Mention telecoms masts to most estate teams and you will immediately see that they are not their favourite topic and recently negotiations have been made more difficult by virtue of the rights the telecoms providers have under the new Electronic Communications Code.
Mention telecoms masts to most estate teams and you will immediately see that they are not their favourite topic and recently negotiations have been made more difficult by virtue of the rights the telecoms providers have under the new Electronic Communications Code.
While that code was initially seen to have favoured the telecoms operators some new cases are starting to change that balance and Chris Deveraux, telecoms expert, at Browne Jacobson explains how these new cases can help you in dealing with the telecoms providers operating from your site.
The Electronic Communications Code contained within the Digital Economy Act 2017 (“New Code”) came into force on 28 December 2017 and replaced the previous code within the Telecommunications Act 1984. Here, we review some of the recent caselaw from which points have emerged in favour of landowners, following a period of momentum in favour of telecoms operators.
A key change brought about by the New Code is to remove telecoms leases entered into after 28 December 2017 from the ambit of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1954 (“1954 Act”). It was possible to exclude agreements under the old code from having security of tenure under the 1954 Act; however, parties often did not agree to this. The application of the 1954 Act together with the previous Telecoms Code served to add confusion as to which rules prevailed in particular circumstances. The New Code includes ‘transitional provisions’ which provide that a more limited range of code rights apply to subsisting arrangements rather than the wider range of rights under the New Code. In this case, an agreement dating back to 2002 had been transferred from Vodafone to CTIL (a joint venture between Vodafone and Telefonica/O2).
In November 2019, the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) confirmed that it did not have jurisdiction to renew code rights where the original agreement pre-dated the New Code. As a result, CTIL would have to direct its claim to the County Court for a renewal under the 1954 Act and, at the appropriate time, serve notice pursuant to Part 5 of the New Code. The key significance of this for landowners is in relation to valuation of ‘rent’ to be paid under the renewal agreement. Assessment of rent under the 1954 Act is, in broad terms, an assessment of ‘open market rent’, whereas assessment under the New Code specifically excludes any special value the site may have to a telecoms operator and will often produce a significantly lower figure. This case served to indicate that a court may take into account factors from both the old and new basis of valuation and renewal when determining the rent and terms for tenancies renewed under the 1954 Act, which could lead to a better rental income and potentially less onerous terms than those prescribed in the New Code.
In August 2020, the County Court made the first determination of terms for renewal agreement under the 1954 Act since the introduction of the New Code and in particular it considered valuation of rent and the contractual term. The outcome was largely successful for the landowner given that the Court accepted that the operator’s rights under the code should be taken into account when considering valuation. However, the Court also held that on the facts of this case, there should be an assumption that a competitive bidding process would take place and that the site would be of potential interest to other telecoms operators. The result of this was that instead of rigidly applying the basis of valuation under the New Code and a rent of £2,250 per annum, the landowner achieved £5,750 per annum. Further, whereas Vodafone sought a three-year term with a rolling break, the landlord achieved a ten-year term subject to a rolling break exercisable after five years.
In the 1 September 2020 judgment in this case, the landowner successfully defeated the telecoms operator’s attempt to obtain code rights for a new agreement.
In terms of requests for new arrangements (as opposed to renewals), where parties have not been able to agree terms then a court may impose the New Code on a landowner where:
i) financial compensation is adequate to overcome any prejudice caused to the landowner (the New Code prevents the site owner from making a profit out of the deal); and
ii) the public benefit to the New Code rights being granted outweighs prejudice to the landowner.
Generally, however, a Tribunal will not impose New Code rights where the site owner intends to redevelop the site or neighbouring land, and could not do so if New Code rights were imposed.
In this case, the university had entered into a sale and lease-back arrangement with a developer, pursuant to which it had a rolling break option. For 18 months, the university would pay nil rent; however, after that period rent would increase to £3 million per annum. Crucially, the university’s break option was conditional upon handing back vacant possession of the site, unencumbered by telecoms apparatus. Therefore, if CTIL were to be granted code rights in the particular circumstances, the university would not have sufficient control in order to exercise its break option and may need to resort to litigation to remove CTIL. Further, the university would likely suffer damage to its relationship with the developer and reputational damage, not least with their 5,000 students using the site. These aspects, combined with the £3 million per annum rent liability, were considered by the Tribunal as “too much to ask” of the university if New Code rights were to be granted. It is important to note, however, that the Tribunal did acknowledge the level of prejudice to a landowner needs to be “very high indeed” to outweigh the public benefit and the determination was made on the specific facts of the case.
In conclusion, while the New Code remains very much in favour of operators, the above cases indicate the potential benefit of bespoke legal advice and that, in particular circumstances, points arise in favour of landowners from which it can be possible to protect future site redevelopment prospects and achieve better terms on renewals.
There’s been little evidence of interventions or financial management reviews this year and it appears the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA) has re-focussed on financial delivery. It’s also telling that there were no discernible changes to the reporting of financial irregularities in the Academies Trust Handbook 2022.
The Children’s Commissioner, Rachel De Souza, has recently published a report “Beyond the labels: a SEND system which works for every child, every time”, which she intends to sit alongside the DfE’s SEND Review (2019) and SEND Green Paper (2022) and which she hopes will put children’s voices at the heart of the government’s review of SEND system.
There’s greater opportunity than ever for parents, carers and guardians to voice any concerns they have relating to their child’s education and for their concerns to be heard and to be taken seriously. While most staff in schools and academies are conscious of their legal duties relating to complaints management, many are struggling to cope with such a significant increase in the volume of complaints they must manage.
We’re pleased to collaborate with Lloyds Bank, who recently asked us and audit and risk specialists Crowe UK to offer guidance that academy trusts would find helpful when considering setting up a trading subsidiary.
The DfE has published new guidance and opened the application process for window two of the Trust Capacity Fund (TCaF) for 2022/2023, with a fund of £86m in trust capacity funding focused particularly on education investment areas.
The Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse was established in March 2015. We now have its report. As you would expect with such a broad scope, the report is long and makes a number of far-reaching recommendations. In this article, Dai Durbridge highlights seven of the 20 recommendations, sets out how they could impact on schools and suggests what steps to take now.
Browne Jacobson’s education team has been named as winner of the ‘Legal Advisors to Education Institutions’ category at the Education Investor Awards 2022 for a record sixth time.
Since the new Suspensions and Exclusions Statutory Guidance was published, we have received a lot of questions about the use of managed moves. For the first time, the Statutory Guidance does explain what a managed move is, but in relatively broad terms and does not cover the mechanics of how a managed move should operate.
Over 3000 young people from across the UK and Ireland took part in a virtual legal careers insight event, aimed at making the legal profession more diverse.
Holly Quirk, an associate barrister in Browne Jacobson’s Manchester office, was awarded the Legal Professional of the Year Award at this year’s Manchester Young Talent Awards.
The risk of assault against staff is, sadly, something that all schools need to consider carefully. Here one legal expert explains what they can do to protect staff and ensure they fulfil their duty of care.
Browne Jacobson’s education team has again been confirmed as a national powerhouse after securing five Tier 1 rankings relating to Education in the latest edition of Legal 500 and maintaining a Band 1 UK-wide ranking for Education in Chambers & Partners UK 2023.
Created at the end of the Brexit transition period, Retained EU Law is a category of domestic law that consists of EU-derived legislation retained in our domestic legal framework by the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. This was never intended to be a permanent arrangement as parliament promised to deal with retained EU law through the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill (the “Bill”).
In this article we set out the criteria, expectations and support schools should consider if notified they fall within this new category.
The words “Grammar schools” are once again being whispered in government and the question of whether the creation of new grammar schools will finally be implemented as a central focus to DFE policy has re-surfaced.
As a result of a recent Charity Commission legal action, the former trustee of a Welsh charity was ordered to pay over £117,000 to Wrexham charities which support cancer patients.