When an internet provider comes calling: Director, Lee Stutt, tells you what you should do

The letter from the telecoms operator comes when you don't expect it. A notice under the Electronic Communications Code (the "Code") telling you they plan to install cables or apparatus under your land.

The instinctive reaction is to ignore it, or, because they want to do something on your land, to fire back with a flat refusal. Resist both instincts. Neither will serve you.

To soften the blow, they offer to pay for your legal advice, maybe £1,000. It can feel like a done deal, because that's exactly how they present it: just some fine details to conclude. They're a massive internet provider, they've got statutory powers, and they're even footing the bill for your lawyer. So why not just agree?

The Rubber Stamp Trap

When an operator offers that £1,000, what they really want is for you to hire a lawyer who will check the paperwork, tweak a minor clause, and tell you to sign on the dotted line. They want a rubber stamp, not a fight. Most transactional lawyers will do exactly that. Neither they nor you will automatically think that a dispute lawyer is the right choice.

They're hoping you, and your lawyer, will assume their rights are absolute and that pushing back is pointless. But the reality is very different. The Code gives landowners some genuinely powerful tools, if you know how to use them.

Mediation: A Good Idea, Properly Used

Parliament amended the Electronic Communications Code through the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022, and the key ADR provisions, specifically section 69, were brought into force in November 2023. Those amendments introduced a clear requirement for operators to engage in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) before they can apply to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) to force an agreement on a landowner. Under paragraph 20(2A) of the Code, the formal notice you receive must explain what ADR is and what happens if you don't engage with it. Under paragraph 20(5), the operator is legally required to consider ADR first. And under paragraph 96(2)(b), the Tribunal can impose significant costs penalties on any party who unreasonably refuses to engage.

Ofcom has also published a Code of Practice under the Electronic Communications Code, which sets out the standards operators are expected to meet when dealing with landowners. It covers the conduct of negotiations, the information operators must provide, and the expectation that disputes will be approached constructively and in good faith. Where an operator's behaviour falls short of those standards, the Code of Practice is a useful reference point,  both in mediation and, if necessary, before the Upper Tribunal.

There's a reason Parliament chose mediation as the mechanism at the heart of this framework. Over the past decade, there's been a consistent and deliberate push across the legal system to encourage parties to resolve disputes without resorting to court. Parliament's thinking is sound: mediation gives both sides the genuine opportunity to find a solution they can accept, rather than having one imposed on them by a Tribunal.

At Stutt Associates, we believe in this. We're not litigators who view mediation as an inconvenient box to tick on the way to a hearing. Stutt Associates is a dispute firm, and one of our directors is a practising CMC registered commercial mediator. We know what a properly conducted mediation can actually achieve. A good mediation isn't about one side grinding the other down. It's voluntary, it's confidential, and it creates space for creative problem-solving that a court order rarely produces. Used properly, it can resolve a genuine dispute faster, more cheaply, and with far less damage to everyone involved.

How Operators Have Learned to Abuse It

Here's the problem. Operators have been quick to spot that the mediation requirement can be exploited rather than honoured.

Rather than engaging in genuine ADR in the spirit Parliament intended, they treat it as a managed process with a predetermined outcome. They'll point you towards a mediator of their choosing, often someone appointed through CEDR (the Centre for Effective Dispute Resolution). They'll frame the whole exercise as a discussion about how much compensation you'll receive, then use your response as ammunition. If you engage narrowly on their terms, you get a figure they were probably always willing to pay. If you push back at all, they threaten to tell the Tribunal you were unreasonable.

This isn't what mediation is for. It's a perversion of a process designed to give both parties genuine agency.

Do Not Fall Into the Failure to Engage Trap

Operators are acutely aware that they can weaponise the costs provisions in the Code. If you ignore their letters, miss deadlines, or send a flat refusal without engagement, they'll use it. They'll tell the Tribunal that you completely failed to engage. That your position was entirely unreasonable. That you should bear the costs consequences. It’s an open goal.

You absolutely must not give them that ammunition. Ignoring the notice, or issuing a blanket refusal, plays directly into their hands. The Code's costs regime is designed to punish genuine non-engagement. Don't let them portray your legitimate objections as obstruction.

Real Mediation: Everything is on the Table

The difference between the operator's version of mediation and a properly conducted one is significant. In a genuine mediation, you can't control the agenda. Everything's up for grabs.

You're not stuck with their hand-picked mediator. You can involve any appropriate person to assist. And you're perfectly entitled to object to a mediator who appears to have been chosen for the operator's convenience rather than genuine independence.

More importantly, the scope of the mediation doesn't have to be limited to compensation. A proper mediation opens the floor to the questions that really matter: Should these cables be on your land at all? Is there a better route? Is there somewhere else entirely? What are the practical alternatives the operator hasn't mentioned?

As long as you're genuinely engaging with this process, you put the operator in a very difficult position. They can't safely rush to the Tribunal without completing a proper mediation. They can't claim you've been unreasonable if you're actively proposing constructive solutions. And because they're the ones demanding access to your land, they're generally expected to carry the cost of the process.

This is the power of understanding mediation properly. Not a tactical nuisance. A genuine forum for resolving what is, at its heart, a real dispute about your land.

How We Can Help

Getting a Code notice is stressful. But it's absolutely not a foregone conclusion.

At Stutt Associates, we bring something unusual to these matters: we're a dispute firm with a CMC registered commercial mediator as one of our directors. We're genuine practitioners of ADR and committed supporters of mediation as a process. That means we can engage with the operator's process honestly and constructively, while making sure it's conducted on your terms, not theirs. And if they refuse to participate in good faith, or attempt to use the framework as a pressure tactic, we know how to respond through the Tribunal.

If you've received one of these notices, don't hand it over for a rubber stamp. And don't ignore it. Let us help you use the process as it was intended, to protect your property, before they dig up your garden.

Get in touch to chat about a letter you've received today