This example refers to the situation set out in the example in section 155D(1) concerning the meaning given to the term affected person.
The method that the FTTP service provider has to use in order to get fibre optic media from the road to Mark’s flat via the driveway is prescribed as a category 2 installation. The FTTP service provider therefore gives the flat-owning company and each of the 2 neighbours a notice and high-level design plan that set out the information required under section 155R.
Within 15 working days after receiving the notice, one of the neighbours objects, on the grounds that the work involved may worsen a subsidence problem in one corner of that person’s property (section 155N). The body corporate also objects, on the ground that it considers the installation will result in an unacceptable disruption to telephone services, during business hours, for other flat owners (section 155T(a)).
The FTTP service provider is unable to reach an agreed settlement with either the neighbour or the body corporate concerning the validity of their objections and therefore refers each dispute to the dispute resolution scheme. After further unsuccessful attempts to settle each dispute, the FTTP service provider requests that a determination be made on each dispute under the rules of the scheme.
The person determining the disputes concludes that there are no grounds for the body corporate’s objection. This determination is binding on the FTTP service provider as a member of the scheme (section 155ZJ(2)) but not on the body corporate, which can, within 5 working days of being notified of the determination, appeal against it to the District Court (sections 155ZK and 155ZL).
However, the neighbour’s objection is determined to be valid, meaning that the FTTP service provider cannot exercise a statutory right of access to carry out the installation. This is binding on the FTTP service provider and it cannot appeal to the District Court (section 155ZJ(2)).
The owner of Mark’s flat, as the person who placed the order for the installation, does not have a right to refer a dispute to the dispute resolution scheme, either in relation to the body corporate’s objection or in relation to the neighbour’s objection (subsection (2) of this section). Any dispute between the owner of Mark’s flat and the body corporate over the body corporate’s objection to the FTTP service provider entering the block of flats and carrying out the installation would be a matter to be resolved in accordance with the relevant provisions (if any) of the owner’s licence and the rules of the body corporate (or, if the flat is part of a unit title development instead of a company share property, in accordance with the provisions of Part 4 of the Unit Titles Act 2010).
Mark does not have any right to refer a dispute to the dispute resolution scheme under this section either. He is not the person who placed the order for the installation (see section 155D(2)) and he is not an affected person (see section 155D(1)).