back to article Budget 2018: Landlords could be forced to grant access for full-fibre connections

Up to 40 per cent of UK landlords ignore telcos’ requests to connect properties for full-fibre broadband, the government has said, and current laws incentivise operators to exclude those tenants rather than press for access. The government has committed to rolling out gigabit-capable connections across the nation by 2033, and …

  1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
    Unhappy

    Force landlords?

    Oh well, that's another £100/month on the rent then /sic

    1. Captain Hogwash

      Re: Force landlords?

      Where is the rent?

      I must have the rent!

      Dollars, dimes and nickels,

      I need them all right now!

      1. Rameses Niblick the Third Kerplunk Kerplunk Whoops Where's My Thribble?

        Re: Force landlords?

        I take it from your reference that your full moniker is Captain "Hollywood" Hogwash?

        Loved it though, one of the best episodes they ever made!

  2. Nifty Silver badge

    So I proactively chased Virgin via their 'Project Lightning' initiative about why they weren't cabling 2 recent large developments of flats where I manage a couple of the tenancies. One of the buildings is 2.5 metres from a Virgin cabinet. Potential for 150 new customers in these buildings.

    Virgin gave me a bit of flimflam about local planning permission then stopped replying.

    1. fibrefool

      Virgin Media and blocks of flats

      I got Virgin into the block I used to live in (17 flats). We were redecorating/rewiring the communual areas so I persuaded them to give us the cable and we ran it into the new ducts ourselves. All they had to do was dig into our basement and stick a coax patch panel on the wall - so the cost per sub passed was pretty good.

      But yeah - I had to push them to do it...

  3. DavCrav

    "If a landlord is absent or unidentifiable – or if they don’t reply – access can be granted on a temporary basis through a magistrates court-issued warrant of entry. Similar powers exist for gas, water and electricity industries."

    I don't believe this. Gas and electricity have the legal authority to enter your property, eventually, if something is dangerous. But if I own a house with no gas connection, and the Gas Board or whoever they're called nowadays want to connect my property to the network, I can say no. Once it's connected, then that's a different story, for example for meter inspections. But I'm pretty sure I don't have to agree to have my house ripped apart to install gas pipes.

    Virgin are asking for this: to be able to rip up someone's front driveway without their permission to install broadband.

    1. Spazturtle Silver badge

      This is about rented properties. If you rent out a property you are required to ensure that the property has functional utilities connections.

      1. browntomatoes

        > If you rent out a property you are required to ensure that the property has functional utilities connections.

        Not true. You can rent out a hut in the middle of nowhere with no water or sewage connection, no electricity, no gas and no telecoms connections if you want (as long as it's safe, has smoke and in certain circumstances CO alarms, and you provide an EPC etc). Just that the market for tenants might be a bit smaller.

        1. Spazturtle Silver badge

          The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 disagrees with you.

          It states that landlords are responsible for the maintenance and installation of water (hot and cold), electricity, gas, sanitation and heating.

          1. browntomatoes

            No.

            It says:

            b) to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences, but not other fixtures, fittings and appliances for making use of the supply of water, gas or electricity)

            ie - if they exist then landlord is responsible for maintenance but there is not a requirement to install them in the first place.

    2. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

      ... and the Gas Board or whoever they're called nowadays want to connect my property to the network, I can say no

      Yes indeed. However, suppose you rent out the house and the tenant wants gas installed - perhaps it's just been installed into the village. The analogy is where the tenant wants gas installed, the gas company realise they need your permission, try to contact you but you just ignore them.

      At the moment they will simply give up and the tenant then can't have the service installed. Under the new rules, if you ignore the request then it'll be easier for the communications company and the tenant to get an order from a magistrate. I would imagine that if you respond and say no, then that would be the end of the matter - but as a landlord I would have no problem with the request subject to agreement on how it was to be done.

      1. MachDiamond Silver badge

        "Yes indeed. However, suppose you rent out the house and the tenant wants gas installed "

        Having gas lines fitted to an older home that has never had gas is a major operation. If the tenant wants to pay MY contractor to run all of the pipe and patch all of the walls properly as well as getting planning permissions and engineering, I might consider it. The issue is that the cost has a long term payback and may have none at all for the owner if they continue to let the property rather than live in it themselves. Maybe it adds value when the property is sold, but until then, it might negate all profit on rents collected for the next 4-5 years.

        Landlords aren't going to be interested in allowing internet companies to bang in more wiring if it doesn't make them any money. Anybody that sees how it's done with satellite tv and other added on services, it's messy and installed in places where it's easy to do the installation and not where is makes the most sense. Tucking the wiring inside the walls and repairing holes afterwards is time consuming and more expensive, but it looks better and it's less susceptible to damage.

        I expect that finding some landlords is going to be a problem and even when they are found, if it's larger management firm, they may not have somebody detailed to handle the requests and it winds up in the least senior person's in-box to compost under items that must get handled.

    3. Chris Hills

      Gas distribution networks do not just connect properties for the fun of it. If you want a new connection you will often pay £1000 or more for the privilege.

    4. Cuddles

      "But I'm pretty sure I don't have to agree to have my house ripped apart to install gas pipes."

      Try re-reading the part you quoted at the start:

      "If a landlord is absent or unidentifiable"

      If you say no to them, you're obviously not absent or unidentifiable. What they want is permission to install when the people actually living in the place want the service, but the person who actually owns the building refuses to acknowledge any communications - not saying no, but simply not replying to anything at all.

  4. rg287

    In addition to these efforts to kick unresponsive landlords into action, the government has also issued a consultation (PDF) on changes to the law that aim to ensure new builds are connected up to gigabit-capable networks.

    About bloody time.

    Retrofitting fibre (digging up roads and driveways) is expensive. It should be illegal to install copper-only in new-builds. Ducted fibre or fibre+copper should be the base minimum - stops the problem getting any worse, even if it still leaves a lot of retrofitting to do for the rest of us.

    1. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

      The problem is that there's a financial incentive for small developers to ignore the problem. If it's a choice between "cough up money" to put in the ducting etc, or just ignore the problem and force BTOR to put overhead washing lines in from the nearest pole - then it's a no brainer for the ignorant developer to go for the cheaper option.

      So yes, there needs to be some sort of presumption that developers must install ducting unless they have compelling reasons not to. It needs to get to the point where ducting for comms is considered as essential as gas, lecky, water, and drains - but for many people that doesn't even enter their minds.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hmmm

    Having been on the receiving end of Hyperoptic and their greasy sales reps, there's no way I would want them imposed on me.

    This whole thing just stinks of politicians who, as usual, don't understand the problem and want a knee-jerk quick-fix solution.

    Maybe if all that infamous money wasn't poured BT's way (by successive governments of both colours) in return for poor monitoring and predictably piss-poor results, maybe we wouldn't be in the shit-show we are in today.

    Somone needs to shove some a boot attached to some multi-decade old copper wires up the politicians collective arses, then they might get the message.

    1. SImon Hobson Bronze badge

      Re: Hmmm

      ... there's no way I would want them imposed on me

      It's not about imposing anything on you. It's about allowing a tenant to get a service installed where the landlord simply ignores requests for permission to install it. As the article says, if a tenant wants a service installed - eg high speed FTTP - then typically they need the landlord's permission (the landlord may also need the freeholder's permission). If the landlord just doesn't answer then it's currently a longwinded (and I imagine expensive) process to get an order from the tribunal to allow it.

      So this is about making the process for getting an order, where the landlord ignores requests, easier.

  6. }{amis}{
    Facepalm

    "but a lot of landlords, especially those with blocks of flats just ignore them"

    We were recently looking at setting up a new satellite office in a tower block as part of the requirement was at least a 500mbs line which we could not get the best the building had installed was up to 100mbs Down and 25mbs up per office. after many frustrating hours on the phone, we got to the bottom of why.

    The first reason is money if you get a line installed from outside how is the management company going to get their slice.

    The second is that the cable risers in the 1960s tower block were stuffed to capacity, I saw inside there was no way you could sensibly put anything else in there without tearing out ~50 years of cabling mess first.

    I don't see how any legislation is going to help with either of these problems that I am willing to bet are repeated across an awful lot of post-war tower blocks across the country.

    1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      Re: "but a lot of landlords, especially those with blocks of flats just ignore them"

      Ah, ransom strips with a side order of service charges. For residential properties, those seem to be a nice scam for developers, especially when the charge is high and the services low. And if you're punting a luxury apartment with 'free' wifi and broadband that may help justify why the service charge can be £100/wk or more. For business customers, negotiating wayleaves can also be painful/expensive.

      Legislation has existed though. Back in the day, bright young ISPs all applied for Code Powers, so they could be proper telcos. Then realised that although in theory that grants a right to dig, as the article points out, the process to invoke was painful and never used. There's also been stuff like the Party Walls Act (get vertical, baby!) that was meant to simplify getting access. But again rarely used.

      A simpler process might reduce delays and costs chasing for wayleaves, but I won't be holding my breath. As for risers, based on some.. virgin.. I mean fresh installs, a Hilti, a nailgun and a couple of cans of foam sealant should solve that problem.

    2. Chris Hills

      Re: "but a lot of landlords, especially those with blocks of flats just ignore them"

      It's not ideal but perhaps this could be solved using an external service riser, just for fibre-optic cables. Alternatively, the floors could be configured in a bus with active equipment or taps from top to bottom.

      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        Re: "but a lot of landlords, especially those with blocks of flats just ignore them"

        Nice idea, and could work for new-builds.. But what about all the existing properties? Plus any building regs about mixing services in risers, fire stops etc etc. Some buildings are 'smarter', eg places like HK, Singapore, Scandinavia etc have pre-cabled apartments with fibre (sometimes plastic!), or installed common ethernet switches.. But those can be problematic, ie bundled into service charges and can't be shared or unbundled. Or discovering whoever installed the building's switch hadn't heard of VLANs and you can sniff your neighbour's traffic.

    3. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: "but a lot of landlords, especially those with blocks of flats just ignore them"

      "The second is that the cable risers in the 1960s tower block were stuffed to capacity, I saw inside there was no way you could sensibly put anything else in there without tearing out ~50 years of cabling mess first."

      At some point, the tower block will lose tenants or will only be able to attract low grade ones. Tearing out 50yo comm cabling can mean weeks of no service for existing tenants especially if problems are found in the tear out. It could turn out that alarm and safety system wiring was put in the same risers as there was no room in the ones dedicated to those functions. Pulling that out would mean the building could not be occupied until it was all put back together.

      It's not impossible, but a building may have to be emptied, undergo a major renovation and then re-rent offices for a higher rate. If the neighborhood is on the way up, that's not a problem. If it's not going anywhere or on a downward path, it's not going to happen.

  7. Giovani Tapini

    I would expect Telco access to these places is the tip of the iceberg

    The buildings are likely to be investor owned where there is no clear individual to make decisions or via multiple management companies that wont do anything without a fee even from their own leaseholders.

    The chance of getting anyone to either identify or get an answer from someone able to make a decision is vanishingly small.

    I would place small bets that if each tenant applied and paid a fee then it would all get sorted but that is never going to happen...

  8. J.G.Harston Silver badge

    You'd think having services into a property would be something a landlord would want. Which is more likely to get a paying tenant? Property A with utilities or Property B with no utilities?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      You’d think…

      You would think so, but my experience is that most landlords will do the absolute minimum level of maintenance or improvement that they can get away with for their properties, and, as long as the potential of home ownership continues to spiral away out of affordability (and with deposits to match), very sadly they’ll continue to get away with it.

      (Which is why organisations like Living Rent exist: https://www.livingrent.org/ )

  9. Nick Kew

    Red Herring?

    Something doesn't add up here.

    I've had connections installed everywhere I've rented since my return to Blighty twenty years ago. Going from ISDN to ADSL to cable, and finally to 4G when it turns out a lot better than Virgin's crap. That's three homes and one office, all of them rented. One of them was newly converted, so I had to get a new BT line before I could get ADSL over it.

    In each case, I as tenant arranged access. No need to trouble any of the landlords with it. Which is as it should be. Unless the service is included in my tenancy, it's up to me to deal with a provider. And it's pretty clear that the law as it stands permits me to do so, without having to trouble my landlord. Just as I can switch energy supplier. Or install a water meter - in my present home I let the landlord know as a matter of courtesy, but no more than that.

    Just what tenants are these, and why are their landlords relevant in the first place? Is this something to do with communal facilities rather than households? Or a complete red herring?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Red Herring?

      > I as tenant arranged access. No need to trouble any of the landlords with it.

      You need to consult a lawyer pronto.

      Yes, you as a tenant have the implied right to "quiet enjoyment".

      But ultimately you are there on a lease, you're not the freeholder.

      So the extent of your "property" will be quite clearly defined in your lease.

      I'm not an expert, but the few leases I've seen typically define the lease boundary. The boundary is typically half the width of the perimiter walls (i.e. the "inside" half).

      This effectively means you can mount trunking and fix TVs to walls, but you can't put on some PPE and rev up your diamond core drill without the landlords say-so.

      And as others have stated, even if you do something within the confines of the "property", you may still be liable for dilapidations anyway.

      I know everybody hates lawyers, but property, and especially leases are one area where a good lawyer is worth their weight in gold. The amount of money and hassle they can save you is far greater than their fees (dilapidation clause re-negotiations alone could easily represent substantial savings of more than the lawyer's fees).

    2. MachDiamond Silver badge

      Re: Red Herring?

      "In each case, I as tenant arranged access. No need to trouble any of the landlords with it."

      I expect that your lease has a clause about damage and modifications to the property. If the provider does a sloppy job of installing the service, and most do, you can be liable for having it removed when you leave and any holes, etc properly repaired and repainted. It's always a good idea to get written permissions for any work done on your rented property. I know in the US that landlord permission if often required since a lien can only be filed against the property for non-payment if the owner/manager has given permission for the work.

      I've never had a problem with rented flats or industrial estates getting permissions for work I need done. The landlords sometimes require that the work is done by a specific contractor or it has to be done to their satisfaction, but I've never had any issues. I put the signed paperwork in a file so I have something to show to get my deposit back if there are any problems with a new landlord or freeholder. I was in one industrial building that changed hands 4 times while I was there. I didn't have to do any remediation on the way out since the initial paperwork was lost somewhere in all of the transfers and I just claimed the unit was rough when I moved in and I was given cheaper rent becuase of it. I did wind up leaving much improved warehouse lighting and electrical that actually met code.

  10. Jellied Eel Silver badge

    Just what tenants are these, and why are their landlords relevant in the first place? Is this something to do with communal facilities rather than households? Or a complete red herring?

    Check your tenancy agreement. Landlords may object to having holes drilled in walls, so want to be consulted. Moreso for business installations that may need more than a small hole drilled. So external ductwork, footway boxes, risers etc. Which may then require landlords/their agents to sign off on method statements. And then you might be liable for remedial works at the end of the tenancy. Or perhaps more to the point, landlords may try holding the telco liable because they didn't get the right paperwork.

    Which is why it's currently a PITA with multi-tenanted properties.. Even to the point of who pays for any active kit installed in a communal area. Which is also why network planners can often be found in dark corners, whimpering quietly after sales escalate an installation because the account manager quoted 30 days..

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > because the account manager quoted 30 days

      30 days ? Jeez.. I'd be happy enough if BT *ever* installed within the quoted "standard" 90 days !

      1. Jellied Eel Silver badge

        30 days ? Jeez.. I'd be happy enough if BT *ever* installed within the quoted "standard" 90 days !

        <cough>Subject to survey<cough>

        That's where the pain begins. Like account managers making up site contacts so they can get orders booked by the month end. Then when planners call to arrange access for a survey, they're stuck. Or they turn up and need access to the basement, they can't get in. Or they need to access risers, and they can't get access from other tenants.

        But it can be done, and my record for an install was same-day on a 10Gbps service for a desperate customer. So they were very co-operative, close to a field office/PoP and we'd already got a duct into the building. And I got to watch the complete installation and learn the pain points experienced by the field guys.. Which were mostly around landlord's wayleaves & access.

        Not sure this new process will simplify things more than just making sure contacts and access arrangements are in place when sales take an order, but industry wastes a huuge amount of time & resources if installers are turned away, which then has a knock-on effect on other installations.

  11. Colin Bull 1
    Mushroom

    Fire risks

    There is a block of flats in Ipswich where the leaseholders have just had a bill for £20k each for cladding replacement. The freeholders are pushing for a sprinkler system to be installed because a very large proportion of the properties have had their integrity compromised by tradesmen leaving gaps in between properties when maintaining services.

    Would you trust a telco installer to do this properly?

  12. Shaha Alam

    "The government has committed to rolling out gigabit-capable connections across the nation by 2033"

    we'll need a bit more than gigabit by then.

  13. Jove Bronze badge

    Market distortion ...

    An utterly ridiculous proposition.

    If a property own does not want the service it is not for the Authorities to intervene and force it upon them. Would they condone Landlords subsequent recover of full costs plus premium charges from the Tenants?

    Next they will have Tesco and Sainsbury's obtaining orders to inspect the contents of peoples fridges.

    1. kiwimuso
      Facepalm

      Re: Market distortion ...

      By Jove, you must have missed the bit about not being able to contact, or getting no response from the owner(s) in order to obtain permission - or not!

      No response to request? Then permission granted by court order.

      At least, that's the way I see it. Perhaps you have better/different comprehension skills than I.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon