Relocation of telkom pole for my account?

[ggdup]

I have purchased a panhandle stand. The Telkom support structure is situated in my driveway. Telkom only prepared to move the pole 8 m up in my driveway! This is not an option because driveway is narrow and a pole higher up in the driveway will reduce the narrow driveway even more! I have requested they go underground, telkom refuses due to cost and insist I carry te cost. Is this within Telkom's right? Should i have to carry this cost or Telkom?

 

[MickeyD]

I think this is the application legislation that you could struggle with...

NO. 103 OF 1996: TELECOMMUNICATIONS ACT, 1996.

Page 46

Removal of pipes and facilities
73. (1) If a fixed line operator finds it necessary to move any telecommunication facility, pipes, tunnels or tubes constructed upon, in, over, along, across or under any land, railway, street, road, footpath or waterway, owing to any alteration of alignment or level or any other work on the part of any public authority or person, the cost of the alteration or removal shall be borne by that local authority or person.
(2) (a) Where any telecommunication facility, pipe, tunnel or tube constructed by an operator passes over any private property and interferes with any building about to be erected on that property, the operator shall, on receiving satisfactory proof that a building is actually to be erected, cause the line to be deviated or altered in such manner as will remove all obstacles to building operations.
(b) Notice that any such deviation or alteration is required shall be given to the operator in writing not less than 28 days before the alteration or deviation is to be effected.
(3) If any deviation or alteration of a telecommunication facility, pipe, tunnel or tube constructed by an operator and passing over any private property is desired on any ground other than those contemplated in subsection (2), 28 days' notice thereof in writing shall be served on the operator, who shall decide whether or not the deviation or alteration is possible, necessary or expedient, and if the operator agrees to make the deviation or alteration, the cost thereof shall be borne by the person at whose request the deviation or alteration is effected: Provided that in any case where in the opinion of the operator it is justified, the operator may bear the whole or any part of the said cost.

http://www.info.gov.za/acts/1996/a103-96.pdf

 

[froot]

As above, yes. It's all for the OP's cost, because it's not "Telkom's problem".

 

[Grant]

perhaps if there are continual mishaps involving large anonymous trucks & the pole (narrow driveway and all) telkom may reconsider - i think i would be very tempted to try it

 

[ggdup]

We want to buil a overhead entrance and lift the height of the adjacent boundary wall for security purposes as well as securing entrance to the panhandle. We have to do it at the opening point to get max width in the driveway entrance as there is also a drain on the right hand side (same side as telkom pole) which to avoid we already have to compromise and enter the drive way with an agle instead of straight. This support strut, as currently positioned will thus prevent the building of the entrance and increasing the height of the boundary wall. Would this be considered a building as per the reference in the act?

 

[ggdup]

Is a servitute required for this type of infringement? If we should damage the pole accidentally due to it being in the way, could that force Telkom's hand? Is my right to security and use of property not a greater right then their right to infringe?

 

[MickZA]

Not a very good photo but it seems there's already quite a few cables attached to the pole.

Reckon you're on a hiding to nothing if you expect Telkom to relocate it at their cost.

 

[sajunky]

Sorry, you have no rights to "accidentally" damage somebody else infrastructure. Looking for approval for wrongdoing?

 

[nicroets]

I'm not an engineer, but from the photo it looks quite easy to construct a steel frame to replace the load on the strut. If the frame is large enough, cars will be able to drive through it and it can also double as the frame for a sliding gate.

Is my right to security and use of property not a greater right then their right to infringe?

I'm not a lawyer, but I know of several cases where people just did things for security reasons without approval from the municipality and it never went to court. Just don't expect Telkom to chip in.

 

[xrapidx]

Get some copper thieves in...

 

[Seriously]

Your property, Just remove the support or have a bonfire accident and then carry on. Alternatively just build a strong pillar next to the pole to keep it upright and remove the support. I have a nice large Wisteria that supports my pole in my property.

 

[MickeyD]

Your property, Just remove the support or have a bonfire accident and then carry on. Alternatively just build a strong pillar next to the pole to keep it upright and remove the support. I have a nice large Wisteria that supports my pole in my property.

Not advisable...

 

[MickeyD]

Is a servitute required for this type of infringement? If we should damage the pole accidentally due to it being in the way, could that force Telkom's hand? Is my right to security and use of property not a greater right then their right to infringe?

I strongly advise you not to do this. Telkom has in-house legal teams specialising in these cases. You do not want to damage that infrastructure!

 

[xrapidx]

Get a termite farm going.... Once it's on the go...set them free in their new home.

 

[Paul Hjul]

why should you have a right to undermine a dozen or so other peoples access when infrastructure that was in place when your property was acquired by you?

I do think that it is manifestly unreasonable for Telkom to expect you to bear the full balance of relocating costs but it is similarly you who wish to modify an existing arrangement. Surely the most just answer is to cover the difference in costs between what Telkom are prepared to do and what you want?
Another sense of fairness suggests that this is a half-half coverage situation on the work you want done.

I wouldn't want to go head to head with Telkom lawyers on a matter where they are in the right - they have been historically (and it appears concerning the Facilities Leasing Regulations currently) on occasions recalcitrant and bullies when they are in the wrong (although all of my dealings with Telkom have been very good).

edited to repair a major typo - wouldn't not would. I wouldn't want to go head to head ...
- I only take on these sorts of fights that I can accomplish something with

 

[cavedog]

Get a termite farm going.... Once it's on the go...set them free in their new home.

Lol that was very funny but yes Telkom will know something is up.....

 

[sajunky]

I do think that it is manifestly unreasonable for Telkom to expect you to bear the full balance of relocating costs but it is similarly you who wish to modify an existing arrangement. Surely the most just answer is to cover the difference in costs between what Telkom are prepared to do and what you want?

Before judging what is unreasonable I would look for the history of the property. Was this matter previously questioned? Are there any agreements between Telkom and previous owner in place? What do you say if any repartitioning of the property was in place after Telkom erected infrastructure which affected accessibilty of the partition? In such case Telkom is not responsible for any costs incured.

Clearly, there is a conflict between accessibility to the property rights (including rights for securing such access) and Telkom rights. Such issues can be complicated and most probably can be resolved with Telkom by taking legal advice.

 

[Paul Hjul]

absent something appearing on deed (which OP ought to have disclosed) any agreement between Telkom and previous owners is of little concern

The resolution of the conflict is accomplished by the statutes in play and they are well loaded in favour of the network operators (not just Telkom). I don't see "taking legal advise" as changing what is clear on statute - and racking up bills to establish if Telkom has to cover part or all of the cost of something the new owner of property wants done seems counter-intuitive to the size of work involved. But by all means if OP wishes to have Telkom covering costs their best option would be to seek expert legal advise.
On the facts given the property was acquired with the current installation setup.