BT faces court over broadband "advertising" stickers

Bridgend council has issued nine separate summonses against BT for 'displaying advertisements' without the consent of Bridgend County Borough Council

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Bridgend council has issued nine separate summonses against BT for 'displaying advertisements' without the consent of Bridgend County Borough Council

Gosh. Your revelation has made my life complete.

In reply to a post by Andrue:

In reply to a post by Bob_s2:

Bridgend council has issued nine separate summonses against BT for 'displaying advertisements' without the consent of Bridgend County Borough Council

Gosh. Your revelation has made my life complete.

Not sure but I feel I sense some sarcasm here?

I believe there was something on here the other week about BT no longer putting stickers on fibre cabs.

I certainly haven't seen any in Nelson or Carnforth.

I assume this is connected with BT's decision?

Council are just trying to make a quick buck, get with the times idiots.

Wouldn't kill you to provide a link every so often, this is really not the way to start a discussion thread.

Makes a change from posting a link without comment or even a clue what it is about.

I see what you mean; I think it is tacky putting stickers on nicely painted plain green or brown street cabinets.

http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/bt-face...

Post deleted by flippery

It's makes the council look pathetic and childish TBH, what about the local shops with ad's in their windows, people putting signs in their cars advertising services or selling, is the council going to go round and summon all them....

Looks like commercial victimization, or commercial discrimination, BT are trying to get Britain connected, with council attitudes like that it's going to make it a lot harder for them. (Virgin won't help)

If this type of childish play comes from the likes of Councils we will always be behind the rest of the world for fiber broadband.

Hope BT win!

I guess Bridgend will be moving down BT's priority list.

It could be VM that complained.

I doubt it. I would suspect it is a part of the BDUK rollout

What BT are doing is really no different to flyposting, It would make more sense for BT to do a mailshot to homes covered by the cabinets

Don't blocked ducts affect BDUK then?

Whereas round here the council put stickers on the Virgin boxes advertising the fine if you don't clear up after your dog.

I wonder if they got permission from Virgin to do that?

Or are councils exempt for the normal niceties of courtesy?

If the leaflet was from BT that would be anti competitive, it would have to be an Openreach one, and lead to a list of the main providers available, which the URL and QR code on the cab stickers does.

You really do talk rubbish.

BT owns the street cabinets so how could they be prosecuted for flyposting on their own property.

In reply to a post by MHC:

You really do talk rubbish.

BT owns the street cabinets so how could they be prosecuted for flyposting on their own property.

Wonder if the council advertises its services on any of its properties.....

I wonder if BT has asked its local field based staff to take pictures of council property that are displaying posters ... I can just see the court room with BT's barristers parading hundreds of images showing council adverts.

I really cannot see what BT has done wrong in this case.

Are there not rules governing the size and prominence of the information displayed in such circumstances? At the very least the public would want contact information in case of issues with such street furniture.

I wonder if the bright white stickers formed part of the planning permission for the cabinets. It certainly significantly changes the appearance of the cabinets, and the sticker could be there for many years.

In reply to a post by gomezz:

Are there not rules governing the size and prominence of the information displayed in such circumstances? At the very least the public would want contact information in case of issues with such street furniture.

There are. I had them invoked to get rid of a local campaign objecting to something

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads...

"Class 3(C) permits firms or individuals who are carrying out building,
engineering or construction work to advertise the fact at the site. One firm
or individual may display their own advertisement board, provided it does
not exceed 2 square metres;" for example might be one approach.

I suspect BT have thought of this, especially as many of the BDUK cabs also have the logo of the local planning authority on them

Edited by yarwell (Mon 16-Dec-13 13:56:01)

What about:

Class 5: advertisements on business premises
Class 5 gives consent for a wide variety of notices, signs and advertisements
to draw attention to any commercial services, goods for sale, or any other
services available at the premises where the advertisement is being displayed.

BT Cabinets are defined as Business Premises - they attract Business Rates.

I live in a no-advertising allowed AONB.
I'm guessing BT's boxes are painted dark green to blend in which advertising rather goes against...!

In conservation areas there is a toned down colour stick version, and in AONB there will be different rules applied.

Not ran this in the news as waiting to see whether goes to court, or if just another 'hate all BT things' issue

The stickers going on once a cabinet is live for a 6 month or a year is a great way of letting people know the new option is available to them. Presume the council involved will be doing PR photo stuff as BDUK cabinets get enabled either.

Meanwhile in Sutton 12 months ago ... http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/archive/2012/12/19/1...

and .. http://lauriebidwell.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/unwelcom...

Edited by yarwell (Mon 16-Dec-13 17:54:12)

When questioned about one of the ads, BT stated it has the �necessary rights� to put up signs on its own cabinets.

In a letter to Councillor Macpherson, the firm said: �Based upon independent legal counsel, BT believes that the advertisement has deemed consent under both Class 2B and 5 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) (England) Regulations 2007.�

http://www.eveningtelegraph.co.uk/news/local/complai... (in Scotland, LOL)

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

I wonder if the bright white stickers formed part of the planning permission for the cabinets. It certainly significantly changes the appearance of the cabinets, and the sticker could be there for many years.

Did all of these require planning permission?

In reply to a post by Ignitionnet:

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

I wonder if the bright white stickers formed part of the planning permission for the cabinets. It certainly significantly changes the appearance of the cabinets, and the sticker could be there for many years.

Did all of these require planning permission?

Probably not, assuming they are part of the public telecoms infrastructure and not fly posted with advertising.

In reply to a post by yarwell:

Meanwhile in Sutton 12 months ago ... http://www.suttonguardian.co.uk/archive/2012/12/19/1...

and .. http://lauriebidwell.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/unwelcom...

With the Sutton one, the LA were opening themselves up to being prosecuted for flyposting. BT has,many times, taken action against illegal adverts in phone boxes and on their equipment.


The BT lawyers know the situation and having had many dealing with BT legal over the years I feel that if the notices were illegal they would have instructed Openreach to stop attaching them and to remove those already in place.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

I wonder if the bright white stickers formed part of the planning permission for the cabinets.

One in Stamford, Lincs was supposed to be a different colour (sandy) on account of being in front of a limestone wall and in a very visible location.

It isn't.

In reply to a post by MHC:

The BT lawyers know the situation and having had many dealing with BT legal over the years I feel that if the notices were illegal they would have instructed Openreach to stop attaching them and to remove those already in place.

Indeed, large companies are so risk averse and retentive that extensive internal discussions seem inevitable. Doesn't exclude an error of course, but the co-branded BDUK ones with councils would have been an obvious discussion point if it were a problem.

It does not matter whether they own it or not, I suspect you are not familiar with the law with regard to flyposting

More rubbish from you ... Flyposting is Unauthorised placing. BT has authority to post on the cabinets because firstly they own the cabinets and secondly they can provide information on their services on their own business premises.

Next you will be claiming that extension wiring does not have a detrimental effect on ADSL or VDSL connections.

Next you will be claiming that extension wiring does not have a detrimental effect on ADSL or VDSL connections.

It matters not as to whether BT own it or not. They have to have authorisation from the local council

RUBBISH.

Do shops have to get permnission for a poster in the window? Do pubs have to get permission to put a notice up saying what they are serving? NO.


Do you have to get permission to put up a poster in your window saying "Vote for me, you local monster raving loony"? NO.

Do BT need permission to put a sign on a Telephone Kiosk saying - "you can call from here"? NO

Estate agents erecting 'For Sale' boards outside properties they don't even own !
As you say tish, piffle and balderdash.

So McDonalds could pay Openreach a ton of cash to put McDonalds adverts on every cabinet in the UK?

I am not convinced with it been BT's property it means they excldued from all advertising rules, if it were that simple big companies would be buying billboards all over the place to escape regulation.

In reply to a post by Chrysalis:

I am not convinced with it been BT's property it means they excldued from all advertising rules, if it were that simple big companies would be buying billboards all over the place to escape regulation.

Planning permission would be needed for billboards and that will be given/refused based on usage.

I'm sure they'd love it.

There's a couple of Ford badges on my van, should I ask that they remove them ?

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

There's a couple of Ford badges on my van, should I ask that they remove them ?

So you think that a PCP is analogous to a van. Ok.

Moving vehicles are excluded from direct planning controls - https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads...

Exemptions also exist under "Classes of advertisement benefiting from deemed consent" which BT are relying on, see above link.

It's all down to interpretation, someone costing a few hundred an hour will argue both sides of this.

You used to have to pay to be allowed to have your own business adverts and information on your own vehicles. I don't know if that is still the case.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

Estate agents erecting 'For Sale' boards outside properties they don't even own !
As you say tish, piffle and balderdash.

The owner owns the house he gives permission same with shops, your examples are rubbish no offence. The cabinets are on public/council property.

P.S I have no idea if this is breaking the law or not, the only thing I object to is when Openreach put the posters up even before the service is live.

But the cabinets the posters are on are Openreach property ?

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

But the cabinets the posters are on are Openreach property ?

Just because Openreach own the cabinets, it doesn't mean they can do what they like with them.

Openreach have the right to deploy cabinets where ever they like basically (apart from nature reserves, etc), no where in the legislation does it include advertisement. It's sole purpose is for the hardware and all the requirements for the service to run.

Edited by deleted (Wed 18-Dec-13 19:20:48)

And BT has a right to post information on it's own premises/property - so what are they doing wrong? Nothing.

BT have the legal rights to deploy cabinets on council property, not to advertise on it. If BT owned the part where the cabinet was deployed I would agree but they simply don't. If the council don't want them to advertise on it, then they will have to face the consequences if they do.

Just because Openreach own the cabinets, it doesn't mean they can do what they like with them.

Think about what you just posted, I mean, come on, think about it.

In reply to a post by Zarjaz:

Just because Openreach own the cabinets, it doesn't mean they can do what they like with them.

Think about what you just posted, I mean, come on, think about it.

I have. And if you want to know why Openreach cannot do what they like with the cabinets they own, you need to research the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 and the The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, plus various amendments.

And I suggest you read the: Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007. It permits a company to "advertise" services that are available at the particular premises. That is what BT are doing - informing people of the service they can receive through the electronics housed within the specific BT premises that the notice is affixed to.

Specifically "Fibre broadband is here".

Reasonably accurate wrt what it is stuck to.

In reply to a post by MHC:

And I suggest you read the: Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 2007. It permits a company to "advertise" services that are available at the particular premises. That is what BT are doing - informing people of the service they can receive through the electronics housed within the specific BT premises that the notice is affixed to.

Bridgend County Borough Council beg to differ that Openreach are permitted to advertise on their cabinets, so this "debate" will end with the Court's decision and not this forum thread.

In reply to a post by Bartman1967:

what about the local shops with ad's in their windows

Shops with ads in their windows is the reason BT Retail are able to place adverts in the windows of phone kiosks after a legal challenge. It's also the reason new phone kiosks in London are being stood and getting bigger to accommodate bigger ads.

There is undoubtedly planning issues around bill posters on street furniture. M'learned friends will come to a decision on this.

The amusing thing is that the BT haters that are all over this, yet the Openreach adverts link to a site that promotes all players.

If Openreach have to remove the adverts that link to their superfast site, it won't be BT Retail, TalkTalk and Sky that suffer through lack of advertising. They will have no problem advertising and mailshotting people in live areas.

It will be the small players that are already losing market share at an alarming rate that suffer.

As a BT and Sky Shareholder, I hope the ads come down and BT Retail and Sky continue to hoover up the punters and squeeze out the smallcos.

Edited by deleted (Wed 18-Dec-13 20:56:05)

In reply to a post by partial:

The amusing thing is that the BT haters that are all over this, yet the Openreach adverts link to a site that promotes all players

Except the most likely corporate complainer. Who would have needed planning permission for their cabinets and so be open to restrictions and covenants.

I don't see any evidence of corporate complaints about this, it's a busybody council with the real complaints and a few swivel eyed BT haters on an internet forum.

If the council want to spend local taxpayers money supporting the dominant players by removing these adverts that link to the smallcos, I'm all for it. As long as it's not my council tax.

BT, Sky and TalkTalk will have no problem direct marketing these postcodes and putting ads on TV or indeed phone kiosks.

In reply to a post by partial:

The amusing thing is that the BT haters that are all over this, yet the Openreach adverts link to a site that promotes all players.

If by "all players" you mean "all players" who pay to use Openreach's infrastructure, then yeah.

Openreach flyposting on street furniture links to http://www.superfast-openreach.co.uk/ which has 'buy now' from any number of players. Openreach is promoting all players equally.

It is probably the most effective advertising the smallcos have.

Unless you have found a list of complaints to the council, which I just tried and failed to do, that is pure bluster and includes unnecessary derogatory language.

Oliver has just also pointed out what I posted about, and you chose to ignore.

Amusingly, what I just found was the link at the bottom of the article on this page .

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

Unless you have found a list of complaints to the council, which I just tried and failed to do, that is pure bluster

Er. 'Thanks' for your pure bluster then.

Yep.

In any case I don't think the Council objects to the content of the advertisments, it objects to the advertisments being there at all.

As I said previously I somehow doubt that the regulations would permit Openreach to place McDonalds adverts on their cabinets, and classifying a PCP as "business premises" is a stretch in my opinion.

Edited by Oliver341 (Wed 18-Dec-13 21:26:53)

I take it you didn't follow the link I gave you. You need to object to the council about the advertising link they have there.

And "Er". That's pure loser-talk.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

Yep.

In any case I don't think the Council objects to the content of the advertisments, it objects to the advertisments being there at all.

Yes. I agree with this. I don't see any evidence of anyone else but the council objecting.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

As I said previously I somehow doubt that the regulations would permit Openreach to place McDonalds adverts on their cabinets, and classifying a PCP as "business premises" is a stretch in my opinion.

Of course, telcos do pay some kind of Business Rates on plant so they could well be seen as business premises.

BT Group Legal managed to get McDonalds adverts on phone kiosks when faced with council objections previously. After all, phone kiosks are street furniture too. Although it was the kiosk windows that were key to the decision.

The result is new kiosks in London getting planted that are much bigger, not because of any telephony reasons and not because anyone wants to use a payphone these days.

So if the council lose this case and a precedent is set, it wouldn't surprise me if 'turn right for McDonalds 1mile' adverts did appear on cabinets in the future.

Edited by deleted (Wed 18-Dec-13 21:53:10)

In reply to a post by RobertoS:

And "Er". That's pure loser-talk.

Er. 'Thanks' for the derogatory language too.

In reply to a post by partial:

BT Group Legal managed to get McDonalds adverts on phone kiosks when faced with council objections previously. After all, phone kiosks are street furniture too.

True, but since a lot of phone kiosks have been removed the remaining ones tend to be around shops anyway, and not in residential areas, so the advertising impact of phone kiosks would be less than a PCP in a residential street with no commercial units present.

HeHe .

Still no comment about what's on the page I linked to? Highly relevant.

In reply to a post by Oliver341:

True, but since a lot of phone kiosks have been removed the remaining ones tend to be around shops anyway, and not in residential areas

There must be a reason why residential kiosks are removed and ones around town centres and busy roads are still there and being replaced by bigger ones yet nobody is using the payphone....

In reply to a post by partial:

There must be a reason why residential kiosks are removed and ones around town centres and busy roads are still there and being replaced by bigger ones yet nobody is using the payphone....

You might be on to something. In my town I suspect BT gain more money from the huge Unilever adverts which occupy the whole of one side of each kiosk, than they do in call revenue.

In reply to a post by partial:

So if the council lose this case and a precedent is set, it wouldn't surprise me if 'turn right for McDonalds 1mile' adverts did appear on cabinets in the future.

No precedent can be set (in the formal legal sense of that word) in a magistrates' court, as no magistrates' court decision can bind another court. A magistrates' court decision is unlikely to qualify as persuasive authority, as magistrates are not legally qualified - which is why they sit with the assistance of a legally qualified clerk, who can advise them on the law. Another magistrates' court could easily reach a different decision on the same facts.

There's so much hypothesising in this thread. We don't appear to know exactly what offence or offences BT are being charged with, nor what defence argument(s) BT are making. Especially in absence of clear information on the charge(s), it's hard to have any sort of informed discussion.

In reply to a post by David_W:

There's so much hypothesising in this thread. We don't appear to know exactly what offence or offences BT are being charged with, nor what defence argument(s) BT are making. Especially in absence of clear information on the charge(s), it's hard to have any sort of informed discussion.

In the article it says "The case is due to be heard at Bridgend Magistrates court on Monday, when BT is expected to plead not guilty.".

"Monday" refers to 16 Dec, but unfortunately there seems to be no follow up story.

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/687476/elizabeth_woolle...

BT lost

In reply to a post by Ribble:

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/687476/elizabeth_woolle...

BT lost

Good find, thanks.

For anyone who doesn't wish to click, the decision states:

� The Judge found in favour of the LPA and fined BT £500 with £800 in costs and £15 victim surcharge.
� BT has decided not to appeal the decision.
� The LPA is considering its position in respect of the remaining advertisements in the Borough.

Edited by Oliver341 (Wed 18-Dec-13 22:57:07)

Strangely it say " Legal proceedings instigated and matter heard at Bridgend Magistrates Court in April, 2013"
Was this an earlier case, have the LPA taken further action?

In reply to a post by Ribble:

Strangely it say " Legal proceedings instigated and matter heard at Bridgend Magistrates Court in April, 2013"
Was this an earlier case, have the LPA taken further action?

Looks that way, yeah. The pdf talks of advertisement in the singular, the latest action is on nine advertisements.

Edited by Oliver341 (Wed 18-Dec-13 23:20:50)

In reply to a post by Ribble:

http://www.rtpi.org.uk/media/687476/elizabeth_woolle...

BT lost

BT lost in April. I guess this is the follow-up case Bridgend threatened if BT didn't remove the other stickers in the borough.

The April case was heard by a District Judge, who is legally qualified (what used to be called a stipendiary magistrate), but that verdict was only one DJ's view of the matter. Ultimately, it would need a higher court to make any sort of binding ruling on the matter. I can't see BT wanting to appeal the decision, as the fine is much smaller than their costs in appealing. Moreover, if they appeal, they risk establishing a precedent against the stickers valid across England and Wales.

It seems most councils aren't bothered by the stickers, which is another reason not to establish a formal precedent against displaying them without explicit advertising consent.


I personally don't accept Bridgend's rebuttals in that PDF. I'd argue that the FTTC cabinets provide services to members of the public, seemingly bringing them within the definition of business premises, whilst the cabinet is not itself plant or machinery. However, to get a full view, it would be necessary to search for case law on those points, and it would be helpful to know why the DJ rejected BT's arguments.

So they have to remove one ...

And as it is no longer considered business premises but "Plant and Machinery" should be able to refuse to pay business rates on it. Business rates are applicable to premises and not Plant or Machinery. That could cost them dear.

BT may not appeal this one, but if the LA decides to pursue more I can see it going to the high court.

In reply to a post by MHC:

And as it is no longer considered business premises but "Plant and Machinery" should be able to refuse to pay business rates on it. Business rates are applicable to premises and not Plant or Machinery. That could cost them dear.

If the law currently considers "business premises" to apply equally to Tesco as it does to a a PCP then perhaps re-classification is required.

lol

Actually, this potentially seriously compromises the local authority's ability to claim business rates from anyone with street furniture... I mean plant and machinery, VM, Vodafone, EE, etc...

In reply to a post by TheManStan:

Actually, this potentially seriously compromises the local authority's ability to claim business rates from anyone with street furniture... I mean plant and machinery, VM, Vodafone, EE, etc...

It's not clear from the ruling what rates are being paid for the street furniture. It says BT "considered the Box to constitute a business premise", but BT have not made the argument that they pay business rates for the unit which therefore qualifies it as a "business premise", which presumably they would have if they do.

Edited by Oliver341 (Thu 19-Dec-13 12:19:02)

Exactly the point I made earlier. A few years back BT did a review of all cabinets, poles and phone boxes and compared it to what te LAs were charging business rates on. There was a large saving made once it was all reconciled. It was widely reported in the technical press at teh time.

In reply to a post by TheManStan:

Actually, this potentially seriously compromises the local authority's ability to claim business rates from anyone with street furniture... I mean plant and machinery, VM, Vodafone, EE, etc...

All players pay rates on their plant.

No BT cabinets are classed as street furniture . There is current legislation to prevent fly posting. It matters not who owns the street furniture.

Typically Street furniture can be BT Cabinets, Post Boxes, Lamp posts. Road signs, Public notice boards , seats etc

In reply to a post by yarwell:

I suspect BT have thought of this, especially as many of the BDUK cabs also have the logo of the local planning authority on them

I'd have thought that was a necessary courtesy - after all, Openreach cannot claim to be offering something with the impression it was upgraded at cost only to Openreach. It looks likely to avoid a similar problem with the councils, though, as they would be unlikely to provide "evidence" which clearly had their name in the advert.

The ones near me only mention Openreach. I had not taken notice of the URL. I can see that they could be classed as a distraction, given their locations by main roads here, and someone passing in a vehicle would be very unlikely to even know there is a URL (ones I have seen are similar to that in the Wales Online link posted by E7er). The one you've inked to is designed to better blend in (the 'Fibre broadband is here' background being similar to the colour of the cab).

I'm surprised that BT (or their legal representatives) didn't offer up a defence of being exempt:

Class 3 - Miscellaneous temporary advertisements

(unless the Town and Country planning regulations are explicit in how "temporary" [eg 1 to 2 weeks], and BT Openreach was planning on leaving the stickers there until they disintegrate)

In reply to a post by ultra:

(unless the Town and Country planning regulations are explicit in how "temporary" [eg 1 to 2 weeks], and BT Openreach was planning on leaving the stickers there until they disintegrate)

I have no impression that the sticker on the cab near me is temporary, it's been there for about 6 months. Like you suggest, Openreach will probably leave it there for as long as they can get away with, i.e. until it disintegrates.

I can see that they could be classed as a distraction, given their locations by main roads here,

I manage to drive past many posters situated by roads every day without significant loss of control of my vehicle ??

You shouldn't be asleep at the wheel.

Not I Sir, unlike the silly bint who rear ended my car on Saturday night, and not a DSLAM or poster in sight to distract her !

Ooo !

Sorry about the inappropriate joke.

How bad is the damage?

My cars rear end, still drivable. No biggie, just hassle.

Did you suggest that you might get the police involved ... she may well have opted for a "private" cost plus settlement to keep them out.

She admitted blame on the spot, and has told her insurers the same, so my lot are happy and all will be paid for by hers.