Telephone Mast Landlords
Discussion
Not entirely sure where to put this. But this section seems as good as anywhere as it's where the landlords hang-out.
In late 2017 the UK Government brought in a new Electronic Communications Code with the aim of rolling out 5G faster. Now I'm going to shortcut a whole load of information to make this easier to read, but along with a lot of technical changes, the way that sites were to be valued was to be changed, in that there was a valuation disregard that meant the sites value as an Electronic Communications Site could not be counted - known as the 'No Network' assumption. In effect you value the roof as a roof, or the corner of the field as a corner of the field, not the corner of a field used as a mast.
Three years on, this market is now entirely broken. Landlords and their telecom tenants are the polar opposite of each other. Operators have aggressively sought to reduce rents from say £6k for a mast site in a field to £50. Landlords no longer welcome operators with open arms, indeed quite the opposite. The new ECC has failed (in my view) - we are now completely behind the curve in rolling out 5G.
So why mention this? Well first of all it's an interesting example of government meddling with business. Secondly for those interested there is a consultation on amending the ECC. Link is here for those interested. - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consul...
What's my answer? well that's easy. a partnership. A fair rent to a fair landlord. Easy.
In late 2017 the UK Government brought in a new Electronic Communications Code with the aim of rolling out 5G faster. Now I'm going to shortcut a whole load of information to make this easier to read, but along with a lot of technical changes, the way that sites were to be valued was to be changed, in that there was a valuation disregard that meant the sites value as an Electronic Communications Site could not be counted - known as the 'No Network' assumption. In effect you value the roof as a roof, or the corner of the field as a corner of the field, not the corner of a field used as a mast.
Three years on, this market is now entirely broken. Landlords and their telecom tenants are the polar opposite of each other. Operators have aggressively sought to reduce rents from say £6k for a mast site in a field to £50. Landlords no longer welcome operators with open arms, indeed quite the opposite. The new ECC has failed (in my view) - we are now completely behind the curve in rolling out 5G.
So why mention this? Well first of all it's an interesting example of government meddling with business. Secondly for those interested there is a consultation on amending the ECC. Link is here for those interested. - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consul...
What's my answer? well that's easy. a partnership. A fair rent to a fair landlord. Easy.
We always adopted the attitude that we are genuinely not bothered if they take the mast away. Doesn’t really work like that anymore.
They tried the bully boy tactics with us in early 2017 and we pushed back hard - they are bound by the lease to pay all our legal fees. Rent increased to £9.5k and they gave us a one off £10k addition to allow additional equipment on the mast.
Really would be interested in seeing how this develops.
They tried the bully boy tactics with us in early 2017 and we pushed back hard - they are bound by the lease to pay all our legal fees. Rent increased to £9.5k and they gave us a one off £10k addition to allow additional equipment on the mast.
Really would be interested in seeing how this develops.
In early 2017 you would have been in a good position Jockman. Were you in early 2018 it would have been a different story.
Unfortunately in many circumstances telling them you’ll have the land back instead is simply not an option as they were given strong protections.
The telcos have lost some significant cases in the courts (and for balance won a few). Their strategy is looking a bit dicey at present. Hence the consultation to amend the bits they keep losing on!
Unfortunately in many circumstances telling them you’ll have the land back instead is simply not an option as they were given strong protections.
The telcos have lost some significant cases in the courts (and for balance won a few). Their strategy is looking a bit dicey at present. Hence the consultation to amend the bits they keep losing on!
surveyor said:
Not entirely sure where to put this. But this section seems as good as anywhere as it's where the landlords hang-out.
In late 2017 the UK Government brought in a new Electronic Communications Code with the aim of rolling out 5G faster. Now I'm going to shortcut a whole load of information to make this easier to read, but along with a lot of technical changes, the way that sites were to be valued was to be changed, in that there was a valuation disregard that meant the sites value as an Electronic Communications Site could not be counted - known as the 'No Network' assumption. In effect you value the roof as a roof, or the corner of the field as a corner of the field, not the corner of a field used as a mast.
Three years on, this market is now entirely broken. Landlords and their telecom tenants are the polar opposite of each other. Operators have aggressively sought to reduce rents from say £6k for a mast site in a field to £50. Landlords no longer welcome operators with open arms, indeed quite the opposite. The new ECC has failed (in my view) - we are now completely behind the curve in rolling out 5G.
So why mention this? Well first of all it's an interesting example of government meddling with business. Secondly for those interested there is a consultation on amending the ECC. Link is here for those interested. - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consul...
What's my answer? well that's easy. a partnership. A fair rent to a fair landlord. Easy.
Interesting stuff. I wasn't aware of this, but have seen a good few sites coming up for sale.In late 2017 the UK Government brought in a new Electronic Communications Code with the aim of rolling out 5G faster. Now I'm going to shortcut a whole load of information to make this easier to read, but along with a lot of technical changes, the way that sites were to be valued was to be changed, in that there was a valuation disregard that meant the sites value as an Electronic Communications Site could not be counted - known as the 'No Network' assumption. In effect you value the roof as a roof, or the corner of the field as a corner of the field, not the corner of a field used as a mast.
Three years on, this market is now entirely broken. Landlords and their telecom tenants are the polar opposite of each other. Operators have aggressively sought to reduce rents from say £6k for a mast site in a field to £50. Landlords no longer welcome operators with open arms, indeed quite the opposite. The new ECC has failed (in my view) - we are now completely behind the curve in rolling out 5G.
So why mention this? Well first of all it's an interesting example of government meddling with business. Secondly for those interested there is a consultation on amending the ECC. Link is here for those interested. - https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consul...
What's my answer? well that's easy. a partnership. A fair rent to a fair landlord. Easy.
Do you know who it was in government that was behind it?
I'm really interested in this.
We are in the process of buying some land to expand. Within the block are 2 masts just upgraded one for the smart meters and the other for some wifi not for us public though.
The 10yr rent expired November 2019 and they were expected to renew at £11k per annum which includes a small uplift.
Telecom company have reclassified the lease somehow and as you have pointed out offered £500/yr rental.
We had an agreement to pay the uplift in land value equal to the 10yr rental so we have a potential saving of £110k on the purchase price.
The landlord claimed £11k /year rental or remove them.
Telecom co. refused so this is currently going through court.
As a principal landlord now wants them off.
We don't want them anyway.
It does sound like corporate bullying to me that these telecoms co's can be so bullish in what they want to do and how they treat their partners.
I hope he wins and the masts are removed. This is dragging on though and we want to develop some of the land.
We are in the process of buying some land to expand. Within the block are 2 masts just upgraded one for the smart meters and the other for some wifi not for us public though.
The 10yr rent expired November 2019 and they were expected to renew at £11k per annum which includes a small uplift.
Telecom company have reclassified the lease somehow and as you have pointed out offered £500/yr rental.
We had an agreement to pay the uplift in land value equal to the 10yr rental so we have a potential saving of £110k on the purchase price.
The landlord claimed £11k /year rental or remove them.
Telecom co. refused so this is currently going through court.
As a principal landlord now wants them off.
We don't want them anyway.
It does sound like corporate bullying to me that these telecoms co's can be so bullish in what they want to do and how they treat their partners.
I hope he wins and the masts are removed. This is dragging on though and we want to develop some of the land.
Louis Balfour said:
Interesting stuff. I wasn't aware of this, but have seen a good few sites coming up for sale.
Do you know who it was in government that was behind it?
It’s within DCMS. New code was the responsibility of Matt Hancock, with Matt Warman running the show nowadays.Do you know who it was in government that was behind it?
skilly1 said:
We just sold three masts because of the uncertainty in the market.
Out of interest who to? (Feel free to pm me if you wish)zoomy said:
I'm really interested in this.
We are in the process of buying some land to expand. Within the block are 2 masts just upgraded one for the smart meters and the other for some wifi not for us public though.
The 10yr rent expired November 2019 and they were expected to renew at £11k per annum which includes a small uplift.
Telecom company have reclassified the lease somehow and as you have pointed out offered £500/yr rental.
We had an agreement to pay the uplift in land value equal to the 10yr rental so we have a potential saving of £110k on the purchase price.
The landlord claimed £11k /year rental or remove them.
Telecom co. refused so this is currently going through court.
As a principal landlord now wants them off.
We don't want them anyway.
It does sound like corporate bullying to me that these telecoms co's can be so bullish in what they want to do and how they treat their partners.
I hope he wins and the masts are removed. This is dragging on though and we want to develop some of the land.
Hopefully they have a specialisation telecoms solicitor involved. I’ve seen it go very wrong with solicitors who are outside the comfort zone.We are in the process of buying some land to expand. Within the block are 2 masts just upgraded one for the smart meters and the other for some wifi not for us public though.
The 10yr rent expired November 2019 and they were expected to renew at £11k per annum which includes a small uplift.
Telecom company have reclassified the lease somehow and as you have pointed out offered £500/yr rental.
We had an agreement to pay the uplift in land value equal to the 10yr rental so we have a potential saving of £110k on the purchase price.
The landlord claimed £11k /year rental or remove them.
Telecom co. refused so this is currently going through court.
As a principal landlord now wants them off.
We don't want them anyway.
It does sound like corporate bullying to me that these telecoms co's can be so bullish in what they want to do and how they treat their partners.
I hope he wins and the masts are removed. This is dragging on though and we want to develop some of the land.
There has been a recent decision in the court of appeal that may help in their desire, Cornerstone v (1) Ashloch and (2) AP Wireless [2021]. In that decision it also sums code up beautifully where Lord Justice Davis says "All I can say is that the Code itself is, to my way of thinking, fiendishly complex."
Our lease is now with cornerstone. AP Wireless keep making us offers to buy the mast at x multiples but also try the scare tactics of new telecoms protection etc as a reason for lower multiples each time.
Truth be told we make a nice income from the electricity recharge so in no great hurry.
Truth be told we make a nice income from the electricity recharge so in no great hurry.
We used the phone mast company to arrange a deal with AP wireless. We were getting about £15,000 a year from three mast in total, and we leased them for 20 years for £150,000.
Can’t help think with things like Starlink coming online that telecoms masts may become less important in the next 10 to 20 years. Also the worry of reduced rents was a factor.
Can’t help think with things like Starlink coming online that telecoms masts may become less important in the next 10 to 20 years. Also the worry of reduced rents was a factor.
Jockman said:
Our lease is now with cornerstone. AP Wireless keep making us offers to buy the mast at x multiples but also try the scare tactics of new telecoms protection etc as a reason for lower multiples each time.
Truth be told we make a nice income from the electricity recharge so in no great hurry.
This is going somewhere where I probably cannot. Truth be told we make a nice income from the electricity recharge so in no great hurry.
What I would say is code is real. Telco’s are demanding massive rent reductions. Fighting them costs money - lots of it. There used to be several companies buying mast income, now there is not.
Whether anyone sells or not is a personal decision. But not recognising code as real risk would be a mistake.
surveyor said:
A fair rent to a fair landlord. Easy.
Couldn't agree more ! Unless the landlord is getting a fair return - it causes a real issue with installs and maintenance.
Simply getting onto site is getting to be a nightmare , too many disputes with landlords and you end up with a rigging team drinking coffee with the security guard costing more money than the dispute is worth. ( or in central London 3 teams all on site simultaneously as the sites not beacon , and you're all trying to sneak in AAUs rather than pay for more poles. )
If everyone paid fair money... we'd have better site shares when needed , we'd have sensible weight antennas and someone would actually admit how much power we now need
surveyor said:
Jockman said:
Our lease is now with cornerstone. AP Wireless keep making us offers to buy the mast at x multiples but also try the scare tactics of new telecoms protection etc as a reason for lower multiples each time.
Truth be told we make a nice income from the electricity recharge so in no great hurry.
This is going somewhere where I probably cannot. Truth be told we make a nice income from the electricity recharge so in no great hurry.
What I would say is code is real. Telco’s are demanding massive rent reductions. Fighting them costs money - lots of it. There used to be several companies buying mast income, now there is not.
Whether anyone sells or not is a personal decision. But not recognising code as real risk would be a mistake.
Louis Balfour said:
surveyor said:
Jockman said:
Our lease is now with cornerstone. AP Wireless keep making us offers to buy the mast at x multiples but also try the scare tactics of new telecoms protection etc as a reason for lower multiples each time.
Truth be told we make a nice income from the electricity recharge so in no great hurry.
This is going somewhere where I probably cannot. Truth be told we make a nice income from the electricity recharge so in no great hurry.
What I would say is code is real. Telco’s are demanding massive rent reductions. Fighting them costs money - lots of it. There used to be several companies buying mast income, now there is not.
Whether anyone sells or not is a personal decision. But not recognising code as real risk would be a mistake.
With the public consultation this is beginning to become more public.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9308293/L...
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9308293/L...
surveyor said:
With the public consultation this is beginning to become more public.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9308293/L...
The general public likes its mobile phones. They don't like landlords. I wonder how this may go...https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9308293/L...
Louis Balfour said:
surveyor said:
With the public consultation this is beginning to become more public.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9308293/L...
The general public likes its mobile phones. They don't like landlords. I wonder how this may go...https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9308293/L...
The landlord community has been slow to organise itself, and some of it is property investment led, and hence not a cuddly sell. However there are a significant number of landlords who are farmers, social clubs, churches, scout groups, sports clubs. Housing associations and emergency services are also in the firing line. There is now a campaign which hopefully we will all get behind.
Some of the stories that I have heard and seen are shocking and amount to corporate bullying. Even when the operators know they are in the wrong they still persist. The organisation I work for is well funded, taking on the operators and winning. But its bloody expensive doing it - for the individual or charity landlord the options are really limited.
Interesting
Got the bully letter back in 2017 about a mast on the family farm - the take it away approach worked at the time.
The power box for it is in the farm house and runs across the yard so had that in mind as a lever if things went sour.
I had thought that the spirit of the rules applies to new sites - not existing ones - and it was lawyers doing what they do - and the mast companies trying their luck...
Got the bully letter back in 2017 about a mast on the family farm - the take it away approach worked at the time.
The power box for it is in the farm house and runs across the yard so had that in mind as a lever if things went sour.
I had thought that the spirit of the rules applies to new sites - not existing ones - and it was lawyers doing what they do - and the mast companies trying their luck...
jonny_c said:
Interesting
Got the bully letter back in 2017 about a mast on the family farm - the take it away approach worked at the time.
The power box for it is in the farm house and runs across the yard so had that in mind as a lever if things went sour.
I had thought that the spirit of the rules applies to new sites - not existing ones - and it was lawyers doing what they do - and the mast companies trying their luck...
There are transitional arrangements which affect the old ones, which mean in many cases code does not apply, but the '54 act does. The operators did not like this, and ran them through the new Upper Tribunal anyway. They rejected it and said no it's the '54 act procedure. They appealed to Court of Appeal and lost that appeal. So unless they appeal again, the '54 procedure is key. The important difference is a code valuation assumes that it is not used to Electronic Communications, whereas there is no such disregard in the '54 act.Got the bully letter back in 2017 about a mast on the family farm - the take it away approach worked at the time.
The power box for it is in the farm house and runs across the yard so had that in mind as a lever if things went sour.
I had thought that the spirit of the rules applies to new sites - not existing ones - and it was lawyers doing what they do - and the mast companies trying their luck...
Naturally the next tactic was to argue that code valuations were inferred in the '54 procedure (nope), or to request 1 year lease, so that they can get into new code asap (not worked so far).
The fact that landlords have won some cases has it seems really upset the operators. The consultation is as a result of them lobbying that landlords should lose the limited the transitional protections that are in place.
The Operators said they needed this to role out 5G faster. Has it worked? Nope we are 3 years down the line still squabbling. To my mind this is really easy. if everyone gets a fair deal stuff will get done.
surveyor said:
Louis Balfour said:
surveyor said:
With the public consultation this is beginning to become more public.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9308293/L...
The general public likes its mobile phones. They don't like landlords. I wonder how this may go...https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9308293/L...
The landlord community has been slow to organise itself, and some of it is property investment led, and hence not a cuddly sell. However there are a significant number of landlords who are farmers, social clubs, churches, scout groups, sports clubs. Housing associations and emergency services are also in the firing line. There is now a campaign which hopefully we will all get behind.
Some of the stories that I have heard and seen are shocking and amount to corporate bullying. Even when the operators know they are in the wrong they still persist. The organisation I work for is well funded, taking on the operators and winning. But its bloody expensive doing it - for the individual or charity landlord the options are really limited.
This seems to be another case of the Conservatives not being very conservative. They seem quite prepared to burn landlords for political gain.
Gassing Station | Business | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff