|
|
|
Gigaclear dug up our semi-rural lane last year. Almost all houses had pots installed and the service is available to order for those houses. Except... our cottage is one of about twenty or so at the far end of the lane that they stopped short of when digging their main trench. They did not install pots at our houses and, instead, dug various links between existing Openreach chambers, so various bits of road between these twenty houses were dug up, but not as part of the contiguous trench. We were led to believe they would be utilising Openreach infra (ducts and poles via PIA, presumably) to provide service to us.
Now, many months later and after lots of chasing, they have replied to me to say that "Unfortunately we are unable to carry on with the works as a third party landowner is preventing us from continuing the build phase."
They're citing GDPR (of course) as the reason they can't tell me who this mystery landowner is. It's somewhat perplexing as the only land I can imagine they need access to is the road itself, which is a normal country lane. There is National Trust common land around here and it's possible they own some of the road, so perhaps they're the landlord in question but who knows.
Has anybody else experienced this before? It seems odd that Gigaclear would go to all the expense of digging trenches between various bits of Openreach infrastructure and then abandon it all!
|
|
|
|
I think that citing GDPR as a reason not to tell you who this mystery Landowner is is simultaneously a cop out and a not unreasonable application of GDPR. which is paradoxical.
You are asking the wrong question. You should be asking where is Gigaclear's nearest point of access and what land can they not cross. If the land is registered, the owner is in the public domain anyway. I would be looking at squeezing that information out of them. After all, they must have found an owner to knock them back. And if they can find an owner, so can you.
|
|
|
IYou should be asking where is Gigaclear's nearest point of access and what land can they not cross.
Good point. I've now asked.
Given where they stopped digging the main trench I suspect it could be a small parcel owned by the National Trust. If so, there are at least two other routes I can think of that could work (with some cooperation from two or three neighbours, which I think I could secure), but let's see.
Does anybody have experience of fibre build-outs reaching this point and then becoming seemingly blocked? Am I beating a dead horse in trying to get it resolved? Or are there other examples of Gigaclear (or their equivalents) being persuaded to take another look? If so, what has tipped the balance? eg is this the kind of thing a local councillor can be helpful with?
|
|
Register (or login) on our website and you will not see this ad.
|
|
|
Given where they stopped digging the main trench I suspect it could be a small parcel owned by the National Trust. If so, there are at least two other routes I can think of that could work (with some cooperation from two or three neighbours, which I think I could secure), but let's see.
Does anybody have experience of fibre build-outs reaching this point and then becoming seemingly blocked? Am I beating a dead horse in trying to get it resolved? Or are there other examples of Gigaclear (or their equivalents) being persuaded to take another look? If so, what has tipped the balance? eg is this the kind of thing a local councillor can be helpful with?
You are probably getting ahead of yourself thinking of councillors - at this point just try and get the information on what the problem is. Depending on the councillor, getting them involved when the solution might be crossing neighbours land could cause more problems eg neighbour does not like councillor's politics. If the problem is that Gigaclear are still hiding behind data protection, the councillor may come in handy to get the information, but you need to have your ducks in a line for how you are going to follow through to a solution.
|
|
|
You are probably getting ahead of yourself thinking of councillors - at this point just try and get the information on what the problem is. Depending on the councillor, getting them involved when the solution might be crossing neighbours land could cause more problems eg neighbour does not like councillor's politics. If the problem is that Gigaclear are still hiding behind data protection, the councillor may come in handy to get the information, but you need to have your ducks in a line for how you are going to follow through to a solution.
Also you may have councillors or MP not of the proactive kind which won't help. We don't know what the geographical area is like and there for input is limited.
If the national trust land can be avoided do so. Also its maybe worth contacting them to see what they say, but you then have Natural England to deal with too ..
|
|
|
Any member of the public can also make an enquiry to the Land Registry to find out who owns a piece of land. It looks to be a bit slow. (Note that the early google responses are aimed at businesses, presumably due to frequency of being clicked. General public info a few results down).
It looks like there could be a fee.
Capitalism is an obsession with money. Socialism is an obsession with other people's money. Konstantin Kisin
Connections: Pixel 6a on Three 4+ (LTE)/5G, OnePlus 8 Pro on EE in reserve. At home Three Mobile, with (Three)ZTE MC888 router giving 5G most of the time..
|
|
|
It looks like there could be a fee.
a very small fee
|
|
|
Any member of the public can also make an enquiry to the Land Registry to find out who owns a piece of land. It looks to be a bit slow. (Note that the early google responses are aimed at businesses, presumably due to frequency of being clicked. General public info a few results down).
It looks like there could be a fee.
The link I would use https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/land-reg... - the fee is
The main thing to beware of is not so much the links aimed at businesses - eg solicitors surveyors and estate agents - more the commercial sites which access the same information as you get from the gov.uk site and charge a premium on top of the regular price.
|
|
|
Any member of the public can also make an enquiry to the Land Registry to find out who owns a piece of land.
Thanks - yep... looks like I asked the wrong question up front (and triggered the GDPR excuse unnecessarily). If I knew *which* piece of land was the issue then, as you say, I could very easily find out who owns it. What I don't yet know is which piece of land it is.
|
|
|
Quoting you: "Given where they stopped digging the main trench I suspect it could be a small parcel owned by the National Trust"  .
Capitalism is an obsession with money. Socialism is an obsession with other people's money. Konstantin Kisin
Connections: Pixel 6a on Three 4+ (LTE)/5G, OnePlus 8 Pro on EE in reserve. At home Three Mobile, with (Three)ZTE MC888 router giving 5G most of the time..
|
|
|
Quoting you:"Given where they stopped digging the main trench I suspect it could be a small parcel owned by the National Trust" .
Putting this info in to the equation, I would think an underground route would be far less of a problem to National Trust than a pole route - unless it was to go through an archaeological site.
|
|
|
Things like a small pond with newts in it are enough to stop any disturbance such as trenching.
Capitalism is an obsession with money. Socialism is an obsession with other people's money. Konstantin Kisin
Connections: Pixel 6a on Three 4+ (LTE)/5G, OnePlus 8 Pro on EE in reserve. At home Three Mobile, with (Three)ZTE MC888 router giving 5G most of the time..
|
|
|
|
Any pond with newts in it is unlikely to be in the path of a road. Or maybe I misread the OP.
|
|
|
I was just giving a single well-known natural presence that stops any planning permission. There are myriad regulations way outside my knowledge. Remember, this is "semi-rural", and an extreme case amongst my friends is a main road through farmland with a fairly modern smallish house about every half mile.
I'm not suggesting this is the case with the OP, but the devil's in the detail. A problem passing one can prevent those beyond it getting service.
A case I vaguely remember on these forums was something like that although a BT pole was on private land and BT had a wayleave agreement with the owner the company wanting to use that pole did not. Only BT staff or sub-contractors could access the pole.
Capitalism is an obsession with money. Socialism is an obsession with other people's money. Konstantin Kisin
Connections: Pixel 6a on Three 4+ (LTE)/5G, OnePlus 8 Pro on EE in reserve. At home Three Mobile, with (Three)ZTE MC888 router giving 5G most of the time..
Edited by pluralist (Thu 09-May-24 20:28:16)
|
|
|
|
They need permission to use Openreach infrastructure where it crosses private land, too. The wayleave Openreach have is not extended to other operators.
|
|
|
Putting this info in to the equation, I would think an underground route would be far less of a problem to National Trust than a pole route - unless it was to go through an archaeological site.
This is already the case: there are poles all along the lane, except for the area close to where the Gigaclear digging stopped. The existing Openreach infrastructure then goes underground. It re-emerges amongst the 'twenty houses' (ie those that have been told they're not going to get Gigaclear service), at which point the poles resume, as does the Gigaclear work (albeit sans pots)
A case I vaguely remember on these forums was something like that although a BT pole was on private land and BT had a wayleave agreement with the owner the company wanting to use that pole did not. Only BT staff or sub-contractors could access the pole.
That's super-interesting. There's clearly some reason why Gigaclear stopped digging where they did (and why I'd been told their plan was to use Openreach PIA beyond that). I guess it's plausible that they knew all along that they would not get permission to dig up that part of the road and had been assuming they could use PIA... only to discover a technicality such as this.
And now I think about it, the very next pole beyond the underground Openreach infrastructure sits on a private plot, currently owned by a guy who is speculating on eventually getting planning permission to build a house. If he had the ability to frustrate the FTTP roll-out it's plausible he'd use this as leverage with his immediate neighbours to persuade them to support his attempts to get such permission. But I'd have heard about it if so.
Anyway, it's fun to speculate... but ultimately just annoying that we could have come so close to getting FTTP only to potentially fall at the last hurdle!
|
|
|
Have you seen the potholes in our national road infrastructure lately
|
|
|
Like others said, use Land Registry search, use the Map search, it gives you better overview. And it's only £3 for the info you need.
- Tony Sutton
|
|
|
Like others said, use Land Registry search, use the Map search, it gives you better overview. And it's only £3 for the info you need.
I’m probably not describing the situation very well. The question I don’t know the answer to is *which* parcel of land is causing them the problem. I have a suspicion - the National Trust bit - but I don’t know for sure. I’ve asked them but they’re not very responsive.
|
|
|
The map search will give you some ideas. Enter your postcode, confirm the area to be searched and it will list all of the names who owns within that area. Free info.
https://search-property-information.service.gov.uk/s...
Then work your way through it. Worth trying.
- Tony Sutton
|
|
|
The map search will give you some ideas. Enter your postcode, confirm the area to be searched and it will list all of the names who owns within that area. Free info.
https://search-property-information.service.gov.uk/s...
Then work your way through it. Worth trying.
Indeed. Can’t harm. Thanks - will do.
|
|
|
Quick update on this. Gigaclear are refusing point-blank to tell me which parcel of land is blocking them. In their words:
Unfortunately I am unable to discuss such details as this would make the grantor identifiable which is against GDPR regulations. I have also been in contact with our build team once again and they have stated that we will not be servicing this community.
Extremely annoying to say the least. I'll be speaking to other affected neighbours soon to see if they have any ideas.
It's not actually an issue for me at present - we have a rock-solid FTTC connection that achieves 78/19 or thereabouts. But I can imagine it becoming a problem in the future as the copper infrastructure degrades or FTTP becomes a non-negotiable requirement for future buyers of houses, etc.
Am I right that Openreach FTTP on demand would always be an option? Or did I read somewhere that they might be withdrawing it at some point? I'm trying to figure out if there's merit in trying to get the neighbours to jointly come together to get one of the providers (Cerberus I think?) to propose a price? Or am I overthinking this and we should just cross the 'we need fibre' bridge in the future as/when it becomes an issue?
|
|
|
Quick update on this. Gigaclear are refusing point-blank to tell me which parcel of land is blocking them. In their words:
Unfortunately I am unable to discuss such details as this would make the grantor identifiable which is against GDPR regulations. I have also been in contact with our build team once again and they have stated that we will not be servicing this community.
Extremely annoying to say the least. I'll be speaking to other affected neighbours soon to see if they have any ideas.
It's not actually an issue for me at present - we have a rock-solid FTTC connection that achieves 78/19 or thereabouts. But I can imagine it becoming a problem in the future as the copper infrastructure degrades or FTTP becomes a non-negotiable requirement for future buyers of houses, etc.
Am I right that Openreach FTTP on demand would always be an option? Or did I read somewhere that they might be withdrawing it at some point? I'm trying to figure out if there's merit in trying to get the neighbours to jointly come together to get one of the providers (Cerberus I think?) to propose a price? Or am I overthinking this and we should just cross the 'we need fibre' bridge in the future as/when it becomes an issue?
Annoying but perfectly legitimate. The refusal of wayleave is a matter between them and the third party. Impacts you folks however unless both parties agree to release the information Gigaclear can't give you it or information to help you deduce who refused.
They're, wisely, covering their hindmost.
FTTP on demand delivers to one property so the kit is all going on a single pole or in a single chamber and only one person or company is involved with the ISP. Only premises directly served from that pole or chamber may benefit. If you need coverage wider than that https://www.openreach.com/fibre-broadband/fibre-comm... is probably what you are looking for. The rest is your call.
|
|
|
Annoying but perfectly legitimate. The refusal of wayleave is a matter between them and the third party. Impacts you folks however unless both parties agree to release the information Gigaclear can't give you it or information to help you deduce who refused.
Why? It seems unlikely that Gigaclear have signed an NDA with the landowner. GDPR doesn't apply here as OP isn't requesting any personal data, they're requesting details (I guess the UPRN) of the land which Gigaclear are unable to cross. OP may then obtain details from HM Land Registry as to who owns that land, but I expect HMLR has already conducted an assessment of that process for GDPR purposes (given they give the information to anyone in exchange for a few pounds!).
|
|
|
Annoying but perfectly legitimate. The refusal of wayleave is a matter between them and the third party. Impacts you folks however unless both parties agree to release the information Gigaclear can't give you it or information to help you deduce who refused.
Annoying and not legitimate. This is hiding behind data protection as an excuse, not genuine data protection. Knowing who owns land is a genuine matter of public interest for situations like this and all kinds of situations. GDPR is only for protection of individuals and the National Trust has been mentioned here - they are not a natural person.
|
|
|
Annoying but perfectly legitimate. The refusal of wayleave is a matter between them and the third party. Impacts you folks however unless both parties agree to release the information Gigaclear can't give you it or information to help you deduce who refused.
Why? It seems unlikely that Gigaclear have signed an NDA with the landowner. GDPR doesn't apply here as OP isn't requesting any personal data, they're requesting details (I guess the UPRN) of the land which Gigaclear are unable to cross. OP may then obtain details from HM Land Registry as to who owns that land, but I expect HMLR has already conducted an assessment of that process for GDPR purposes (given they give the information to anyone in exchange for a few pounds!).
I was going to suggest something along the lines of requesting the route, but I expect they would then refuse under commercial privacy grounds. But still might be more fruitful than directly asking for the individual they dealt with.
|
|
|
|
Thanks all. Yes - I fear I made a mistake early on by asking who owned the land in question... so they now look at any other request (which UPRN, what route, etc) as an attempt to get an answer to that question through the back door. The weird thing is: I'm 95% sure it's the National Trust, rather than an individual. So do the relevant portions of GDPR apply in any case?
I half-wonder if the reason they're being cagey is because they rely on the cooperation/good will of the NT for other parts of their build-out in the area so don't want to upset them by making it easy for 20 locals to start complaining to them for being obstructive.
|
|
|
|
At the end of the day, "we've decided not to build to your property" is the only information they need to give you.
|
|
|
There might be an alternative route which may cost more. The OP might be willing to contribute towards the additional cost. The availability of fast broadband would increase the value of his property.
Michael Chare
|
|
|
Why? It seems unlikely that Gigaclear have signed an NDA with the landowner. GDPR doesn't apply here as OP isn't requesting any personal data, they're requesting details (I guess the UPRN) of the land which Gigaclear are unable to cross. OP may then obtain details from HM Land Registry as to who owns that land, but I expect HMLR has already conducted an assessment of that process for GDPR purposes (given they give the information to anyone in exchange for a few pounds!).
Who owns land is public record, who Gigaclear deal with for wayleave isn't. Folks use public information to identify that party that's fine.
|
|
|
Annoying and not legitimate. This is hiding behind data protection as an excuse, not genuine data protection. Knowing who owns land is a genuine matter of public interest for situations like this and all kinds of situations. GDPR is only for protection of individuals and the National Trust has been mentioned here - they are not a natural person.
Feel free to litigate it if you feel it's an excuse. Ownership of land isn't the issue, that's public record. We're assuming it's the National Trust.
|
|
|
There might be an alternative route which may cost more. The OP might be willing to contribute towards the additional cost. The availability of fast broadband would increase the value of his property.
Yep - I suspect I could persuade at least some of the neighbours to contribute (either financially or maybe by allowing access over their land if that's the issue, etc) if we could get clarity from Gigaclear on exactly where/what the issue is.
And yes, just to stress in answer to a couple of other comments: I'm guessing it's the National Trust who are causing the issue, but I don't know for sure, and Gigaclear won't give me the information necessary (eg exact location) to figure it out.
Anyway, I drafted an email to all the affected neighbours earlier, which will go out to them soon asking for insight/ideas/help. I've also texted the local National Trust ranger to see what he knows, but he's overloaded and rarely responds, but worth a try.
|
|
|
Who owns land is public record, who Gigaclear deal with for wayleave isn't. Folks use public information to identify that party that's fine.
However it is not directly personally identifiable information so it's not GDPR covered, and if it is an organization then it is most definitely not covered.
Organizations use GDPR and data protection as an excuse all the time. I have been told by a tier 1 server vendor that they could not do something with a log from a BMC because of GDPR when I pointed out there is no personal identifiable information in the log so GDPR doesn't apply they started making some rubbish excuses about copyright which I then had to point out would lie with my employer and for which I am authorised for the purpose of getting the server fixed with allowing copies to be made. Basically they screwed up and were making excuses.
What the original poster could do is work out who owns all the land that Gigaclear need wayleave for to serve his property and go ask them all have they turned wayleave down.
If he believes it's the National Trust join and go to their next AGM and kick up a stink.
|
|
|
|
See if you can provide an alternative route which has permission from other land owners....... that would be the best bet forward
|
Pages in this thread: 
Print Thread
