In reply to a post by Fastman3:

michael chare

Maybe Ofcom should stop Openreach from being so greedy. If people want to join an existing scheme they could be charged and the money passed back to the original people (or properties) who paid.

greedy what are you on about ,

By not charging more to customers who benefit from an original scheme and passing the money back to those who did pay towards it, Openreach are likely to be able to attract more (indirect) customers hence my argument about greed. Of course it is nice for the new customers but it is not so nice for the original contributors and the current situation may dissuade some from joining such schemes.

In reply to a post by Benxfo:

In reply to a post by PianSomB:

No, this is not true. If all capacity is used by CFP clients then a new client would have to pay to get fibre

Hi PianSomB, I have a few questions...

First of all, what is a CFP client?

How does OpenReach know who is a "CFP client"?
How does the ordering system prioritise CFP clients?
What is there to stop a non CFP client taking a CBT port before a CFP client?
What exists that means a resident who is not a CFP client is more likely to have to pay for capacity upgrades than a resident who is a CFP client?

As someone who deals with CFP schemes regularly it's not an expression I have come across before.
All the CFP schemes I have been involved in have seen all properties be able to order at or around the same time.

Hello Benxfo

"CFP client" is an English phrase I made up for "those residential and/or business premises for whom Openreach has contracted to provide a fibre broadband service under a Community Fibre Partnership contract". Feel free to use this going forward if you wish to

Openreach knows who they are, as they are specified in the contract.

I do not know how or if they are prioritised in OR's ordering system. That is OR's problem. If someone nabbed a slot that they had built with a CFP client in mind they'd have to do an upgrade, I guess. Though they may just prevent this by not allowing orders by non-CFP clients until the CFP is closed (under the voucher system we used CFP clients had 12 months to place an order with an ISP).

Interestingly, one of my neighbours had to wait a couple of months longer than the rest of us in our build, as OR had mis-specified the CBT and had to install a replacement (or additional) one. So, demonstrably, capacity issues do arise in the real world.

By being a CFP client a resident or business is getting the right to fibre provision. A resident or business who is not a CFP client does not have such a right, so there is a possibility that they may have to pay for a capacity upgrade to get the service. (Another of my neighbours was in this position, and was looking at setting up another CFP, as an alternative to FTTPoD. I don't know what they decided in the end.)

Private land so Ofcom unlikely to care, unless this is affected millions of homes and pace of change would be a year of consultation on it at least.

First step would be go back to posters solicitors and double check nothing was mentioned about telephone/broadband contributions or whether has been rolled into a generic utilities clause e.g. residents pay a share for utility work. If a clause like that exists then solicitor can advise on whether past work carries over to you or not in terms of cost burden.

If association continues to be keen then best course might to be say talk to my solicitor who would outline why (if that is the case) you are under no legal obligation to pay.

If solicitor missed this potential cost when doing the original search/purchase then you are very likely liable to pay, and recourse with solicitor over having missed something becomes the issue. There can be lots of odd things written into paperwork for private roads/areas.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

By not charging more to customers who benefit from an original scheme and passing the money back to those who did pay towards it, Openreach are likely to be able to attract more (indirect) customers hence my argument about greed. Of course it is nice for the new customers but it is not so nice for the original contributors and the current situation may dissuade some from joining such schemes.

I cannot imagine the administrative overhead of keeping track of FTTP deployments and the dates and original funding contributed to the scheme, and then Openreach paying back to a CIC/Ltd company requiring the company to remain active and submit accounts for x years following the original deployment. You'd need a system of Openreach reporting to CPs the amount of additional cost for each potential customer, and then everybody in the chain of processing that payment will incur costs to do so.

As has been mentioned, the idea of CFP is that the community as a whole funds a deployment. If there are people within that community that are cynical enough to show no interest in contributing only to later take advantage of the deployment then that's for the community to deal with.

By being a CFP client a resident or business is getting the right to fibre provision.

nop this is incorrect - it gives them the ability to gain a service - they choose whether to or not but would have to assume they need the voucher

if you did not fund and you are on a DP that is enabled you have exactly the same rigfht as someone who did not fund to purchase a serivice (any thing else is incorrect)

Openreach would have provided the Gap based on premises either covered in the contract or on the Same DPs as the premises covered in the contract

the CFp client is unhelpul and incorrect and signicanlty misleading

By all means the OP should double check with his conveyancing solicitor to make sure that nothing has been missed. If there has been a miss, that another ballgame. We have to so far take him at his word that there is no charge, covenant etc that he’s aware of. Advice or checks such as this should be covered under his existing legal fees for the property purchase. The OP shouldn’t have to pay more for this.

Beyond that, personally, I wouldn’t be spending money on additional external legal advice. Unless of course someone provides substantive / written demand for monies showing who is owed money and why and the OP then want to dispute it and get legal advice.

On your point about Ofcom and “private land”, I don’t think that’s necessarily accurate or relevant. After all we’re all on private land...either owned by ourselves, a landlord, the crown or a public authority. That doesn’t change matters, which pertain to parties that neither own nor operate the assets or infrastructure claiming for what are effectively telecommunications infrastructure charges - for access to what is publicly accessible infrastructure....that comes under the remit of Ofcom. Whether Ofcom want to investigate is up to them, but they are the telecoms regulator.

Personally if the BT broadband checker shows order-able FTTP at the promises, then in the OP’s position I would just get on and order it.

If additional charges are due (to the CP and/or Openreach) then his CP would be informing him as part of the order. If any wayleaves or property consents are required that would be flagged up at that point too.

In reply to a post by jpm:

As has been mentioned, the idea of CFP is that the community as a whole funds a deployment. If there are people within that community that are cynical enough to show no interest in contributing only to later take advantage of the deployment then that's for the community to deal with.

And how would the community do that? Openreach could just not connect new customers until they have agreement from the community which paid. Such an approach would incur some administrative cost but perhaps would be stopped 5-10 years after service first provided.

In reply to a post by PianSomB:

Openreach knows who they are, as they are specified in the contract.

No they don't. They don't ask who contributes to the scheme. They only have a contract with the organiser.

I do not know how or if they are prioritised in OR's ordering system.

They aren't. As above they don't even know who contributed, so they can't keep a port for them.

Though they may just prevent this by not allowing orders by non-CFP clients until the CFP is closed (under the voucher system we used CFP clients had 12 months to place an order with an ISP).

They don't do this either. All properties that are part of the CFP usually go live at the same time.
OpenReach can't enable those who contributed before those who didn't because they do not know who contributed.

Interestingly, one of my neighbours had to wait a couple of months longer than the rest of us in our build, as OR had mis-specified the CBT and had to install a replacement (or additional) one. So, demonstrably, capacity issues do arise in the real world.

Of course they do. They occur on all deployments.

By being a CFP client a resident or business is getting the right to fibre provision.

Not true. Everyone covered by the CFP gets equal access to the network.

A resident or business who is not a CFP client does not have such a right, so there is a possibility that they may have to pay for a capacity upgrade to get the service. (Another of my neighbours was in this position, and was looking at setting up another CFP, as an alternative to FTTPoD. I don't know what they decided in the end.)

You cannot order FTTPoD for a property that is already WBC FTTP enabled.

What you're suggesting is just plain untrue. There's no preference given to anyone who contributes to a CFP.
There's no such thing as a CFP client.
OpenReach don't ask who contributes.

OpenReach install enough ports and capacity for all properties enabled under the CFP.
If they didn't you would get situations where people who contributed potentially £1,000's towards the scheme can't get a connection because someone who didn't contribute ordered before them.

There is no such thing as a CFP client.

You're not just misinformed, you're actually making examples up.

Edited by j0hn83 (Sat 30-Jan-21 15:53:26)

There is one possibility.

Perhaps the RA had a decent bank balance and at meeting (SGM, EGM) with all residents agreed to put up the funds needed on the basis that anyone taking up service would pay a specified amount. And if something like that happened, there would be formal minutes. But then could they be applied to new residents? Possibly.

In reply to a post by Michael_Chare:

And how would the community do that? Openreach could just not connect new customers until they have agreement from the community which paid. Such an approach would incur some administrative cost but perhaps would be stopped 5-10 years after service first provided.

Your suggestion would result in a small clique of like-minded neighbours in a community scheme holding veto powers over residents being connected to infrastructure that had *already been paid for* for up to a decade after it is completed.

There is nothing wrong with the current scheme - if members of a CFP scheme do not like the idea of properties being enabled that aren't contributing then they don't have to sign the contract with Openreach.

Edited by jpm (Sat 30-Jan-21 16:09:16)