Help with BT flying Cables outside my property

[jandia]

BT has installed flying cables outside my hotel, whereby the sea views have been severely obstructed.

 

I have exhausted all the higher complaint levels within BT and written to both the private secretary and CEO twice via recorded delivery. They fail to reply.

 

I need now to pursue a legal course of action.

 

I believe BT has breach the Telecommunications Act 1984, whereby there is a clause which prohibits BT flying cables which interferes with the carrying on of any business.

 

Our whole business hinges on our views which are now obstructed and guests are complaining. I could issue a writ for say £9k under the £10k limit, whereby I would not be pursued for legal cost should I fail to win such case. On the other hand, I might lose, simply because I may find it hard to justify such financial losses.

 

I understand how to issue a writ for the claim of monies, but how do I go about getting

a District Judge to rule that BT has acted unlawfully?

 

What Court process options can I adopt?

 

Thank you

[ssparks2003]

I think you are on a non starter here, while it is nice to have uninterupted sea views from your hotel room it is not a requirment for your hotel to have them to opperate, so they are not interfereing with your buisness.

[rebel11]

Hi jandia

 

This is the small claims process, you need to write a Letter Before Action, again send it Recorded Delivery.

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/consumer_w/consumer_taking_action_e/consumer_legal_actions_e/consumer_going_to_court_e/consumer_taking_court_action_e/step_one_write_a_letter_before_action.htm

 

Small claims court, is the next step:-

 

http://www.adviceguide.org.uk/wales/law_w/law_legal_system_e/law_taking_legal_action_e/small_claims.htm

 

You can't go to the ombudsman as your not a customer, but you could escalate the complaint to your MP who would be supportive and could speak to BT. BT need to be communicating with you regardless of their stand on the matter.

 

http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/

[veganite]

Hi,

I am sure starting a small claims would be of any use to you since BT have done nothing wrong. As post number 2 says, it is not interrupting your business. However - if you can prove that the cables are disrupting your business then you may be in with a chance.

 

Maybe another way of dealing with this is to deny permission for BT to attach cables to your property? For example, if the flying cables are attached to your property and you do not have a 'deed of easement' which gives BT permission, then you could demand that BT remove the cables from your property and reroute them. Though there would be no guarantee as to how they would reroute the cables.

[rebel11]

There are lots of historical sites where BT wouldn't be able to install there infrastucture, so it's not a 'given' that they can do what they like, if they installed 'flying cables' outside of 'Buckingham Palace' would that be o.k.?

 

I think not, because tourists go to 'Buckingham Palace' for an unfettered view. Lots of sites are heritage sites.

[ssparks2003]

And if they put fluing cable to Buck house, would it effect the crowns buisness, very limited as tourists do not pay to stand on the street to look at it. the only detrement would be any damage to visitors paying to go around it and even then they are there to look at the building and contents and not the street furniture also you are then in to crown propperty and royal parks issues.

 

But I take your point, there may be reasons why flying cables may not be acceptable: Conservation area, grade 1 or 2 listed building, unesco world heritage site, one of the 7 wonders of the anicent world. after that you are down to "enjoyment" only which is gonig to be a sticky whicket to play off, also i somehow don't think that the OP is old Liz

[BazzaS]

Short answer : you can't, at least not for "right to view"

 

Longer answer: you cannot claim an easement (right) to a view. See Phipps v Pears, Denning MR's comments:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phipps_v_Pears

 

If BT had given you a promise not to obstruct your view (a "restrictive covenant") you could enforce it.

 

But there is no equivalent unilateral right to a view.

 

Equally, never buy a property based on the view alone : it can be obstructed / changed and there is nothing you can do (save if you have a restrictive covenant)

"Right to light" as an easement : yes.

"Right to view" as an easement :no.

"Right to view" as a covenant : potentially.

 

There may be two other possibilities, though.

1) do the cables pass above your land ? If so : consider an action for trespass to land.

2 ) from memory (and I'd need to check) BT have to propose the cables and they can be opposed : did BT observe the correct formalities? If not then you can take action.

 

Which section of the Telecommunications Act are you referring to?

[rebel11]

No, but they take pictures of it, they visit to take pictures, probably the most visited building in the UK, if they couldn't do that without an unfettered view they wouldn't bother visiting.

 

And if they put fluing cable to Buck house, would it effect the crowns buisness, very limited as tourists do not pay to stand on the street to look at it. the only detrement would be any damage to visitors paying to go around it and even then they are there to look at the building and contents and not the street furniture also you are then in to crown propperty and royal parks issues.

 

But I take your point, there may be reasons why flying cables may not be acceptable: Conservation area, grade 1 or 2 listed building, unesco world heritage site, one of the 7 wonders of the anicent world. after that you are down to "enjoyment" only which is gonig to be a sticky whicket to play off, also i somehow don't think that the OP is old Liz

[ssparks2003]

But they do not pay to take said photo, so ergo it does not effect the business directly, but since its grade 1 listed it would still have to go through planning etc.

[rebel11]

Lots of businesses count on visitors to BP.

 

[ssparks2003]

You seriously are saying that a candy floss seller could sue BT for loss of earnings if they fitted a telephone lead???????? and that would not count as a vexatious case? it does not prevent the business from carrying on, it is an inconvenience. Preventing a company operating by a flying cable would be stringing them across a runway not getting in the way of a candy floss seller outside BP.

[rebel11]

It depends on the consequences for the business of the actions carried out by BT.

 

[jandia]

Thank you for all the suggestions.

 

As mentioned, I believe, BT Openreach has breached the Telecommunications Act 1984 Chapter 12, Schedule 2, The Telecommunications Code, Paragraph 10, Power to Fly Lines.

 

Power to fly lines

 

10 (1) Subject to paragraph 3 above and the following provisions of this code, where any

[F38 electronic communications apparatus] is kept installed on or over any land for the

purposes of the operator’s [F39 network], the operator shall, for the statutory purposes,

have the right to install and keep installed lines which—

 

(a) pass over other land adjacent to or in the vicinity of the land on or over which

that apparatus is so kept;

(b) are connected to that apparatus; and

© are not at any point in the course of passing over the other land less than

3 metres above the ground or within 2 metres of any building over which

they pass.

 

(2) Nothing in sub-paragraph (1) above shall authorise the installation or keeping on or

over any land of—

 

(a) any [F38 electronic communications apparatus]used to support, carry or

suspend a line installed in pursuance of that sub-paragraph; or

(b) any line which by reason of its position interferes with the carrying on of any business [F40 (within the meaning of section 6 of this Act)]carried on on that land.

 

The important clause is 10/2/b

 

“any line which by reason of its position interferes with the carrying on of any business”.

 

I would like to think that most District Judges would apply the Law of common sense and agree that BT has breached this clause as the lines interfere with our business.

 

The Ombudsman has said that Openreach is not a participating company; therefore they are unable to help. BT shelters Openreach in many ways and its taken months just to be able to poke at the appropriate higher level directors. Yet they all adopt an arrogant stance of come and get us. BT has over 200 legal staff in London and yet I cannot obtain one reply to letters. I explained to one member of BT Staff who visited the site that The Duchy of Cornwall has many holiday properties in Cornwall. When I asked whether BT would ever fly cables in front of any of the Prince of Wales holiday properties, I was unsurprised when he said “BT wouldn’t dare!”

 

It unacceptable. I am seeking the suggested method to bring BT to court, so hopefully a district judge would agree that BT has breached the law.

 

Do the legal experts on here, having read the above act, believe a judge would agree that BT has breached the law?

 

I had a feeling this would be contentious issues.

[BazzaS]

Is it: Telecommunications Act 1984, SCHEDULE 2 The Telecommunications Code, para 17?

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1984/12/schedule/2

 

Objections to overhead apparatus

 

17(1)This paragraph applies where the operator has completed the installation for the purposes of the operator’s network of any electronic communications apparatus the whole or part of which is at a height of 3 metres or more above the ground.

 

(2)At any time before the expiration of the period of 3 months beginning with the completion of the installation of the apparatus a person who is the occupier of or owns an interest in—

 

(a)any land over or on which the apparatus has been installed, or

 

(b)any land the enjoyment of which, or any interest in which, is, because of the nearness of the land to the land on or over which the apparatus has been installed, capable of being prejudiced by the apparatus,

 

may give the operator notice of objection in respect of that apparatus.

 

(3)No notice of objection may be given in respect of any apparatus if the apparatus—

 

(a)replaces any electronic communications apparatus which is not substantially different from the new apparatus; and

 

(b)is not in a significantly different position.

 

(4)Where a person has both given a notice under this paragraph and applied for compensation under any of the preceding provisions of this code, the court—

 

(a)may give such direction as it thinks fit for ensuring that no compensation is paid until any proceedings under this paragraph have been disposed of, and

 

(b)if the court makes an order under this paragraph, may provide in that order for some or all of the compensation otherwise payable under this code to that person not to be so payable, or, if the case so requires, for some or all of any compensation paid under this code to that person to be repaid to the operator.

 

(5)At any time after the expiration of the period of 2 months beginning with the giving of a notice of objection but before the expiration of the period of 4 months beginning with the giving of that notice, the person who gave the notice may apply to the court to have the objection upheld.

 

 

The original provision was amended by the Communications Act 2003, Schedule 3, (which altered the 'network operators provisions, but not the general gist of the section).

 

So, they don't have to ask first, but you can appeal once the poles are in place. There are strict time limits a) to appeal to BT, b) to appeal to the County Court if BT don't deal with your appeal.

 

Have you checked the poles to see if there is a notice setting this out, and giving a reference number to pass to the "pole objection team'?

 

When did they complete the installation?

When did you provide them with a notice of objection?

Do the cables go on / over your land? Or interfere with the view but not actually passing over your land ?

 

I'm no expert but it looks like your remedy from a breach of para 10 is compensation, while para 17 might bring about removal of the lines (or compensation)

 

What is your priority? Compensation, the lines being moved, or either?

 

Would BT claim that a phone line doesn't obscure a view significantly enough to affect trade?.

Does your current advertising note "unobstructed" or "completely unobstructed" sea views?

[jandia]

Thank you for all the input.

 

So what is the next suggested steps I need to undertake?

 

I was considering an injunction issued in the county court?

 

The poles have always been in place.

 

The lines obstructed my view 30th March 2014 whereby an objection together with photographic evidence was submitted immediately to BT.

 

This triggered heaps of communications, whereby the matter was escalated to the high level BT directors.

 

Openreach outsourced the matter to a third party company for a solution which was found. A pro forma invoice duly arrived for £1,800 to resolve the issue which I am resisting. Its a form of racketeering. Obstruct a view and charge to fix the issue. Its unacceptable.

 

So in reply to the questions raised.

 

Install was 30th March 2014.

 

Objections were raised the same day.

 

The cables do not pass over my land, but interfere with our business views.

 

I would simply like the lines rerouted.

 

I would imagine BT would claim that a phone line doesn't obscure a view significantly enough to affect trade.

 

Yet our whole business hinges on our panoramic unobstructed sea views.

 

What do I need to issue to get a district judge to view all documentation and form an opinion?

 

or should I issue a summons for say £9k and see which way the ball bounces at court?

[unclebulgaria67]

I think you need to take this up with your local councillors. What do your neighbours think about this ? Are they willing to join in with a campaign to get BT to find a better solution ? Are the local press interested in helping ?

 

I think I would explore other ways than using the courts. BT will have expert legal officers who know the law in this area very well. If you attempt to take this to court yourself you will come a cropper.

 

As far as I know when BT plan any works they put notices up in the location. They will have advised the local council of the works they planned. If you want a resolution to this, you need to see what you can do locally. Writing to a big company like BT or taking them to court, is unlikely to get you the result you want. So start a campaign locally with any help you can get.

[BazzaS]

See my post of 12th August.

You've replied 20 days later..

 

You haven't answered regarding why unobstructed views are essential to your business (I asked if your advertising mentions it : If it doesn't BT may say "has some impact but not significant impact")

 

I'm also concerned that you are now "out of time" to bring a county court action. (My post mentions the time limits).

Telecommunications Act 1984, SCHEDULE 2, Para 17(5).

You had 4 months from when your objection was served to commence county court action.

 

I wish you good luck with the problem, but I don't think I can assist further.

[jandia]

I apologise for the long delay its just mad busy for us during august.

 

 

The views are essential for the marketing of our rooms. All views are over the sea and the little sailing boats below. We market our property as having these wonderful views. Now with the BT cables, we have these running directly through the waterline and the boats below.

 

 

It has taken months to motivate BT to look into the issue and I would have thought unreasonable for BT to seek a striking out of any claim based upon time restrictions.

 

 

So are you saying issue a summons?