BT Infinity & FTTx Discussion

[mark43]

I'm in the same boat just now. Did a postcode check most if not all the houses can get it but the flats 2 blocks of 4 residences can't get it yet. It's been a few years seen openreach everywhere but in our block. Heartbreaking!

Are you in one of those blocks? I contacted BT regarding mine a while ago and they basically said they aren't upgrading MDUs with less than 10 flats, as its not financially viable for them....

 

[esK`]

Yeah, I mean if they don't plan on doing them all then I've no idea why we can't just have individual lines come to the properties.

 

[MarkeR]

Are you in one of those blocks? I contacted BT regarding mine a while ago and they basically said they aren't upgrading MDUs with less than 10 flats, as its not financially viable for them....

Wait, didn't the government give BT Openreach a few billion to upgrade all properties to FTTP, eventually?

 

[mark43]

This is what BT came back to me with:

"We are currently discussing with the freeholder a sub 10 property plan because at present sub 10 buildings do not cost in for us, they are very expensive."

And this is then what I got from the freeholder:

"We have a set process for fibre installations across the MDU side of our portfolio. This process ensures that the landlord is upholding their responsibilities in terms of health and safety and tenant satisfaction. We appoint external surveyors to make sure that all is in order in this respect. We also seek to recover the cost incurred when instructing legal professionals to draft an agreement to authorise the installation.
When it comes to sub-10 MDUs, we have made numerous attempts to make the installations more cost-effective for Openreach, in the interest of providing services to all the residents who live in our buildings. We have reduced the involvement of our surveyor, to lower the cost that they add to the installation, and have revised the legal fees, reducing them by over 70%.
Unfortunately, all of our suggestions and offers have not been acceptable to Openreach, so we have had to go back to square 1 to see if there is any way that we can get them to install. It is my hope that we will find some compromise soon."

 

[Caged]

Ask them what the fee is and decide if the residents want that on the service charge for the year. Openreach won't pay a fee to get into a building because then everybody will try and get paid for them installing.

 

[mark43]

I think to be fair the freeholder does have a responsibility to the residents to ensure work is carried out safely and satisfactorily, I'm not sure I'd really say its charging Openreach for access, and it seems they are fine with these costs for larger blocks of flats, it just becomes uneconomical for smaller ones.

That's a good point though, I hadn't actually thought to question what the costs might be and if we could pay them, so will look into that. Thanks.

 

[Caged]

The way it's worded sounds like the freeholder is giving Openreach a cost for their legal and surveyor work

 

[MissChief]

The way it's worded sounds like the freeholder is giving Openreach a cost for their legal and surveyor work

Becoming all too common, especially on the Leased Ethernet side.

 

[Caged]

I saw it all the time with the leased line stuff, but the difference is that the customer pays those costs, which in this case would be the building residents. Openreach cannot start handing out blank cheques for lawyers to profit from.

 

[Mercutio]

Learn something new everyday, i'm currently with EE after being swapped over from BT (same co I know) was considering swapping to PN once full fibre is activated in my street

Plusnet and EE are both BT owned.
The dude who was pushing the whole thing of rebranding to EE for consumer and BT for business got the nudge out of the business and the EE rebranding has been shelved (as best I know).

 

[mark43]

Thought I'd give a quick update if anyone is interested (I guess there could be the odd person in the same situation). I went back to BT asking about the legal costs and if its something we could pay ourselves, and got the following reply.

"Unfortunately its not just the costs of legal. It is the process that we would need to follow that is not accepted by the freeholder also. At the moment we are not supplying to this size of building within our large portfolios but that could change in the future."

I then contacted the freeholder to ask if they could explain the situation from their side, and got the below detailed reply. I understand BT wanting to keep costs and complications to a minimum, and I'm not sure anyone will agree based on some of the replies above, but I don't think the freeholder is being unreasonable really. I guess I'm screwed anyway unless BT change their policy in the future.

The issue is not that there was a proposed process to which we are not agreeable. It is that Openreach’s proposed ‘process’ has removed so many of the standard checks and balances, Freeholder/Managing Agent oversight and safety measures that we have been advised by independent surveyors not to proceed.

Openreach essentially want to be given free reign to go and install without:

1. Consulting the Freeholder/Managing Agent about turning up on site for installation once in receipt of a wayleave. This means that we have no direct oversight of where and when they are installing and have no means of tracking the progress of the installations in the same way that we do in the usual process. We suggested that an email be sent to both ourselves and the Property Manager before any installation goes ahead but were advised that this was adding another layer to the process. For reference, in the usual process we receive a completion document from the Freeholder’s surveyor to confirm that the install was completed in line with plans and presents no snags, and a handover document from the provider documenting the technical details of the install and declaring the network ready and safe for service.
2. Using the Freeholder’s appointed surveyor to monitor the installation. They usually oversee fibre installations for us and ensure that all is in order throughout the process, especially around all of the health and safety documentation. Combined with the above, this essentially means that Openreach would be completely free to carry out unsupervised installations for which they will be totally unaccountable. There will be no oversight from the surveyor when it comes to the status of protected sites in conservation areas, the presence of asbestos which engineers may accidentally drill through, or snags with the installation.

The reasons for which we could not proceed with this process are many-fold but essentially boils down to Openreach wanting to remove what they view as any possible cost or inconvenience in the process. They essentially want to obtain a wayleave, then go to sight at any point in the future (once a resident places an order) and install without any oversight or monitoring.

We have been advised by insurers, surveyors and building safety that this would be completely unacceptable as there is just too much risk.

 

[DIABLO]

Thought I'd give a quick update if anyone is interested (I guess there could be the odd person in the same situation). I went back to BT asking about the legal costs and if its something we could pay ourselves, and got the following reply.



I then contacted the freeholder to ask if they could explain the situation from their side, and got the below detailed reply. I understand BT wanting to keep costs and complications to a minimum, and I'm not sure anyone will agree based on some of the replies above, but I don't think the freeholder is being unreasonable really. I guess I'm screwed anyway unless BT change their policy in the future.

Yeah, Openreach just are not going to bother jumping through those hoops, it's not like their installation teams are scratching around with no work to do. Any sort of resistance, they will just say "nope", and move onto a easier job.