Lawbite: Operator left hanging after order for cable removal

Scottish Electronic Communications Code judgments are not issued often but are worth a read by anyone interested in telecoms litigation, particularly involving Scottish land and property.

The Lands Tribunal for Scotland has issued its third Code judgment of 2026, ordering the removal of telecommunications apparatus installed over a homeowner‘s property without her consent.

The respondent, British Telecommunications plc, provided no evidence to justify retaining or altering the apparatus under the statutory test in paragraphs 78–79 of the Electronic Communications Code. The Tribunal found the statutory conditions satisfied and ordered removal within 12 weeks, awarding expenses to the applicant due to the respondent’s failure to engage with the proceedings

The unauthorised installation

An Edinburgh homeowner has won an application under paragraph 79 of the Code to force an operator to remove a telecoms cable which had been installed over her property while she was abroad.

Dr Dobrovinskaya returned home to find the wire stretching across her garden and garage, installed after engineers were let in by her teenage son. No advance notice had been given of the visit or the proposed works.

The wire ran from a pole behind neighbouring properties, across adjoining land and then over her garden and garage. Its position prevented construction of a planned second storey extension. The homeowner sought an order for removal of the wire on the basis that it materially prejudiced her enjoyment of and interest in her property because she was not able to build the extension.

Unopposed application

The Tribunal found that the apparatus materially prejudiced the applicant’s enjoyment of and interest in her property.

The operator did not defend the application and in the absence of competing evidence on why retaining the apparatus was necessary, the Tribunal found that the statutory test for removal was met.

The only information the Tribunal had before it from the operator was what it described as correspondence “advancing a general assertion of statutory entitlement…In particular, there is no evidence as to what alterations of the apparatus might be possible or as to the consequences of any such alteration.” 

The Tribunal was unwilling to assist the respondent by speculating on alternative configurations for the operator’s network or to construct the operator’s case for it, and granted the order for removal. The Tribunal also awarded expenses (costs) to the homeowner.

Takeaways

• landowners should act quickly if apparatus is installed on their land or property without agreement. The Code provides a limited window for objections to new apparatus so landowners should seek advice promptly once they become aware of an installation
• evidence of a landowners’ planned development is powerful. The Tribunal accepted the apparatus prevented a planned extension and therefore materially prejudiced the owner’s enjoyment of and interest in the property
• operators should engage meaningfully in such applications and will need to do more than assert Code rights in order to succeed - a general claim of statutory entitlement will not suffice