Help! Am I obliged to have a BT junction box in my garden?

[siannyevans]

Hi all, hope you can help. I have a BT junction box in my front garden. I've never really been bothered by it but they have recently done some work on it and left it in a terrible mess plus they have also moved it and made it bigger. I have contacted open reach several times and asked that the contract manager contact me to discuss but have yet to hear anything. They have done further work this week but the issues I raised have not been taken into consideration. The poor workmanship has been corrected but the box is almost 3 times the original size and is diagonal across my garden which is going to prevent me from building a boundary wall as planned. I have advised them I have no real objection to it being on my property as long as I can build the wall as has always been my intention. However, the way the recent work has been undertaken is going to prevent me from doing this. My main question is am I obliged to have it on my property? A neighbour thought if they were doing extensive work on it, which they have, then they ought to move it. Your thoughts / suggestions would be much appreciated.

Thanks!

 

[big-all]

i would suggest they have breached any agreement by changing the size and position but no expert
have you looked in the house deeds assuming you own the house
or contact your landlord if rented

 

[briancbb]

I would check your deeds. It is possible that you have a service strip running along the front of your garden. If this is the case then you could have gas, electric, and other services digging up your garden.

Is it also possible, as you do not have a boundary wall that the deeds say it is 'open plan', in which case PP may be required to build one.

 

[^woody^]

Check the precise wording of the consent within the deeds which grants the permission for the junction box in the first place - typically it will be what is known as a "Wayleave" and is the granting of a licence for the utillity company to use part of your land

There would normally be some sort of payment from them to use your land.

You may be able to revoke your agreement, but it depends on the terms of the initial agreement

But moving, altering, extending and causing further damage to your land are not generally part of the agreement and you can object to this and prevent it

 

[SimonH2]

As it happens in my last job we were in an industrial unit which was owned by a farmer (converted cow shed). When we went digital (got ISDN), BT had to put a new fibre in across the farmer's field and I got to see the wayleave.

IIRC, the term was for 10 years, and after that needed 1 year notice.

If there is nothing in the deeds of the house saying BT have such a right, and you can't get hold of any other documents suggesting a formal wayleave, and you've had no luck getting them to deal with you, then this is what I'd be tempted to do. Clearly this is only to be done if a) you do want it removed, and b) you are bold enough to follow through. I believe BT Openreach as a utility have a right to run services under public highways, but not on/over/under private land. I believe case lore does allow them to run overhead cables that pass over your property (eg to get to a neighbours house)

Write to BT OpenReach giving them a reasonable time (say 12 months) to remove their box from your property - if there is in fact a 12 month break clause in any wayleave, you've just invoked it. Also revoke any permission express or implied for their employees, contractors, and agents to enter onto your land. If they do in fact have a wayleave in place, they should get back to you along the lines of "you can't make us remove it without <some period> notice" - you will now have a person to deal with and hopefully you can resolve the mater with them.

If they just ignore you, then write again and give them another period to remove it, and add that if they don't you will have it removed - and you won't accept any liability for problems caused, and you will bill them for the cost. This is very likely to get their attention.

If you still haven't got their attention, then step 3 is to remove the box. Now this is rather a drastic step to take 9and could make you guilty of criminal damage if you were wrong about the facts), so I wouldn't actually remove the box. I'd go and buy a load of disconnect wedges*, and shove them into their terminal strips. This has the effect of disconnecting the phone lines that run through the terminals - and they'll get a flurry of "my phone has gone off" calls. Trust me, this WILL get their attention
You need to do this when you are able to stop at home and wait for a man to arrive in a van - probably a number of men in vans. As they head to stomp over your garden, you can then pop out and inform them that they are trespassing and no they cannot get to the box. Explain that you have written to their employer explicitly removing any permission to use your property, and if they continue then they are committing a criminal act**. You can point out that you have attempted to contact their employer, got no response, and have given them notice that you will be removing the box - but so as not to cause permanent damage you have disconnected the lines to get their attention. You can reasonably expect much use of mobile phones and to be put in tough with a manager now who will be very keen to sort it out because a) he's against the clock for repair times on all those out-of-service lines, and b) he'll know just how much it will cost him to have the box moved.

Of course, and alternative would be to just build your wall, embedding their box in it if need be, and if it means their box can't be accessed then ... oh dear, how sad.


* Most "geen boxes" these days are filled with rows of Krone disconnect terminals. These have a slot in the middle into which a plastic wedge can be put to disconnect one side from the other, or can be used for a test plug.

** Trespass is normally a civil tort, but if someone continues after you have told them to leave then the trespass becomes a criminal matter under fairly recent legislation.

 

[Paul_C]

Trespass is normally a civil tort, but if someone continues after you have told them to leave then the trespass becomes a criminal matter under fairly recent legislation.

That's interesting - Do you happen to have a reference to the statute?

 

[SimonH2]

Trespass is normally a civil tort, but if someone continues after you have told them to leave then the trespass becomes a criminal matter under fairly recent legislation.

That's interesting - Do you happen to have a reference to the statute

I didn't - and now I've looked it up it's not quite that simple (it it ever with law ?) as I thought. I never paid much attention in the past since I'm not in the habit of trespassing, and I've not had to deal with trespassers either. Certainly if you ask someone to leave then you have removed any express or implied license to be on the property and they are now committing the civil tort of trespass, but it doesn't automatically make it a criminal matter.

A quick look via http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_in_English_law, thich has a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_Justice_and_Public_Order_Act_1994, and then to the Act itself. I suspect the most appropriate bit would be http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1994/33/part/V/crossheading/disruptive-trespassers
Section 68, Offence of aggravated trespass
A person commits the offence of aggravated trespass if he trespasses on land [F1...in the open air]... and, in relation to any lawful activity which persons are engaging in or are about to engage in on that or adjoining land [F2...in the open air]... , does there anything which is intended by him to have the effect—
(a)of intimidating those persons or any of them so as to deter them or any of them from engaging in that activity,
(b)of obstructing that activity, or
(c)of disrupting that activity.

I suppose it's down to how those clauses are interpreted, and what activity is interfered with. Sneaking in and becoming "one more face" at a (say) pop concert probably wouldn't fit any of those tests. Gatecrashing a posh wedding reception and being "loutish" possibly would.


In the context of the OPs problem, the presence of the green box, and the access to it by the BT Openreach people, might well meet one of those conditions. Certainly if the OP wanted to grow flowers right in front of it, then the fact that they would need to remove or flatten them to access the box might could. I'd say that demands to gain access and remove/flatten the flowers would fall under (a) and (c).

 

[Paul_C]

Thanks. I've never had to deal with anything to do with trespass, but of course had always been led to believe that by itself it was "a civil matter" in England, even if one had expressly removed any explicit or implicit right of access for a person. At least it seems there's something more now to back up a homeowner's rights, even if limited and open to a lot of interpretation.

 

[SimonH2]

Thanks. I've never had to deal with anything to do with trespass, but of course had always been led to believe that by itself it was "a civil matter" in England, even if one had expressly removed any explicit or implicit right of access for a person. At least it seems there's something more now to back up a homeowner's rights, even if limited and open to a lot of interpretation.

Yes, it was always only a civil tort - and I found it mildly amusing to see those signs saying "trespassers will be prosecuted". IIRC this new criminal trespass stuff was brought in largely to deal with raves etc where a group would just descend on a property, have a "wild party", and leave "a mess" in their wake. In the past, the Police would have difficulty unless they could catch someone committing a criminal act (such as criminal damage) - can be difficult to say the least. Also, hunt saboteurs who could trespass with the intention of disturbing a hunt without the police being able to do much about it. Now there are criminal offences, the Police can do something at the time.

 

[cajar]

I would approach with caution any suggestion of opening the box and (even temporarily) disconnecting lines / services as this can open you to prosecution even if the utility company have been ignoring your reasonable requests for discussion and even if it does not have permission to be on your land.

You may be disconnecting a leased circuit that costs BT 000's of pounds in penalties for downtime, and while yes one may say that'll get their attention it would also likely encourage them to seek redress.

 

[SimonH2]

I would approach with caution any suggestion of opening the box and (even temporarily) disconnecting lines / services as this can open you to prosecution even if the utility company have been ignoring your reasonable requests for discussion and even if it does not have permission to be on your land.

You may be disconnecting a leased circuit that costs BT 000's of pounds in penalties for downtime, and while yes one may say that'll get their attention it would also likely encourage them to seek redress.

That is very true, but if you have given them reasonable notice (note I suggested 12 months, as that would cover the break clause I recall from the past) and they've ignored all attempt to contact them, then short of physically removing it, it would seem to be the last resort. If you've been careful to keep copies of all letters, and got proof of delivery for all of them (use recorded delivery), then they'd find it very difficult indeed to claim redress from you. Your defence would be that you have a legal right to deal with a trespass* and could have simply removed the box altogether but chose a route that wouldn't cause permanent damage.

Of course a lot would depend on the type of properties around. If it's all residential then there aren't likely to be a lot of leased lines, if it's all commercial then the odds are a bit higher.

* In the same way that if a neighbour allows their trees to overhang your property and cause a nuisance, you have the right to trim the overlapping branches - and claim the costs of doing so from them. You cannot however keep the bits chopped off - that would be theft.


All in all, one hopes they (Bt OpenReach) would not be so stupid and arrogant as to ignore the situation.


An alternative approach is to simply make the box inaccessible and wait for a natural line fault/installation to require they gain access - and negotiate then.

 

[^woody^]

Trespass is normally a civil tort, but if someone continues after you have told them to leave then the trespass becomes a criminal matter under fairly recent legislation.

That's interesting - Do you happen to have a reference to the statute?

Criminal Trespass - normally applies to certain types of land eg government, railways, MOD land etc or other "designated" sites.

However, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act (1994), a criminal offence occurs if two or more people trespass on land if they have been requested to leave by the owner of the land (or their agent/employee) and they don't go.

Or if a person has been instructed to leave the land by a police officer and they refuse, criminal trespass occurs - or if they leave but return within three (?) months.

There is also Aggravated Trespass - which involves some sort of intimidation or obstruction (of use) of the land - and not damage

There are also opportunities under an old vagrancy Act - for "being in an enclosed space" for an unlawful purpose

Also good old Breach of the Peace legislation

 

[jabuzzard]

You could always get a sharp spade out and go digging in your garden

 

[SimonH2]

You could always get a sharp spade out and go digging in your garden

I used to work for a farmer that told me he did that once - but not with a spade. The ground up our way can be "a tad rocky", and there was this multipair buried across his field - I'd guess from the size of cable where it appears overhead, it's 20pair or more. Anyway, because of the hardness of the ground it wasn't buried very deep ... he went to plough the field ... I think you can guess the rest

He described it as having hundreds of wires sticking out, but I think that was a slight exaggeration.