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.