CTIL v Firoka: My observations

In the recent decision of CTIL v Firoka (Kings Cross) Ltd, the tribunal accepted that the rooftop of the hotel, which was the subject of the case, was earmarked for redevelopment, and that the owner, Firoka (Kings Cross) Ltd, could go ahead with its redevelopment plans, but there was yet another example within the decision that we see time and time again that does not match up to what we see in reality.

On paper, the law and the Tribunal’s ruling draw a clear line: operators do not need close oversight and should be trusted as experts. Once granted access, their works, inspection and maintenance are their concern alone, and that the landowner should not expect to be compensated for oversight or expert advice when it comes to such matters.

This principle may sound efficient, but in practice it can be a recipe for trouble. When operators carry out such works unsupervised, or with minimal communication, the risk of inadvertent damage to property increases, and without a clear obligation to be able to, or receive compensation for, oversight or reinstatement, landlords can be left holding the bill and with damage to their property that could have been entirely avoided.

This gap between the assurances of the Code and the messy reality of construction, maintenance or removal of telecoms apparatus mirrors a recurring fault in how digital infrastructure gets installed. The law provides formal protection for landowners through case decisions – yet the everyday assumption by many operators is that once rights are granted, the landowner’s role (and rights) largely vanish. Why is it that, despite assurances by Tribunals where we are told to trust the experts, we see a continuing stream of work come our way trying to resolve damage to Landowner’s property? 

We were recently dis-instructed on a matter relating to assessing and supervising an upgrade of a rooftop, on the grounds that the operator would not compensate the landlord for our fees, and did not require their plans, method statements or risk assessments to be checked. The works went ahead, and permanent damage was inadvertently done to the rooftop, of which the landlord is now fighting to get repaired.

If regulators and operators continue to insist on no oversight or supervision, and leave the process for “enforceable” indemnities a mystery, there is a real danger that “works under the Code” will lead not to “seamless upgrades” or “enhanced connectivity”, but to property damage, disruption and disputes. A blanket “trust the experts” approach is not an acceptable answer to the question of how the burden of telecoms apparatus is to be hoisted upon Landowners.