Telecommunications Code Agreement

The transitional provisions concern stock agreements and govern the interaction between the LTA 1954 and the rights of the Code. The transitional provisions stipulate that the ETA continues to apply in 1954, which was in force before the new Code came into force. Telecom equipment network operators have the right to install and operate their devices on sites, in accordance with Schedule 3A of the Communication Act 2003 (as enacted by the Digital Economy Act 2017). Code rights are extended and provide operators with a certain degree of ownership security. Landowners may restrict these rights only if they are able to successfully argue that the operator has not fulfilled a number of the conditions laid down in Article 21 of the Code. If both of the conditions below can be met, an operator can upgrade the devices and share their use with another operator, notwithstanding the provision of the code agreement: it is now quite clear that an agreement does not have to be registered in the HM Cadastre under the new code, or otherwise. be binding on third parties. This is also the case when the contract is in the form of a rental agreement. The decisions in Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Ashloch Ltd and AP Wireless II (UK) Ltd and Cornerstone Telecommunications Infrastructure Ltd v Compton Beauchamp Estates Ltd clearly established the date of application of the proceedings set out in Parts 4 and 5. As a general rule, Part 4 should be used for a new agreement where the operator does not have equipment on site, and Part 5 should be used to renew a code agreement for existing equipment. Landowners and operators must be aware of the distinction and ensure that the correct procedure is followed. It gives the providers of these networks the right to install and maintain devices indoors, through and underground. These are called code rights.

Following the CB case (see above), the lessor challenged UT`s jurisdiction to impose code fees on it because it had not occupied the corresponding part of the roof. The owner argued that the rights to Part 4 of the Cornerstone Code were not available, since Cornerstone is now the user of the site and has benefited from the rights that continue under the ETA, 1954. The landlord argued that the only way for Cornerstone to obtain new rights was to apply to the District Court for a new lease after the 1954 ETA. Both parties agreed that the lease was a contractual agreement, so Cornerstone could not attempt to extend it in accordance with Part 5 of the Code. In its Ashloch decision, the Tribunal stated that, as cornerstone wished to renew an existing code agreement, the extension provisions of Part 5 of the Code would apply. . . .

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Comments are closed, but you can leave a trackback: Trackback URL.