Slight weekend tangent which may be of interest.
In this weekend’s LBC Legal Hour with Barrister Daniel Barnett took a call from an employee who used to work for a ‘fairly large fibre optic company’ which was interesting, but also a bit surprising. The company isn’t identified, but the former employee expressed concern after they found out that they had installed fibre optic cabling inside blocks of flats without correct wayleaves being in place. They were concerned about personal liability as an installer. Although Daniel didn’t fully understand wayleaves, his advice confirmed:
- There was in theory personal civil liability for damage to walls (from drilling) for those carrying out the work as they did not have permission, but in practice any action would be highly likely to be against the company, not the engineers installing the cabling (they wouldn’t even know who the individuals installing cables were). Further, if they were sued, they could enjoin their former employer as a defendant and in practice they would end up paying any judgment.
- There would be no real risk of criminal liability (for criminal damage) on the basis that the engineers believed all permissions had been in place so there was no ‘intent’, necessary for a conviction for criminal damage.
Daniel Barnett does complain how BBC iPlayer was interrupted due to the copper cabling so sounds like he’s looking forward to getting full fibre.
Test your broadband speed
Follow us on X for the latest broadband news 
It’s time to allow residents of leaseholders the right to have fibre broadband installed without having to get the freeholder’s permission.
Agree that leaseholders / owners / managing agents should be told in law that they cannot reasonably prevent or delay installing full fibre. But equally the leaseholder / owner / managing agent has a liability to the lessors and tenants to be legally responsible for maintaining and assuring the structure and fire integrity of the building. And since Grenfell building insurers especially for MDUs are being a lot more particular about changes to a building that could compromise the structure or fire integrity, and an inappropriate installation of fibre cables could impact both of these.
Leaseholders / owners / managing agents should be directed to document their requirements for installation of new cables and NTEs for full fibre, and if necessary install shared containment for that purpose. And then serve their requirements when the requests turn up for a full fibre install and then check that the installers RAMS aligns with their requirements. And then keep an eye on what’s been done and if needed call guilty parties back to remedy.
The wayleave process urgently needs reform. It’s far too complex, and I completely understand the frustration operators face on the ground. Too often, it’s the system itself preventing tenants from getting access to the quality internet they deserve. But bending the rules isn’t the answer, progress will only come from collaboration between operators, landlords, and policymakers.
As someone who’s seen these challenges firsthand, I can say with confidence that this isn’t about a lack of will, it’s about a lack of workable process. The current wayleave framework slows progress, increases costs, and leaves customers caught in the middle.
@ optimist1:
No, it is not. As an owner of a flat and a joint owner of the property, allowing a free-for-all all in any matters concerning the jointly owned property just creates problems and legal issues. We have already been there with unauthorised changes and it just creates problems for everyone.
I don’t think free-for-all is answer. I’ve seen one provider do an awesome cabling job in a block of flats and the next one mess it all up with visible cabling.. but we need to enforce choice for consumers 🙂
The wider freeholder system may need reform so people who own flats are in charge of buildings.
It is off topic, but that option is already available and in common use. Many MDUs are managed through residential companies.
The biggest issue, however, is with the potential lock-in to only being able to access ISPs that make use of the provider of the fibre connection to the MDU premises, which I object to.
Wayleaves work both ways. They are just as much there to protect the operator and the operator’s customer.
Because if there isn’t a way leave in place the operators installation can be removed from the building without warning.