Bostoon in spat with BT over wayleaves
DAVE 'LORD BOSTOON' EVANS - erstwhile Mageek drinking chum and sometime INQ contributor - has got himself into a huge spat with former entrenched duopoly, BT.
His attempts to build a simple extension to business premises he owns in South London have left him foundering in a mire of arcane legislation over something called a 'wayleave'.
Bostoon's troubles began when he identified BT's wires clipped to his outside wall but feeding into adjoining properties not his own. As they belong to BT, he ordered the Brit telco to remove them. Without this removal, Bostoon's extension cannot proceed.
BT refused, however, claiming it possessed a 'wayleave' signed by a previous owner allowing its wires to be stapled for free to Bostoon's walls. "Show me," countered Bostoon.
A few weeks later, and with his builders chomping at the bit, the 'wayleave' was duly produced from BT's cobwebbed cellars in Shrewsbury.
Just a single A4 sheet signed nearly 20 years previously, it confirmed BT had permission to hang its cables from Bostoon's walls, but added this could be rescinded by either side given three months' notice.
"I give you three months notice then," declared our resident property magnate. "No," responded BT. "Under the Telecommunications Act, 1984 and as amended by Schedule 3 to the Communications Act 2003, we can keep our cables anywhere we think fit."
In short, sod off.
Not to be outdone, Bostoon then fired off a legal notice under the Act - citing paragraph 20, relating to the removal of phone apparatus where building development is involved.
Only to be splatted back with a counter notice from BT, saying it was now up to the courts to decide who was right. That might take years to be decided.
Just to rub salt into the wound, BT added that under the Act it can ask to be reimbursed the cost of re-routing the cables if so ordered. "And that'll be just under £5,000, thank you very much."
To date it's a Mexican stand-off between BT and Bostoon whose latest ploy has been to seek the intervention of UK regulator, Ofcom. It's helpful suggestion - see a lawyer.
Lord Bostoon was therefore promptly called to the bar. µ
See Also
From
behind the lines at CeBit 2004
Share this:
ShareBusiness Intelligence Software
Customer Relationship Management (CRM)
Enterprise Accounting Software
Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP)
Enterprise Systems Management
"Under the Telecommunications Act, 1984 and as amended by Schedule 3 to the Communications Act 2003".

So this act was passed in 1984, that's 24 years ago, and they signed a contract with the owner 4 years later which stated with 3 months notice it could be taken down..

They then refuse to do this based on the fact that this law/act whatever was passed before they signed the agreement.

So they either knowingly duped the previous owner, in which case they would I imagine, find themselves up s*** creek without a paddle. Or they just never knew anything about it (which somehow I doubt) in the first place.

Either way surely they have to honor the contract they signed in the first place, especially if they never informed the owner as of 2003 that these amendments would make the contract null and void.
Simply Stop using BT, cut the wire, and get Virgin Installed.

Its so easy to just stop using BT, they are a bunch of useless dicklickers with second rate Broadband anyway - where is the loss.???


Andy
Dear Lord,

You may unfix the wires, move them up/aside, and fix them to your new wall. Or just embed them in the walls of your new building. And when BT comes to fix something you'd require hefty ransom just for letting technicians touch your wall.
Andy,

Disd you not notice: "..he identified BT's wires clipped to his outside wall but feeding into adjoining properties not his own"?

The wires aren't *his* to cut and get rid of, but his neighbors!
...by briefly applying the output of a neon sign transformer to said wires.