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)