posted 20th March 2025
Few in the telecoms sector will have heard of this new law that recently received Royal Assent. It is to become law in October 2025. It follows the tragic death of 2-year-old Awaab Ishak, who died due to prolonged exposure to damp and mould in his home.
The Act imposes timescales for the landlord to: -
1. Complete emergency repairs - within 24 hours.
2. Commence repairs of a hazard that presents a significant risk to health or safety, within 7 calendar days of the investigation report.
3. Investigate hazards within 14 calendar days of being notified.
4. Provide a copy of the investigation report to their tenant within 48 hours of the conclusion of the investigation.
5. Complete repairs within a “reasonable time period”, depending on the circumstances.
6. To provide alternative accommodation for tenants if repairs cannot be completed within the required timeframe and the hazard poses a significant risk.
So, what is the link to telecoms rooftop installations? For landlords who have a mobile phone base station on the roof which is leaking and causing the damp and mould issues in the flats below, their ability to get the operator to lift and shift or switch off their systems to allow safe working to investigate or carry out and complete repairs within certain timescales, may be hindered by the presence of telecoms equipment.
I am conscious of mobile phone operators seeking to restrict a landlord’s ability to require lift and shift of their apparatus to just once during a 10- year term and such requests requiring at least 9 months’ notice. Some operators even demand that the landlord pays their costs for lift and shift -the costs are of which are eye-watering.
Can a landlord get an isolation of an antenna (to allow safe working in what would otherwise be an RF/EMF exclusion zone) within 24 hours to enable emergency repairs? Some MNOs say that a minimum of 3 weeks notice is required for an isolation.
Commencement of repairs in 7 days of a hazard that presents a significant risk to health or safety - may well require lift and shift of apparatus- heavy antenna frames, feeder cables and trays, heavy cabinets and other “telecoms clutter” that hinders or prevents repairs or renewal of a roof covering. My experience is that the location of roof leaks often coincides with the presence of telecoms apparatus. And should the Landlord pay the MNO’s costs of lift and shift?
The last requirement (item 6) brings into sharp focus the restrictions that MNO’s include in their leases relating to consequential loss. Rehoming the tenants may become the norm for buildings with telecoms on the roof. In the case of EE & H3G v LB Hackney UTLC Case Numbers: LC-2021-190 (Shoreditch House) the operator argued that the indemnity should be limited in its effect so that it extended only to “all third-party liabilities costs expenses damages….….so that it would not cover costs, expenses, damages, or losses incurred by the site provider itself.”. The council, a social housing provider, argued that consequential loss should not be excluded. The court came “… to the conclusion that limiting the indemnity to third party claims does not infringe the requirement in paragraph 23(5) to fashion terms appropriate for ensuring the least possible loss and damages is caused by the exercise of the Code rights. The contractual agreement has to be seen in the context of the other protections offered by the Code, in particular the paragraph 25 right to compensation for any losses caused by loss or damage sustained by the site provider as a result of the exercise of the Code right.”
The Lands Tribunal agreed with EE & H3G in that instance but will Awaab’s Law change that? Perhaps what this ruling highlights is the need to have all Code Agreements imposed by an order of the court so that the protections afforded by Paragraphs 25 and 84 of the Code are available to the Landlord, which should allow consequential loss and costs to be recovered if rehoming is required.