the PSTN and intend to retire then copper network.

I would be suspicious of any landlord encouraging you to use a particular network.

i assume you this is a recent build or might and they might have an exclusive agreement with Vigin media for this development / block whcih virgin will have paid money for paid paid the developer for

but it will be prob dual fed Virgin media for Fibre openreach for Copper

you will not be allowed to do FTTP there because of the fibre run into the building or apartment whcih is why you were told to ensure you ordered virgin media


@michaelchare that wont wash

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

If the landlord complains you could point out that BT are switching off the PSTN and intend to retire then copper network.

I would be suspicious of any landlord encouraging you to use a particular network.

If it was me I would say the line stopped working and I called BT tech support, they sent an engineer who found a fault with the cable and who had to fit a new cable to make it work again. I mean technically it's not incorrect, its a service that will run in the same place and as far as i'm concerned it is a line replacement, there is no way to prove or disprove the copper line is broken if say the patching came undone or something.

In reply to a post by Fastman3:

i assume you this is a recent build or might and they might have an exclusive agreement with Vigin media for this development / block whcih virgin will have paid money for paid paid the developer for

but it will be prob dual fed Virgin media for Fibre openreach for Copper

you will not be allowed to do FTTP there because of the fibre run into the building or apartment whcih is why you were told to ensure you ordered virgin media


@michaelchare that wont wash

Won't Openreach have already had a wayleave signed for them by the management authority for the initial insulation of any product meaning they can fix or upgrade equipment. I'm not fully sure of how wayleaves work but am i correct thinking that, as I know VM's wayleaves state continued access to property while equipotent is still there. I would imagine Openreach would be the same.
I'm not sure, I don't fully know, correct me if i'm wrong of course.

The landlord might not be too bothered him/herself, but if the landlords lease forbids drilling of new holes, then you might be causing him/her a lot of hassle if/when the freeholder notices.

You also need to consider what happens if the landlord or freeholder insist the box is removed, either mid way through or at the end of the term. I doubt BT/openreach will be keen on removing it

It's a big no no, in my books unfortunately - Always get permission and in writing.

As the Landlord and Freeholder to a number of properties, i make it clear in our contracts that you are not to install any new Broadband / Satellite infrastructure without my consent. This is honestly down to just poor experience with the likes of Sky and Virgin Media engineers / contractors in the past when they've damaged the property when drilling into living rooms etc. Indeed, it also extends to situations where my units are not in a Freehold owned by myself and the 3rd Party Property management firm has it's own rules about what you drill into the external building.

However - I insist and believe it is a right to have access to decent quality broadband so where available i will almost always consent to having FTTP installed etc by BT etc, and i have had it installed through Openreach's Network in Advance service in certain areas. I just make sure i have one of my team there to supervise any install and to make sure any 'damage' is made good or touched up.

As you're only in this contract for 9 months, i would hate to hear that you'd lost your deposit if the landlord finds out and has a fit you didn't consult them or at worst, 6 months down the line they inspect / relist the property and kick you out for breach of contract.

Don't ask, don't get but for goodness sake get it in writing!

Edited by Whitehall11 (Mon 16-Aug-21 23:22:46)

I spoke to the landlord earlier and managed to get him to agree to the install, as long as he was there to supervise the drilling, but I did end up having to bribe him with half of the cashback I'm getting. Bit of a shame, but it will still be cheaper for me in the long run and I end up with 900mbps BT for less than the price of Virgin's 500mbps.

One of the things I mentioned to him was that even if I wanted a slower 36 or 62mbps service with BT, it would still have to be done over a new fibre line as they are phasing out their copper service, even on slower products. This renders the copper line useless unless I go with another Openreach-based ISP, although I didn't mention this possibility!

In reply to a post by Harry9s:

... but I did end up having to bribe him with half of the cashback I'm getting.

This isn't your landlord is it - Mr Andrew "Cally Cows" Panayi 😎😂

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/26/land...

Good point about getting it in writing. While this landlord seems trustworthy, you never know. Otherwise, what's stopping him from turning around at the end of the tenancy and taking some of my deposit for damage relating to this?

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

This isn't your landlord is it - Mr Andrew "Cally Cows" Panayi 😎😂

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/dec/26/land...

Fortunately not!!

What can I say? People tend to pay attention when you wave a bit of extra cash under their nose!
Shame, as I don't like to resort to doing things like that, but if it's what has to be done to get it sorted...

Sounds like he got the kicker that he wanted all along. You get your broadband service - above board too.

In reply to a post by Harry9s:

Good point about getting it in writing. While this landlord seems trustworthy, you never know. Otherwise, what's stopping him from turning around at the end of the tenancy and taking some of my deposit for damage relating to this?

Just fire him over an email saying

'Hi, as per our conversation regarding FTTP broadband installation at X Property, can you confirm you're happy for me to proceed?'

In reply to a post by Harry9s:

I spoke to the landlord earlier and managed to get him to agree to the install, as long as he was there to supervise the drilling, but I did end up having to bribe him with half of the cashback I'm getting. Bit of a shame, but it will still be cheaper for me in the long run and I end up with 900mbps BT for less than the price of Virgin's 500mbps.

One of the things I mentioned to him was that even if I wanted a slower 36 or 62mbps service with BT, it would still have to be done over a new fibre line as they are phasing out their copper service, even on slower products. This renders the copper line useless unless I go with another Openreach-based ISP, although I didn't mention this possibility!

They're absolute scum. Next time don't tell them [censored] anything.

https://www.foxwilliams.com/2012/11/05/telecommunica...

The Telecommunications Act 1984 contains the ‘Electronic Communications Code’ (“the Code”) which gives statutory protection and powers to telecoms operators which can override the proprietary rights of a property owner. If a landlord initially refuses to allow a telecoms connection to be made to your premises, the Code powers could be asserted by the relevant operator who is likely to be successful unless the landlord can show exceptional reason why the installation should be refused.

Good luck with getting a service provider to use their code powers for a single broadband connection, if a landlord on private property has expressly not given their consent.

In reply to a post by Pheasant:

Good luck with getting a service provider to use their code powers for a single broadband connection, if a landlord on private property has expressly not given their consent.

The closest I've come was when I lived in a flat above shops, the line didn't work and BT traced it to a fault in the shop, the shop wouldn't allow access and just as I started making a fuss, BT ran a fresh line from the exchange across the road rather than bother dealing with the shop. This was pre-VDSL so I was happy with the new line, although later not happy at having an EO line.

I own my house now, but in OP's situation, I'd have not told the LL, got my FTTP installed, and if they tried to argue about it at the end of the tenancy and deduct from deposit, disputed it on the basis the code allowed me to have telecoms installed.

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

but in OP's situation, I'd have not told the LL, got my FTTP installed, and if they tried to argue about it at the end of the tenancy and deduct from deposit, disputed it on the basis the code allowed me to have telecoms installed.

You would lose that dispute and lose your deposit.

Code powers don't allow YOU to do anything and telecoms companies don't use their code powers for installations on private property, especially where the property owner refused.

That's not what code powers are for.

Hi John83 - I agree with you that in cases such as this the Occupier of the property probably should let BT know that they will need to obtain a wayleave from the superior site provider. That's assuming the Occupier's lease agreement explicitly restricts their rights in signing a wayleave for the property. The Code is clear that it is the Occupier of the land that has the right to sign a wayleave.
I disagree that this scenario is not what the Code is for. With every property in the country requiring at least one new fibre-optic cable in the near future it is exactly what the Code is for and is also why the Government is looking to further strengthen Operators' powers.
For those interested you may want to refer to https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025...

So all he wanted all along was the £50 bill credit for Virgin, I wouldn't of paid him a penny tbh lol

Respectfully you are in la-la land if you think an UK comms provider is going to try and invoke their code powers to forcefully install broadband in private property against the owner / free holders wishes. Even the latest Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act passed earlier this year doesn’t remotely allow for that.

I have yet to see a residential property lease that allows the leaseholder to install comms services without the full written consent / permission of the property owner / lease holder.

Have a read up of wayleaves from Openreach:
https://www.openreach.com/help-and-support/obtaining...

Edited by Pheasant (Tue 17-Aug-21 14:05:39)

Hi Pheasant,
I've never been to la-la Land but I do work for an operator and we do politely write to private landlords explaining our code powers and more often than not with some success. After all full fibre rollout is not going to happen without the cooperation of landlords and every property is going to need a new fibre optic cable at some point. I agree that we would not take a landlord of a single private dwelling to tribunal as this would cost hundreds of thousands of pounds.
You're also right to highlight the TILP Act on which DCMS have just finished consulting about the detailed regulations to accompany the Act. Did you respond? They will allow an Operator to access a private property, with the court's consent (again probably costly to obtain), if a Landlord fails to respond to a wayleave request.
I'm not sure which part of the Openreach guidance you were referring to but I think it is mis-leading in places. You may want to look at para 9 of the legislation which can be found here:https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2017/30/schedule/1/enacted

So let me get this straight, you (as in your company) write to private owners, freeholders and landlord and effectively threaten them, with your code powers?

Who do you work for? Don't be shy.

Having reading (with amusement) some of the comments on here, I think you face a choice of:

1. Asking again
2. Sticking with an existing service
3. Cracking on and getting fibre fitted. You may lose some of your deposit, and you've got the issue of a future "landlord's reference". The chances of you being "kicked out" before the end of your term are hovering around zero. But you may face an uncomfortable few months.

If in doubt always seek professional legal advice from a suitably qualified practitioner.

If was me, I'd keep my three quid in my pocket. His landlord's name will be on the tenancy agreement.

In any event, unless the OP rents a house it's unlikely that for £3 you'd get a straight answer.

And don't forget...

Advice is always helpful but some advice in the wrong hands can cause all sorts of issues and can cost a whole lot more when needing a professional to sort it out.

https://forums.thinkbroadband.com/fibre/t/4691356-re...

Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if it was the case. I've come across countless cases of staff in both public and private bodies quoting statutory powers/exemptions without any understanding of the broader legislative context or surrounding case law. Not to mention the practicalities/cost issues of enforcing the same.

Quoting (in isolation) one sub sub sub section of a piece of legislation containing north of 1,000 sections is one of my favourites

In reply to a post by simonh__:

Advice is always helpful but some advice in the wrong hands can cause all sorts of issues and can cost a whole lot more when needing a professional to sort it out.

Good to know someone reads my posts

In reply to a post by UKFibreGuy:

I disagree that this scenario is not what the Code is for. With every property in the country requiring at least one new fibre-optic cable in the near future it is exactly what the Code is for and is also why the Government is looking to further strengthen Operators' powers.

You disagree that this is not the scenario that code powers are for... but your company wouldn't dream of using them for that?
Ok then...

Code powers aren't there to give operators carte blanche to stick whatever they want on or through anyone's land, especially a final installation in a single dwelling.

Can you give a single example of ANY operator, ever, trying to use code powers for that?

They use wayleaves instead, because

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

That's not what code powers are for.

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

but in OP's situation, I'd have not told the LL, got my FTTP installed, and if they tried to argue about it at the end of the tenancy and deduct from deposit, disputed it on the basis the code allowed me to have telecoms installed.

You would lose that dispute and lose your deposit.

Code powers don't allow YOU to do anything and telecoms companies don't use their code powers for installations on private property, especially where the property owner refused.

That's not what code powers are for.

Would I? I think DPS would be vaguely supportive of my right to have a broadband connection, I also think that deposit deductions have to be representative of an actual cost/loss to the LL, rather than a desire to punish for disobeying, and installation of FTTP if anything increases the value and rentability of the property.

Personally I think it would be a vindictive LL to try, although, that means they will probably try, however I'm not so certain I'd lose my deposit over it.

Really this needs addressing by the government, and should be treated the same as LLs trying to ban tenants from changing utility supplier - e.g. not allowed and clauses in tenancies to try to prevent it being made void.

As it is, my opinion is academic anyway as barring some catastrophe I am unlikely to be a tenant again in the future. If I became a LL, I'd definitely be fully supportive of my tenants installing whatever broadband they wanted.

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

In reply to a post by j0hn83:

In reply to a post by nemeth782:

but in OP's situation, I'd have not told the LL, got my FTTP installed, and if they tried to argue about it at the end of the tenancy and deduct from deposit, disputed it on the basis the code allowed me to have telecoms installed.

You would lose that dispute and lose your deposit.

Code powers don't allow YOU to do anything and telecoms companies don't use their code powers for installations on private property, especially where the property owner refused.

That's not what code powers are for.

Would I? I think DPS would be vaguely supportive of my right to have a broadband connection, I also think that deposit deductions have to be representative of an actual cost/loss to the LL, rather than a desire to punish for disobeying, and installation of FTTP if anything increases the value and rentability of the property.

Personally I think it would be a vindictive LL to try, although, that means they will probably try, however I'm not so certain I'd lose my deposit over it.

Really this needs addressing by the government, and should be treated the same as LLs trying to ban tenants from changing utility supplier - e.g. not allowed and clauses in tenancies to try to prevent it being made void.

As it is, my opinion is academic anyway as barring some catastrophe I am unlikely to be a tenant again in the future. If I became a LL, I'd definitely be fully supportive of my tenants installing whatever broadband they wanted.

If you as a tenant add things / amend the property during your tenancy that was not agreed by the landlord you'll need to be able to foot the bill for any damage caused / or potential service infrastructure removal costs.

If you came into a property of mine and stuck an ugly ONT in the middle of my living room or the work completed by Openreach / a Contractor was not as clean as hoped, i would be expecting you the tenant to foot the bill to have it removed (If you had not discussed with me prior / its not in the framework of our contract).

This cost could be deducted by the landlord via the DPS Scheme, and would be a legitimate claim in order to 'Make Good' what was installed.

Re tenancy agreement. If he is in Wales, https://www.rentsmart.gov.wales/en/home/ will identify the landlord and agent for free. Not sure if there is an English equivalent.

Cheers!

+1

Having just had fibre installed last week, let's just say the OR contractors didn't really pay much attention to detail, the work (even under my supervision) was pretty shoddy and will need some tidying up. I dare say that (some) contractors will be even less conscientious when left unsupervised...

At point they suggested I run an ethernet cable around the chimney breast "to make life easier". I'm not sure who's life they were referring to, but I don't think it was mine! Thankfully my wife wasn't in the room at the time...

In reply to a post by Whitehall11:

Would I? I think DPS would be vaguely supportive of my right to have a broadband connection,

In the case of the OP it appears there is already a high speed capable internet connection available and they want to add a different one, I'm not sure you would get much support in this case.
As OR seem to be reluctant to lay on FTTP to new private housing which has FTTP provided by other operators I'm not sure they would have much interest in a 'bun fight' either.

I count myself lucky that my letting agent as well as my landlady are flexible. The letting agent is of the attitude that it's my home while I'm living here and paying the rent and as long as I don't make a big mess or do something stupid like knocking down walls or something then it's good.

Anyway, they might be able to tell you've had this installed from either looking at where the lines come in or comparing photos of what rooms looked like prior to moving in (assuming someone took photographs). I'm not an expert in this particular area, but like you I would strongly imagine they couldn't take much of your deposit, if any of it, for having another line installed for a different service. As long as the installation is tidy and not an eyesore I don't see the problem myself, but they could be awkward about it and insist things must be put back to the way they were before you moved in. This would mean getting rid of the ONT, the FTTP line into the building, and neatly re-filling in holes as best as possible (if possible). Obviously getting rid of the ONT and FTTP line would become another problem as those aren't meant to be touched by the end user.

Edited by Ixel (Wed 18-Aug-21 21:53:34)

My wife had a rented property before I met her. When she moved out they (a property inspection company) went through finding lots and lots of little details and charging large sums for fixing (most of it was minor cosmetics). She actually had the original survey that was done by the landlord before she moved in with descriptions and photos and the vast majority of items that were pointed out were already there when she moved in.

In the end she managed to argue against everything except some cosmetic damage from hanging pictures (ie a small hole in the wall where the next tenant would quite probably want to hang pictures as well) and charged her for filling the holes and repainting.

I would suspect the landlord would argue that they didn't sanction the incoming FTTP line and therefore would charge for the costs of removing the line and filling the hole (possibly more than one as they normally screw the ONT on the wall to avoid fibre cable moving)/making good/painting. And once out do you later insist on going back in to check the landlord had actually done the work or just left the line in as a benefit for new tenants?

they (a property inspection company) went through finding lots and lots of little details and charging large sums for fixing (most of it was minor cosmetics).

We had a similar experience at our last rental, as did my son, for his squalid bed sit.

It seems just another way for estate agents to retain their top spot in the ‘scumbags I could well do without’ list. Money grabbing scrotes the lot of ‘em

My daughter moved out of a rental a few months back and teh inspector found plenty of issues.

Soon after moving in my daughter found out that the "maintenance man" who was one of her customers at work was also the owners husband. And he was very fair.

The owners looked at my daughters reply to the list of issues and accepted all of them - either becasue they were repairs done by her husband, repairs done by my daughter to a better standard, or structural issues such as damp that caused peeling wall paper.

With approval they put in a "garden room" which the inspector said needed removal - the owners said no, and upped the rental price becasue of it!



Some landlords are good, and some a real pain

In reply to a post by MHC:

Some landlords are good, and some a real pain

Landlords/tenants, bosses/workers, shops/customers, applies to the lot. 😛

Edited by burble (Thu 19-Aug-21 13:14:16)

The landlord in our case was interesting as he would only communicate with the estate agent managing it by snail mail - so everything had to be put in the post and wait days to get any response from him. We never did get to the bottom of whether it was the estate agent recommending what should be charged for or if it was the landlord trying to screw every bit of money out of us. We also had damp issues that they tried to charge for - the damp was from structure and not anything done by my wife and so quite how they could try and charge for it we never did quite work out.

One of the items he tried to charge for was when my wife moved in the toilet roll holder was broken and so she glued it back together. Handed back it had a working toilet roll holder but they tried to charge for a new one because it had been broken despite it being on the report at move in that it was already broken.