Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Restrictive covenant
374 views
Skip to first unread message
Geoffrey
Oct 18, 2011, 3:00:04 AM10/18/11
to
I am about to purchase a property which was built about seven years
ago and which has been improved by its present owner who has opened
the loft space and added two skylight windows in the roof. My
solicitors inform me that the owner has taken out an indemnity policy
because the builder had imposed a covenant which required their
consent for any modification which would change the appearance of the
property, and that, in this case, permission was not sought.
When I tried to find out what was going on here, my solicitors were
not able to provide a convincing explanation. In particular, when I
asked why the value of the indemnity was chosen as the selling price
of the house, I was told it was arbitrary, and that there was no upper
limit to what they called a "fine" which could be imposed by the
builder. I was told they could ask for a billion pounds if they
wished.
This all seems a bit strange to me - would it not be profitable for
builders, knowing that this type of insurance is being peddled, to
enforce these covenants?
And can it be true that there is no upper limit to the compensation
they can claim? If so, should Euro lottery winners beware?
ago and which has been improved by its present owner who has opened
the loft space and added two skylight windows in the roof. My
solicitors inform me that the owner has taken out an indemnity policy
because the builder had imposed a covenant which required their
consent for any modification which would change the appearance of the
property, and that, in this case, permission was not sought.
When I tried to find out what was going on here, my solicitors were
not able to provide a convincing explanation. In particular, when I
asked why the value of the indemnity was chosen as the selling price
of the house, I was told it was arbitrary, and that there was no upper
limit to what they called a "fine" which could be imposed by the
builder. I was told they could ask for a billion pounds if they
wished.
This all seems a bit strange to me - would it not be profitable for
builders, knowing that this type of insurance is being peddled, to
enforce these covenants?
And can it be true that there is no upper limit to the compensation
they can claim? If so, should Euro lottery winners beware?
Roland Perry
Oct 18, 2011, 4:40:02 AM10/18/11
to
In message
<eb7d7c2b-d6d3-41d8...@p25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, at
08:00:04 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Geoffrey <gmorti...@yahoo.com>
remarked:
buyers from activities which in the short term might put off later
buyers on the same development, and thus reduce the value of the unsold
houses. Once all the houses are sold, how could the builder show he had
experienced a loss?
--
Roland Perry
<eb7d7c2b-d6d3-41d8...@p25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, at
08:00:04 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Geoffrey <gmorti...@yahoo.com>
remarked:
>This all seems a bit strange to me - would it not be profitable for
>builders, knowing that this type of insurance is being peddled, to
>enforce these covenants?
>
>And can it be true that there is no upper limit to the compensation
>they can claim?
It's my understanding that these covenants are mainly to prevent early
>builders, knowing that this type of insurance is being peddled, to
>enforce these covenants?
>
>And can it be true that there is no upper limit to the compensation
>they can claim?
buyers from activities which in the short term might put off later
buyers on the same development, and thus reduce the value of the unsold
houses. Once all the houses are sold, how could the builder show he had
experienced a loss?
--
Roland Perry
Hugh - Was Invisible
Oct 18, 2011, 4:35:01 AM10/18/11
to
I have similarly been involved in buying and selling houses where such
covenants have been overlooked.
The norm in my experience is to apply to the developers/builders for
retrospective permission. Cost me £80 last time but that was in 2000.
If they cannot be traced then an indemnity is the answer.
If they are traceable why not apply?
Is it that if the developer finds out then the developer may seek to
have the house returned to it's original state?
Is it that it was quicker to get an indemnity when the searches revealed
the lack of permission.
Did the conveyancer recommend an indemnity because they get a nice fat
commission?
steve robinson
Oct 18, 2011, 4:50:03 AM10/18/11
to
to any compensation they can claim a court would look at what if any
losses they have incurred which if all the properties have been sold
then will be zero.
Its usally put in place whilst houseing developments are being built
to prevent early purchasers from putting additions on that might
frighten off potential purchasers of other units and to allow a
reasonable defects rectification period and know such defects are not
the result of additional works by other contractors and the ensueing
arguments that follow
Message has been deleted
Chris R
Oct 18, 2011, 5:50:02 AM10/18/11
to
>
>
> "Roland Perry" wrote in message news:c$mOtsUqp...@perry.co.uk...
consent.
The risk of enforcement is fairly small, since the builder has no real
interest in spending time and money on it. In theory there is a risk that he
could get a court order requiring all the works to be reversed, and that is
what the indemnity policy is intended to cover. He cannot get an award of
damages except to compensate for actual loss, which is likely to be nil.
--
Chris R
========legalstuff========
I post to be helpful but not claiming any expertise nor intending
anyone to rely on what I say. Nothing I post here will create a
professional relationship or duty of care. I do not provide legal
services to the public. My posts here refer only to English law except
where specified and are subject to the terms (including limitations of
liability) at http://www.clarityincorporatelaw.co.uk/legalstuff.html
======end legalstuff======
Roland Perry
Oct 18, 2011, 6:15:03 AM10/18/11
to
In message <MPG.29074ef78...@news.eternal-september.org>, at
09:55:01 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Janet <H...@invalid.net> remarked:
> I'd want the solicitor to explain how long the first owner's indemnity
>policy will last, and whether it covers you and any future purchasers in
>perpetuity.
I should hope so, because the last policy I was forced to buy concerned
a 90-year-old covenant. If people seriously think the developer will
come back from the dead after all that time, why not in 190 years?
--
Roland Perry
09:55:01 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Janet <H...@invalid.net> remarked:
> I'd want the solicitor to explain how long the first owner's indemnity
>policy will last, and whether it covers you and any future purchasers in
>perpetuity.
I should hope so, because the last policy I was forced to buy concerned
a 90-year-old covenant. If people seriously think the developer will
come back from the dead after all that time, why not in 190 years?
--
Roland Perry
Ian Jackson
Oct 18, 2011, 6:20:02 AM10/18/11
to
In message <gpqdnUwRU98W1gDT...@brightview.co.uk>, Chris R
<inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> writes
those who actually own the property.
If it is a new house, the original owner would probably be owner of the
land, but a covenant could be imposed by subsequent owners of the land
and the building, and the restrictions would be handed down to
subsequent owners.
It may be that if any owner had work done on the house, the builder
doing the work could, as part of his contract, require the owner to
impose a covenant of his choosing. However, I can't see how the builder
himself (if he was not actually the owner), could do this directly.
Presumably either he was the owner when the modifications were carried
out (eg it was a new house), or he twisted the owner's arm.
--
Ian
<inv...@invalid.munge.co.uk> writes
>
>>
>>
>> "Roland Perry" wrote in message news:c$mOtsUqp...@perry.co.uk...
>> In message
>> <eb7d7c2b-d6d3-41d8...@p25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, at
>> 08:00:04 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Geoffrey <gmorti...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>> >This all seems a bit strange to me - would it not be profitable for
>> >builders, knowing that this type of insurance is being peddled, to
>> >enforce these covenants?
>> >
>> >And can it be true that there is no upper limit to the compensation
>> >they can claim?
>>
>> It's my understanding that these covenants are mainly to prevent early
>> buyers from activities which in the short term might put off later buyers
>> on the same development, and thus reduce the value of the unsold houses.
>> Once all the houses are sold, how could the builder show he had
>> experienced a loss?
>
>Builders also use them as a way of making money, charging fees for giving
>consent.
>
>The risk of enforcement is fairly small, since the builder has no real
>interest in spending time and money on it. In theory there is a risk that he
>could get a court order requiring all the works to be reversed, and that is
>what the indemnity policy is intended to cover. He cannot get an award of
>damages except to compensate for actual loss, which is likely to be nil.
I would have thought that restrictive covenants could only be imposed by
>>
>>
>> "Roland Perry" wrote in message news:c$mOtsUqp...@perry.co.uk...
>> In message
>> <eb7d7c2b-d6d3-41d8...@p25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, at
>> 08:00:04 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Geoffrey <gmorti...@yahoo.com> remarked:
>> >This all seems a bit strange to me - would it not be profitable for
>> >builders, knowing that this type of insurance is being peddled, to
>> >enforce these covenants?
>> >
>> >And can it be true that there is no upper limit to the compensation
>> >they can claim?
>>
>> It's my understanding that these covenants are mainly to prevent early
>> buyers from activities which in the short term might put off later buyers
>> on the same development, and thus reduce the value of the unsold houses.
>> Once all the houses are sold, how could the builder show he had
>> experienced a loss?
>
>Builders also use them as a way of making money, charging fees for giving
>consent.
>
>The risk of enforcement is fairly small, since the builder has no real
>interest in spending time and money on it. In theory there is a risk that he
>could get a court order requiring all the works to be reversed, and that is
>what the indemnity policy is intended to cover. He cannot get an award of
>damages except to compensate for actual loss, which is likely to be nil.
those who actually own the property.
If it is a new house, the original owner would probably be owner of the
land, but a covenant could be imposed by subsequent owners of the land
and the building, and the restrictions would be handed down to
subsequent owners.
It may be that if any owner had work done on the house, the builder
doing the work could, as part of his contract, require the owner to
impose a covenant of his choosing. However, I can't see how the builder
himself (if he was not actually the owner), could do this directly.
Presumably either he was the owner when the modifications were carried
out (eg it was a new house), or he twisted the owner's arm.
--
Ian
Roland Perry
Oct 18, 2011, 6:50:02 AM10/18/11
to
In message <8SP25yOv...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, at 11:20:02 on Tue, 18
Oct 2011, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> remarked:
covenants (which raises the issue of how far back you go - before the
Norman Conquest??) Doesn't the developer own the land during the time
the houses are being built.
--
Roland Perry
Oct 2011, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>I would have thought that restrictive covenants could only be imposed
>by those who actually own the property.
>
>If it is a new house, the original owner would probably be owner of the
>land, but a covenant could be imposed by subsequent owners of the land
>and the building, and the restrictions would be handed down to
>subsequent owners.
>
>It may be that if any owner had work done on the house, the builder
>doing the work could, as part of his contract, require the owner to
>impose a covenant of his choosing. However, I can't see how the builder
>himself (if he was not actually the owner), could do this directly.
>Presumably either he was the owner when the modifications were carried
>out (eg it was a new house), or he twisted the owner's arm.
Are you saying that only the *original* owner of the land can impose
>by those who actually own the property.
>
>If it is a new house, the original owner would probably be owner of the
>land, but a covenant could be imposed by subsequent owners of the land
>and the building, and the restrictions would be handed down to
>subsequent owners.
>
>It may be that if any owner had work done on the house, the builder
>doing the work could, as part of his contract, require the owner to
>impose a covenant of his choosing. However, I can't see how the builder
>himself (if he was not actually the owner), could do this directly.
>Presumably either he was the owner when the modifications were carried
>out (eg it was a new house), or he twisted the owner's arm.
covenants (which raises the issue of how far back you go - before the
Norman Conquest??) Doesn't the developer own the land during the time
the houses are being built.
--
Roland Perry
Ian Jackson
Oct 18, 2011, 8:10:03 AM10/18/11
to
In message <WED8zpg9...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
Of course not. I'm obviously referring to the owner of the land when
either he developed it, or sold to a developer for development.
Presumably, at any time, a current owner could decide (or have his arm
twisted) to impose a covenant.
--
Ian
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
either he developed it, or sold to a developer for development.
Presumably, at any time, a current owner could decide (or have his arm
twisted) to impose a covenant.
--
Ian
Roland Perry
Oct 18, 2011, 8:30:03 AM10/18/11
to
In message <3yw0BBBR...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, at 13:10:03 on Tue, 18
to impose on the developer, but why would they worry about householders
not putting up satellite dishes (a common covenant)?
>Presumably, at any time, a current owner could decide (or have his arm
>twisted) to impose a covenant.
The current owners are the individual householders, so that doesn't make
sense. Who is doing the twisting, and why?
--
Roland Perry
Oct 2011, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>Are you saying that only the *original* owner of the land can impose
>>covenants (which raises the issue of how far back you go - before the
>>Norman Conquest??) Doesn't the developer own the land during the time
>>the houses are being built.
>
>Of course not. I'm obviously referring to the owner of the land when
>either he developed it, or sold to a developer for development.
The landowner might have some macro-scale faux-planning-ideals he wanted
>>covenants (which raises the issue of how far back you go - before the
>>Norman Conquest??) Doesn't the developer own the land during the time
>>the houses are being built.
>
>Of course not. I'm obviously referring to the owner of the land when
>either he developed it, or sold to a developer for development.
to impose on the developer, but why would they worry about householders
not putting up satellite dishes (a common covenant)?
>Presumably, at any time, a current owner could decide (or have his arm
>twisted) to impose a covenant.
sense. Who is doing the twisting, and why?
--
Roland Perry
Message has been deleted
Nightjar
Oct 18, 2011, 7:20:02 AM10/18/11
to
On 18/10/2011 11:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
....
Restrictive covenants can be enforced by anyone who has an interest in
the covenant. Who that is will depend upon the wording of the covenant.
For example, I know of one open area in a town that various developers
have attempted to build on, only to be frustrated by a covenant that
requires such development to have the consent of every occupier of every
property surrounding the area. The covenant itself dates back to
Victorian times, when the houses were built, but it can still be
enforced by any occupier of any property, as a party with an interest in it.
Colin Bignell
....
> I would have thought that restrictive covenants could only be imposed by
> those who actually own the property....
Restrictive covenants can be enforced by anyone who has an interest in
the covenant. Who that is will depend upon the wording of the covenant.
For example, I know of one open area in a town that various developers
have attempted to build on, only to be frustrated by a covenant that
requires such development to have the consent of every occupier of every
property surrounding the area. The covenant itself dates back to
Victorian times, when the houses were built, but it can still be
enforced by any occupier of any property, as a party with an interest in it.
Colin Bignell
Ian Jackson
Oct 18, 2011, 8:15:10 AM10/18/11
to
In message <J63b8cbu...@perry.co.uk>, Roland Perry
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
Who can enforce a covenant? Is it only the person who put it on, or is
this power/responsibility handed down to his descendants? My
understanding is that it can not simply be any Tom, Dick or Harry - even
if they do know of the covenant's existence.
--
Ian
<rol...@perry.co.uk> writes
this power/responsibility handed down to his descendants? My
understanding is that it can not simply be any Tom, Dick or Harry - even
if they do know of the covenant's existence.
--
Ian
Flop
Oct 18, 2011, 8:45:03 AM10/18/11
to
On 18/10/2011 08:00, Geoffrey wrote:
One of the problems with indemnity insurance is that it often contains a
non-disclosure clause.
This is to prevent covenant holders going for a quick profit or for the
householder to conspire with the covenant holder to defraud the
insurance company.
The added problem is that the indemnities are often transferable. So you
can give it to a purchaser but cannot tell him that you will give him
the indemnity. Presumably, you can say that you will provide *an*
indemnity without specifying that one already exists.
Flop
RobertL
Oct 18, 2011, 10:45:03 AM10/18/11
to
On Oct 18, 8:00 am, Geoffrey <gmortimer2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I am about to purchase a property which was built about seven years
> ago and which has been improved by its present owner who has opened
> the loft space and added two skylight windows in the roof. My
> solicitors inform me that the owner has taken out an indemnity policy
> because the builder had imposed a covenant which required their
> consent for any modification which would change the appearance of the
> property, and that, in this case, permission was not sought.
is the covenant with the builder only or with the neighbouring
> I am about to purchase a property which was built about seven years
> ago and which has been improved by its present owner who has opened
> the loft space and added two skylight windows in the roof. My
> solicitors inform me that the owner has taken out an indemnity policy
> because the builder had imposed a covenant which required their
> consent for any modification which would change the appearance of the
> property, and that, in this case, permission was not sought.
houseeholders as well? Once the builder no longer owns an adjoining
property it might be the neighbours who are left with the strongest
ability to enforce the covenant.
What's the worst that can happen? You'd have to remove the skylight
windows I guess.
Robert
Ian Jackson
Oct 18, 2011, 11:50:10 AM10/18/11
to
In message <LZadnT6YoJpAwgDT...@giganews.com>, Nightjar
<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> writes
Noted. But how far does someone have to be from the area or property in
question before it is deemed that they cannot reasonably claim to have
an interest in it?
For example, could I reasonably try to prevent the building of houses in
a field just outside my native village (which I left fifty years ago,
and is 500 miles from where I now live) purely on the grounds that there
is an ancient covenant which forbids it - but which no one now living in
the village objects to?
--
Ian
<c...@insert.my.surname.here.me.uk> writes
question before it is deemed that they cannot reasonably claim to have
an interest in it?
For example, could I reasonably try to prevent the building of houses in
a field just outside my native village (which I left fifty years ago,
and is 500 miles from where I now live) purely on the grounds that there
is an ancient covenant which forbids it - but which no one now living in
the village objects to?
--
Ian
Stuart Bronstein
Oct 18, 2011, 12:30:02 PM10/18/11
to
Nightjar wrote:
> On 18/10/2011 11:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
> ....
>> I would have thought that restrictive covenants could only be
>> imposed by
>> those who actually own the property....
>
> Restrictive covenants can be enforced by anyone who has an interest in
> the covenant. Who that is will depend upon the wording of the covenant.
That's true against the original covenantor. But for it to bind
> On 18/10/2011 11:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
> ....
>> I would have thought that restrictive covenants could only be
>> imposed by
>> those who actually own the property....
>
> Restrictive covenants can be enforced by anyone who has an interest in
> the covenant. Who that is will depend upon the wording of the covenant.
subsequent assignees, the restriction has to run with the land. If
there is no piece of property owned by the builders that benefits from
the restriction, it may be unenforceable against OP.
The laws in Scotland may be different, but in this respect my guess is
they are not. Several years ago a large liquor company purchased a
scotch distillery, and resold it with the restriction that it could
never thereafter be used as a distillery.
A subsequent purchaser sued on the basis that the covenant did not run
with the land, and the court agreed. That property is now a thriving
scotch distillery.
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
John Briggs
Oct 18, 2011, 11:55:02 AM10/18/11
to
--
John Briggs
Chris R
Oct 18, 2011, 1:10:05 PM10/18/11
to
>
>
> "Stuart Bronstein" wrote in message
> news:9g5nm6...@mid.individual.net...
law to land agreements, so a covenant intended to restrict competition may
well be void under the Competition Act.
Neil Williams
Oct 18, 2011, 1:10:16 PM10/18/11
to
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 13:30:03 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
There is a covenant on most houses in Milton Keynes (now often
alleged to be unenforceable due to the limited cable system) banning
TV aerials. This was because the Commission for the New Towns wanted
a clean, modern look.
Similarly, land in MK is allocated by area for specific uses, so
there are "no change of use" type covenants.
Neil
--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK
wrote:
> The landowner might have some macro-scale faux-planning-ideals he
wanted
> to impose on the developer, but why would they worry about
householders
> not putting up satellite dishes (a common covenant)?
Idealism?
wanted
> to impose on the developer, but why would they worry about
householders
> not putting up satellite dishes (a common covenant)?
There is a covenant on most houses in Milton Keynes (now often
alleged to be unenforceable due to the limited cable system) banning
TV aerials. This was because the Commission for the New Towns wanted
a clean, modern look.
Similarly, land in MK is allocated by area for specific uses, so
there are "no change of use" type covenants.
Neil
--
Neil Williams, Milton Keynes, UK
John Briggs
Oct 18, 2011, 1:30:04 PM10/18/11
to
On 18/10/2011 17:30, Stuart Bronstein wrote:
> Nightjar wrote:
>> On 18/10/2011 11:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> ....
>>> I would have thought that restrictive covenants could only be
>>> imposed by
>>> those who actually own the property....
>>
>> Restrictive covenants can be enforced by anyone who has an interest in
>> the covenant. Who that is will depend upon the wording of the covenant.
>
> That's true against the original covenantor. But for it to bind
> subsequent assignees, the restriction has to run with the land. If there
> is no piece of property owned by the builders that benefits from the
> restriction, it may be unenforceable against OP.
The restriction runs with the land, but the benefit need not.
> Nightjar wrote:
>> On 18/10/2011 11:20, Ian Jackson wrote:
>> ....
>>> I would have thought that restrictive covenants could only be
>>> imposed by
>>> those who actually own the property....
>>
>> Restrictive covenants can be enforced by anyone who has an interest in
>> the covenant. Who that is will depend upon the wording of the covenant.
>
> That's true against the original covenantor. But for it to bind
> subsequent assignees, the restriction has to run with the land. If there
> is no piece of property owned by the builders that benefits from the
> restriction, it may be unenforceable against OP.
--
John Briggs
steve robinson
Oct 18, 2011, 3:05:03 PM10/18/11
to
Roland Perry
Oct 18, 2011, 3:50:02 PM10/18/11
to
In message <almarsoft.9072...@news.individual.net>, at
18:10:16 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
remarked:
restrictions on property usage. But something as specific as satellite
dishes seems like taking that to extremes.
ps Wasn't the ban in TV aerials in MK something to do with encouraging
cable-TV, seen as the latest white-hot technology?
--
Roland Perry
18:10:16 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>> The landowner might have some macro-scale faux-planning-ideals he
>>wanted to impose on the developer, but why would they worry about
>>householders not putting up satellite dishes (a common covenant)?
>
>Idealism?
That's my first line above. Which I've seen in terms of puritanical
>>wanted to impose on the developer, but why would they worry about
>>householders not putting up satellite dishes (a common covenant)?
>
>Idealism?
restrictions on property usage. But something as specific as satellite
dishes seems like taking that to extremes.
ps Wasn't the ban in TV aerials in MK something to do with encouraging
cable-TV, seen as the latest white-hot technology?
--
Roland Perry
Ste
Oct 18, 2011, 4:40:16 PM10/18/11
to
On Oct 18, 8:50 pm, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <almarsoft.9072133504314590...@news.individual.net>, at
> 18:10:16 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Neil Williams <pacer...@gmail.com>
the environment, where a communal aerial existed for precisely that
purpose (and probably discourage birds perching and shitting
everywhere, which are now a scourge). I don't however recall any ban
on satellite dishes, although by time satellite dishes became common
in the late 90s the council had long-ago stopped enforcing the no-
aerial policy.
> In message <almarsoft.9072133504314590...@news.individual.net>, at
> 18:10:16 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Neil Williams <pacer...@gmail.com>
> remarked:
>
> >> The landowner might have some macro-scale faux-planning-ideals he
> >>wanted to impose on the developer, but why would they worry about
> >>householders not putting up satellite dishes (a common covenant)?
>
> >Idealism?
>
> That's my first line above. Which I've seen in terms of puritanical
> restrictions on property usage. But something as specific as satellite
> dishes seems like taking that to extremes.
>
> ps Wasn't the ban in TV aerials in MK something to do with encouraging
> cable-TV, seen as the latest white-hot technology?
No, I think it was purely to preserve the uncluttered appearance of
>
> >> The landowner might have some macro-scale faux-planning-ideals he
> >>wanted to impose on the developer, but why would they worry about
> >>householders not putting up satellite dishes (a common covenant)?
>
> >Idealism?
>
> That's my first line above. Which I've seen in terms of puritanical
> restrictions on property usage. But something as specific as satellite
> dishes seems like taking that to extremes.
>
> ps Wasn't the ban in TV aerials in MK something to do with encouraging
> cable-TV, seen as the latest white-hot technology?
the environment, where a communal aerial existed for precisely that
purpose (and probably discourage birds perching and shitting
everywhere, which are now a scourge). I don't however recall any ban
on satellite dishes, although by time satellite dishes became common
in the late 90s the council had long-ago stopped enforcing the no-
aerial policy.
Roland Perry
Oct 18, 2011, 5:20:02 PM10/18/11
to
In message
<ba5f8767-a154-4301...@l7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, at
21:40:16 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> remarked:
than the terrestrial ones.
Anyway, here's what the council says:
"When homes were first built in Milton Keynes in the 1970s and 80s, no
aerials were allowed as TV was provided through an advanced cable
system. To stop residents putting up aerials and blighting estates,
Milton Keynes Development Corporation (succeeded firstly by Commission
for the New Towns and now by the Homes and Communities Agency) put
restrictive covenants on some of the properties it built, whereby
aerials could not be erected without their consent."
So there's a bit of both our answers in there (I still think ensuring
the commercial success of the cable TV was the main reason).
--
Roland Perry
<ba5f8767-a154-4301...@l7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, at
21:40:16 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>I don't however recall any ban on satellite dishes, although by time
>satellite dishes became common in the late 90s the council had long-ago
>stopped enforcing the no- aerial policy.
A satellite dish *is* a TV aerial, just at a somewhat higher frequency
>satellite dishes became common in the late 90s the council had long-ago
>stopped enforcing the no- aerial policy.
than the terrestrial ones.
Anyway, here's what the council says:
"When homes were first built in Milton Keynes in the 1970s and 80s, no
aerials were allowed as TV was provided through an advanced cable
system. To stop residents putting up aerials and blighting estates,
Milton Keynes Development Corporation (succeeded firstly by Commission
for the New Towns and now by the Homes and Communities Agency) put
restrictive covenants on some of the properties it built, whereby
aerials could not be erected without their consent."
So there's a bit of both our answers in there (I still think ensuring
the commercial success of the cable TV was the main reason).
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
Oct 18, 2011, 6:20:02 PM10/18/11
to
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 20:50:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
analogue system that is more likely to be switched off than
upgraded...
wrote:
> ps Wasn't the ban in TV aerials in MK something to do with
encouraging
> cable-TV, seen as the latest white-hot technology?
That too - and because MK was an early adopter it's now a rotting old
encouraging
> cable-TV, seen as the latest white-hot technology?
analogue system that is more likely to be switched off than
upgraded...
Neil Williams
Oct 18, 2011, 6:20:02 PM10/18/11
to
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 22:20:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
wrote:
> A satellite dish *is* a TV aerial, just at a somewhat higher
frequency
> than the terrestrial ones.
ISTR that in terms of this covenant it is not.
frequency
> than the terrestrial ones.
Roland Perry
Oct 19, 2011, 2:25:04 AM10/19/11
to
In message <almarsoft.3101...@news.individual.net>, at
23:20:02 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
remarked:
(according to the council).
--
Roland Perry
23:20:02 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>> A satellite dish *is* a TV aerial, just at a somewhat higher
>>frequency than the terrestrial ones.
>
>ISTR that in terms of this covenant it is not.
It's probably not been tested as the old covenant is no longer enforced
>>frequency than the terrestrial ones.
>
>ISTR that in terms of this covenant it is not.
(according to the council).
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
Oct 19, 2011, 2:30:03 AM10/19/11
to
In message <almarsoft.6818...@news.individual.net>, at
23:20:02 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
remarked:
too (or is it just ADSL).
--
Roland Perry
23:20:02 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>> ps Wasn't the ban in TV aerials in MK something to do with
>>encouraging cable-TV, seen as the latest white-hot technology?
>
>That too - and because MK was an early adopter it's now a rotting old
>analogue system that is more likely to be switched off than upgraded...
Five channels from Virgin Media. I wonder if they offer Virgin broadband
>>encouraging cable-TV, seen as the latest white-hot technology?
>
>That too - and because MK was an early adopter it's now a rotting old
>analogue system that is more likely to be switched off than upgraded...
too (or is it just ADSL).
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
Oct 19, 2011, 5:15:02 AM10/19/11
to
On Oct 19, 8:30 am, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> Five channels from Virgin Media. I wonder if they offer Virgin broadband
> too (or is it just ADSL).
No, it's a very old, completely analogue system.
> Five channels from Virgin Media. I wonder if they offer Virgin broadband
> too (or is it just ADSL).
Internet access is via your phone line (i.e. ADSL or recently BT
Infinity etc) only. And MK was *very* late getting it as I recall -
mid-'00s in some areas - as the telephone wiring wasn't up to it
without some tweaks.
Neil
Ste
Oct 19, 2011, 10:10:05 AM10/19/11
to
> <ba5f8767-a154-4301-9d49-694a5187c...@l7g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, at
> 21:40:16 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> remarked:
dishes had become commom.
> Anyway, here's what the council says:
>
> "When homes were first built in Milton Keynes in the 1970s and 80s, no
> aerials were allowed as TV was provided through an advanced cable
> system. To stop residents putting up aerials and blighting estates,
> Milton Keynes Development Corporation (succeeded firstly by Commission
> for the New Towns and now by the Homes and Communities Agency) put
> restrictive covenants on some of the properties it built, whereby
> aerials could not be erected without their consent."
>
> So there's a bit of both our answers in there (I still think ensuring
> the commercial success of the cable TV was the main reason).
I'm not sure there is a bit of both in there at all.
In the 60s and 70s when these systems were first installed, I doubt
the development corporations had any interest in peddling Cable TV -
bear in mind, this is before the days of Channel 4, let alone Sky. In
my area, Cable TV through the communal aerial was only first offered
in the early 90s, which I now remember because for a period of time
they broadcast Sky One in the clear, which was tuned to channel 6.
Speaking of which, it's almost comical now for me to recall that in
those days (the early 90s!) we didn't even have a TV with a remote
control - channels were still changed by hand, and the TV was made of
wood.
It is extremely easy to look back now and attribute the shrewd
economic motives that would prevail today, but those motives did not
exist at the time these systems were installed. It's surprising to
think that it was only 20 years ago when people didn't perceive such
cynical motives amongst public bodies. The explicit explanation they
give, of avoiding unnecessary visual blight, is the most credible one
- particularly to people like myself who can remember the days when
the council took seriously the maintenance of the communal
environmental. Tree surgeons pruned trees regularly, lawn mowers mowed
communal lawns regularly, garden fences were painted every year. I can
remember the days when schools didn't even have bars and barbed wire
around them.
And to add to the explanation already given about visual blight, the
communal aerial was efficient in terms of capital infrastructure and
maintenance costs, and also it avoided reception blackspots (which
were a real problem once upon a time).
The problem with the communal aerial in the end, was simply that they
stopped maintaining the equipment properly so the quality of signal
deteriorated, and the cable TV company to which maintenance had been
outsourced was finally put out of business when Sky Digital became
prevalent, and that was the point at which they switched off the
system altogether, and instead simply erected individual aerials on
each council property (and left private owners to pay their own
costs).
It wasn't really a failure of the concept - the communal aerial
functioned reasonably well for 40 years. It was the logical outcome of
neglect and lack of investment, by a public sector that (by the 80s
onwards) had a firm intention to privatise costs onto individual
residents, rather than maintaining the system through rates/council
tax (which, applied here, necessarily meant the rich paid more for
their TV reception).
> 21:40:16 on Tue, 18 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>
> >I don't however recall any ban on satellite dishes, although by time
> >satellite dishes became common in the late 90s the council had long-ago
> >stopped enforcing the no- aerial policy.
>
> A satellite dish *is* a TV aerial, just at a somewhat higher frequency
> than the terrestrial ones.
That follows, but as I say enforcement had ceased by time satellite
> >I don't however recall any ban on satellite dishes, although by time
> >satellite dishes became common in the late 90s the council had long-ago
> >stopped enforcing the no- aerial policy.
>
> A satellite dish *is* a TV aerial, just at a somewhat higher frequency
> than the terrestrial ones.
dishes had become commom.
> Anyway, here's what the council says:
>
> "When homes were first built in Milton Keynes in the 1970s and 80s, no
> aerials were allowed as TV was provided through an advanced cable
> system. To stop residents putting up aerials and blighting estates,
> Milton Keynes Development Corporation (succeeded firstly by Commission
> for the New Towns and now by the Homes and Communities Agency) put
> restrictive covenants on some of the properties it built, whereby
> aerials could not be erected without their consent."
>
> So there's a bit of both our answers in there (I still think ensuring
> the commercial success of the cable TV was the main reason).
In the 60s and 70s when these systems were first installed, I doubt
the development corporations had any interest in peddling Cable TV -
bear in mind, this is before the days of Channel 4, let alone Sky. In
my area, Cable TV through the communal aerial was only first offered
in the early 90s, which I now remember because for a period of time
they broadcast Sky One in the clear, which was tuned to channel 6.
Speaking of which, it's almost comical now for me to recall that in
those days (the early 90s!) we didn't even have a TV with a remote
control - channels were still changed by hand, and the TV was made of
wood.
It is extremely easy to look back now and attribute the shrewd
economic motives that would prevail today, but those motives did not
exist at the time these systems were installed. It's surprising to
think that it was only 20 years ago when people didn't perceive such
cynical motives amongst public bodies. The explicit explanation they
give, of avoiding unnecessary visual blight, is the most credible one
- particularly to people like myself who can remember the days when
the council took seriously the maintenance of the communal
environmental. Tree surgeons pruned trees regularly, lawn mowers mowed
communal lawns regularly, garden fences were painted every year. I can
remember the days when schools didn't even have bars and barbed wire
around them.
And to add to the explanation already given about visual blight, the
communal aerial was efficient in terms of capital infrastructure and
maintenance costs, and also it avoided reception blackspots (which
were a real problem once upon a time).
The problem with the communal aerial in the end, was simply that they
stopped maintaining the equipment properly so the quality of signal
deteriorated, and the cable TV company to which maintenance had been
outsourced was finally put out of business when Sky Digital became
prevalent, and that was the point at which they switched off the
system altogether, and instead simply erected individual aerials on
each council property (and left private owners to pay their own
costs).
It wasn't really a failure of the concept - the communal aerial
functioned reasonably well for 40 years. It was the logical outcome of
neglect and lack of investment, by a public sector that (by the 80s
onwards) had a firm intention to privatise costs onto individual
residents, rather than maintaining the system through rates/council
tax (which, applied here, necessarily meant the rich paid more for
their TV reception).
Adam Funk
Oct 19, 2011, 10:35:03 AM10/19/11
to
standing on the other side of the house. ;-)
Roland Perry
Oct 19, 2011, 10:55:03 AM10/19/11
to
In message
<43150c7d-7ec2-4dba...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, at
15:10:05 on Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> remarked:
very much in their favour.
--
Roland Perry
<43150c7d-7ec2-4dba...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, at
15:10:05 on Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>In the 60s and 70s when these systems were first installed, I doubt
>the development corporations had any interest in peddling Cable TV
It was a pilot area for cable TV, and BT had the playing field tilted
>the development corporations had any interest in peddling Cable TV
very much in their favour.
--
Roland Perry
Dr Zoidberg
Oct 19, 2011, 11:10:03 AM10/19/11
to
"Geoffrey" <gmorti...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:eb7d7c2b-d6d3-41d8...@p25g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
<snip>
A bit of a thread hijack here, but on a similar issue.
I've recently bought a new house and there is a section of private drive
that runs across the front of 5 houses.
The section of this drive in front of each house is shown on the deeds as
being part of their land, but there is a covenant saying that people are not
allowed to park on the private drive such that it would cause an obstruction
to the passage of traffic.
If one of the householders has a car that is too long to fit on their
section of the private drive without overhanging, what is there that can
actually be done by either the builders (who are still on site) or the
neighbours to prevent this?
A smaller car would fit within the borders and still allow other people to
get past.
--
Alex
Ian Jackson
Oct 19, 2011, 11:30:17 AM10/19/11
to
In message <g633n8x...@news.ducksburg.com>, Adam Funk
<a24...@ducksburg.com> writes
Provided a dish can still see the satellite, it (the dish - not the
satellite) can mounted at ground level, and sometimes it can be
completely hidden from prying eyes. A traditional TV aerial usually has
to be mounted in an elevated position where, usually, all can see it.
Even when it can mounted 'tastefully' in a position where it will have
minimal visual impact, very few householders go out of their way to
ensure that this is done.
--
Ian
<a24...@ducksburg.com> writes
satellite) can mounted at ground level, and sometimes it can be
completely hidden from prying eyes. A traditional TV aerial usually has
to be mounted in an elevated position where, usually, all can see it.
Even when it can mounted 'tastefully' in a position where it will have
minimal visual impact, very few householders go out of their way to
ensure that this is done.
--
Ian
Mark
Oct 19, 2011, 10:00:06 AM10/19/11
to
On Tue, 18 Oct 2011 09:50:03 +0100, "steve robinson"
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>Geoffrey wrote:
>
>> I am about to purchase a property which was built about seven years
>> ago and which has been improved by its present owner who has opened
>> the loft space and added two skylight windows in the roof. My
>> solicitors inform me that the owner has taken out an indemnity
>> policy because the builder had imposed a covenant which required
>> their consent for any modification which would change the
>> appearance of the property, and that, in this case, permission was
>> not sought.
>>
>to any compensation they can claim a court would look at what if any
>losses they have incurred which if all the properties have been sold
>then will be zero.
>
>Its usally put in place whilst houseing developments are being built
>to prevent early purchasers from putting additions on that might
>frighten off potential purchasers of other units and to allow a
>reasonable defects rectification period and know such defects are not
>the result of additional works by other contractors and the ensueing
>arguments that follow
I don't doubt you but I wonder why these covenants run forever, rather
than for a fixed period?
The covenants on the houses in my road (build 50 years ago) list many
restrictions on what can be built and where, but the original
landowner never fails to give permission on reciept of a suitably
large cheque.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
<st...@colevalleyinteriors.co.uk> wrote:
>Geoffrey wrote:
>
>> I am about to purchase a property which was built about seven years
>> ago and which has been improved by its present owner who has opened
>> the loft space and added two skylight windows in the roof. My
>> solicitors inform me that the owner has taken out an indemnity
>> policy because the builder had imposed a covenant which required
>> their consent for any modification which would change the
>> appearance of the property, and that, in this case, permission was
>> not sought.
>>
>> When I tried to find out what was going on here, my solicitors were
>> not able to provide a convincing explanation. In particular, when I
>> asked why the value of the indemnity was chosen as the selling price
>> of the house, I was told it was arbitrary, and that there was no
>> upper limit to what they called a "fine" which could be imposed by
>> the builder. I was told they could ask for a billion pounds if they
>> wished.
>>
>> This all seems a bit strange to me - would it not be profitable for
>> builders, knowing that this type of insurance is being peddled, to
>> enforce these covenants?
>>
>> And can it be true that there is no upper limit to the compensation
>> they can claim? If so, should Euro lottery winners beware?
>
>Its unlikely to ever be enforced and whilst there is no upper limit
>> not able to provide a convincing explanation. In particular, when I
>> asked why the value of the indemnity was chosen as the selling price
>> of the house, I was told it was arbitrary, and that there was no
>> upper limit to what they called a "fine" which could be imposed by
>> the builder. I was told they could ask for a billion pounds if they
>> wished.
>>
>> This all seems a bit strange to me - would it not be profitable for
>> builders, knowing that this type of insurance is being peddled, to
>> enforce these covenants?
>>
>> And can it be true that there is no upper limit to the compensation
>> they can claim? If so, should Euro lottery winners beware?
>
>to any compensation they can claim a court would look at what if any
>losses they have incurred which if all the properties have been sold
>then will be zero.
>
>Its usally put in place whilst houseing developments are being built
>to prevent early purchasers from putting additions on that might
>frighten off potential purchasers of other units and to allow a
>reasonable defects rectification period and know such defects are not
>the result of additional works by other contractors and the ensueing
>arguments that follow
I don't doubt you but I wonder why these covenants run forever, rather
than for a fixed period?
The covenants on the houses in my road (build 50 years ago) list many
restrictions on what can be built and where, but the original
landowner never fails to give permission on reciept of a suitably
large cheque.
--
(\__/) M.
(='.'=) Due to the amount of spam posted via googlegroups and
(")_(") their inaction to the problem. I am blocking some articles
posted from there. If you wish your postings to be seen by
everyone you will need use a different method of posting.
Roland Perry
Oct 19, 2011, 3:25:02 PM10/19/11
to
In message <17ZkTLF2wunOFwf$@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>, at 16:30:17 on Wed, 19
Oct 2011, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>And a dish looks less unsightly than a traditional antenna if you're
>>standing on the other side of the house. ;-)
>
>Provided a dish can still see the satellite, it (the dish - not the
>satellite) can mounted at ground level, and sometimes it can be
>completely hidden from prying eyes.
I've seen houses that are prohibited from "having dishes" mount them on
a short pole in the garden. You'd need to look at the exact wording of
the covenant I suppose.
--
Roland Perry
Oct 2011, Ian Jackson <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> remarked:
>>And a dish looks less unsightly than a traditional antenna if you're
>>standing on the other side of the house. ;-)
>
>Provided a dish can still see the satellite, it (the dish - not the
>satellite) can mounted at ground level, and sometimes it can be
>completely hidden from prying eyes.
a short pole in the garden. You'd need to look at the exact wording of
the covenant I suppose.
--
Roland Perry
Adam Funk
Oct 19, 2011, 3:35:02 PM10/19/11
to
On 2011-10-19, Mark wrote:
> I don't doubt you but I wonder why these covenants run forever, rather
> than for a fixed period?
>
> The covenants on the houses in my road (build 50 years ago) list many
> restrictions on what can be built and where, but the original
> landowner never fails to give permission on reciept of a suitably
> large cheque.
I think you've broken the code.
> I don't doubt you but I wonder why these covenants run forever, rather
> than for a fixed period?
>
> The covenants on the houses in my road (build 50 years ago) list many
> restrictions on what can be built and where, but the original
> landowner never fails to give permission on reciept of a suitably
> large cheque.
Ste
Oct 19, 2011, 3:45:02 PM10/19/11
to
> <43150c7d-7ec2-4dba-92e9-9c7e275ce...@x20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>, at
> 15:10:05 on Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> remarked:
when this infrastructure was installed - for a lot of people,
television sets were still a luxury in the 60s, never mind cable. In
terms of the date of first installations, you're talking about 20
years before Channel 4 even went on the air. The idea that it was
installed with a view to creating a market for paid-for cable TV
(which, far from being a pilot, only actually materialised decades
later), or that this was the primary reason for enforcing the no-
aerial policy, is not one that I can see any evidence for.
I also don't know about your reference to BT - I don't know whether
the GPO (as it would have been then) originally had responsibility for
the equipment. It was never used for anything other than analogue TV
(with the basic channels on UHF, and the cable channels later
distributed on VHF), and the local cable company had no connection to
BT as far as I know.
Unless you have some information that I don't, the straightforward
reason for the use of the communal aerial (and the ban on individual
aerials) was that the communal aerial was an efficient system for
distributing signals to homes, and the council wanted to preserve the
appearance of the place, by imposing restrictions on the tiny minority
of homes (up until the late 80s or early 90s) that had moved into
private hands, who might be tempted to interfere with the general
visual aesthetic of the estates (the benefits and enjoyment of which
accrued to everybody).
By allowing people freedom to 'beautify' their properties since then,
and also giving them personal responsibility for maintenance (where
many people have proved irresponsible), the clean (and frankly
healthy) aesthetic of the place has very much been lost, as people add
garish trappings to the outside of their homes, or use materials that
age and weather poorly, and either remove (or allow to grow wild) the
natural greenery. The aerials are just another example of that, with
all sorts of different shapes, sizes, heights, and placement
locations, and many of which are poorly installed and not even
vertical.
> 15:10:05 on Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>
> >In the 60s and 70s when these systems were first installed, I doubt
> >the development corporations had any interest in peddling Cable TV
>
> It was a pilot area for cable TV, and BT had the playing field tilted
> very much in their favour.
As I say Roland, I'm not even aware that there was any cable TV back
> >In the 60s and 70s when these systems were first installed, I doubt
> >the development corporations had any interest in peddling Cable TV
>
> It was a pilot area for cable TV, and BT had the playing field tilted
> very much in their favour.
when this infrastructure was installed - for a lot of people,
television sets were still a luxury in the 60s, never mind cable. In
terms of the date of first installations, you're talking about 20
years before Channel 4 even went on the air. The idea that it was
installed with a view to creating a market for paid-for cable TV
(which, far from being a pilot, only actually materialised decades
later), or that this was the primary reason for enforcing the no-
aerial policy, is not one that I can see any evidence for.
I also don't know about your reference to BT - I don't know whether
the GPO (as it would have been then) originally had responsibility for
the equipment. It was never used for anything other than analogue TV
(with the basic channels on UHF, and the cable channels later
distributed on VHF), and the local cable company had no connection to
BT as far as I know.
Unless you have some information that I don't, the straightforward
reason for the use of the communal aerial (and the ban on individual
aerials) was that the communal aerial was an efficient system for
distributing signals to homes, and the council wanted to preserve the
appearance of the place, by imposing restrictions on the tiny minority
of homes (up until the late 80s or early 90s) that had moved into
private hands, who might be tempted to interfere with the general
visual aesthetic of the estates (the benefits and enjoyment of which
accrued to everybody).
By allowing people freedom to 'beautify' their properties since then,
and also giving them personal responsibility for maintenance (where
many people have proved irresponsible), the clean (and frankly
healthy) aesthetic of the place has very much been lost, as people add
garish trappings to the outside of their homes, or use materials that
age and weather poorly, and either remove (or allow to grow wild) the
natural greenery. The aerials are just another example of that, with
all sorts of different shapes, sizes, heights, and placement
locations, and many of which are poorly installed and not even
vertical.
John Briggs
Oct 19, 2011, 4:20:09 PM10/19/11
to
--
John Briggs
Roland Perry
Oct 19, 2011, 5:30:02 PM10/19/11
to
In message
<304dbf20-2728-4ca9...@w1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, at
20:45:02 on Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> remarked:
and the City of London), which was before the rest of the country was
carved up into 'independent' franchises for the likes of CableTel,
Telewest, Comcast, Nynex etc. who all eventually merged[1] to form NTL
(now trading as Virgin Media).
[1] NTL acquiring the Westminster and MK networks in 1999.
--
Roland Perry
<304dbf20-2728-4ca9...@w1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, at
20:45:02 on Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>As I say Roland, I'm not even aware that there was any cable TV back
>when this infrastructure was installed
Milton Keynes Council's own website says: "When homes were first built
>when this infrastructure was installed
in Milton Keynes in the 1970s and 80s, no aerials were allowed as TV was
provided through an advanced cable system."
provided through an advanced cable system."
>I also don't know about your reference to BT
BT had the original pilot "franchise" (along with getting Westminster
and the City of London), which was before the rest of the country was
carved up into 'independent' franchises for the likes of CableTel,
Telewest, Comcast, Nynex etc. who all eventually merged[1] to form NTL
(now trading as Virgin Media).
[1] NTL acquiring the Westminster and MK networks in 1999.
--
Roland Perry
Stuart A. Bronstein
Oct 19, 2011, 5:35:01 PM10/19/11
to
Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As I say Roland, I'm not even aware that there was any cable TV
> back when this infrastructure was installed - for a lot of
> people, television sets were still a luxury in the 60s, never
> mind cable. In terms of the date of first installations, you're
> talking about 20 years before Channel 4 even went on the air.
The technology was certainly there. In California there was a
> As I say Roland, I'm not even aware that there was any cable TV
> back when this infrastructure was installed - for a lot of
> people, television sets were still a luxury in the 60s, never
> mind cable. In terms of the date of first installations, you're
> talking about 20 years before Channel 4 even went on the air.
proposal to provide cable tv (called pay-tv) in 1964. The only
reason it wasn't introduced at that time was the broadcast media put
a lot of money into convincing the populace it was a bad idea, and
then it was voted out by initiative.
___
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com
Ian Jackson
Oct 19, 2011, 6:00:05 PM10/19/11
to
In message <Xns9F839381CE6Dsp...@130.133.4.11>, Stuart A.
Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> writes
In Britain, VHF multi-channel* Cable TV systems (40 to 218MHz) were on
the go even in 1959-61
*Half a dozen TV channels plus FM radio - plus Radio Luxembourg
converted to FM.
http://aeolian-hall.myzen.co.uk/mva.htm
Before that, Rediffusion and British Relay were capable of carrying a
couple of channels on their HF systems.
The first 'cabled' TV systems were in flats, in London, in 1937, where
the single Alexander Palace BBC channel was received on an aerial on the
roof, amplified, and fed to the various apartments via (I believe) 110
ohm twin feeder.
--
Ian
Bronstein <spam...@lexregia.com> writes
the go even in 1959-61
*Half a dozen TV channels plus FM radio - plus Radio Luxembourg
converted to FM.
http://aeolian-hall.myzen.co.uk/mva.htm
Before that, Rediffusion and British Relay were capable of carrying a
couple of channels on their HF systems.
The first 'cabled' TV systems were in flats, in London, in 1937, where
the single Alexander Palace BBC channel was received on an aerial on the
roof, amplified, and fed to the various apartments via (I believe) 110
ohm twin feeder.
--
Ian
Ste
Oct 19, 2011, 7:55:02 PM10/19/11
to
> <304dbf20-2728-4ca9-b070-c343a9361...@w1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, at
> 20:45:02 on Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> remarked:
aerial', at least in my area, was not the same platform as 'cable TV'
per se, where your telephone and everything was provided via the cable
from a 'cable company'.
Quite literally, the communal aerial was a bog-standard coax cable
strung along the outside of houses, and tapped by each house. It was
wholly analogue, and the connection was not something to which you
subscribed (or from which you could be disconnected) - it was a
broadcast system. The subscription cable TV system was implemented by
hiring a cable box from the local provider, to receive analogue cable
channels that were broadcast in the VHF band (as opposed to the
ordinary channels in the UHF band).
I don't live in MK, so I don't know what their particular system was.
But reference to an "advanced cable system" may well mean only what
I'm describing in my town (also a newtown development).
> 20:45:02 on Wed, 19 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>
> >As I say Roland, I'm not even aware that there was any cable TV back
> >when this infrastructure was installed
>
> Milton Keynes Council's own website says: "When homes were first built
> in Milton Keynes in the 1970s and 80s, no aerials were allowed as TV was
> provided through an advanced cable system."
>
> >I also don't know about your reference to BT
>
> BT had the original pilot "franchise" (along with getting Westminster
> and the City of London), which was before the rest of the country was
> carved up into 'independent' franchises for the likes of CableTel,
> Telewest, Comcast, Nynex etc. who all eventually merged[1] to form NTL
> (now trading as Virgin Media).
I'm not sure whether we're conflating two things. The 'communal
> >As I say Roland, I'm not even aware that there was any cable TV back
> >when this infrastructure was installed
>
> Milton Keynes Council's own website says: "When homes were first built
> in Milton Keynes in the 1970s and 80s, no aerials were allowed as TV was
> provided through an advanced cable system."
>
> >I also don't know about your reference to BT
>
> BT had the original pilot "franchise" (along with getting Westminster
> and the City of London), which was before the rest of the country was
> carved up into 'independent' franchises for the likes of CableTel,
> Telewest, Comcast, Nynex etc. who all eventually merged[1] to form NTL
> (now trading as Virgin Media).
aerial', at least in my area, was not the same platform as 'cable TV'
per se, where your telephone and everything was provided via the cable
from a 'cable company'.
Quite literally, the communal aerial was a bog-standard coax cable
strung along the outside of houses, and tapped by each house. It was
wholly analogue, and the connection was not something to which you
subscribed (or from which you could be disconnected) - it was a
broadcast system. The subscription cable TV system was implemented by
hiring a cable box from the local provider, to receive analogue cable
channels that were broadcast in the VHF band (as opposed to the
ordinary channels in the UHF band).
I don't live in MK, so I don't know what their particular system was.
But reference to an "advanced cable system" may well mean only what
I'm describing in my town (also a newtown development).
Roland Perry
Oct 20, 2011, 3:25:02 AM10/20/11
to
In message
<ca666ee9-f82b-4324...@b10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, at
00:55:02 on Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> remarked:
albeit an old design which delivered just a few channels. It wasn't a
"communal aerial" system.
It was before the 'independent' cable TV companies (which were enabled
by an Act in 1984 - not to be confused with the USA's 1984 Cable Act)
and was separate from the phone network (the independents had two
separate infrastructures to start with as well).
--
Roland Perry
<ca666ee9-f82b-4324...@b10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, at
00:55:02 on Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>I'm not sure whether we're conflating two things. The 'communal
>aerial', at least in my area, was not the same platform as 'cable TV'
>per se, where your telephone and everything was provided via the cable
>from a 'cable company'.
MK was the first place to get a classic wide area Cable-TV system,
>aerial', at least in my area, was not the same platform as 'cable TV'
>per se, where your telephone and everything was provided via the cable
>from a 'cable company'.
albeit an old design which delivered just a few channels. It wasn't a
"communal aerial" system.
It was before the 'independent' cable TV companies (which were enabled
by an Act in 1984 - not to be confused with the USA's 1984 Cable Act)
and was separate from the phone network (the independents had two
separate infrastructures to start with as well).
--
Roland Perry
Neil Williams
Oct 20, 2011, 3:35:02 AM10/20/11
to
On Oct 20, 9:25 am, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> It was before the 'independent' cable TV companies (which were enabled
> by an Act in 1984 - not to be confused with the USA's 1984 Cable Act)
> and was separate from the phone network
...but run by BT/its predecessors.
> It was before the 'independent' cable TV companies (which were enabled
> by an Act in 1984 - not to be confused with the USA's 1984 Cable Act)
> and was separate from the phone network
ISTR that it is owned by Milton Keynes Council (or some child of the
Development Board), BT have the responsibility for infrastructure
maintenance and Virgin Media sell the service. So getting it upgraded
is somewhat of a commercial hurdle.
Neil
Neil Williams
Oct 20, 2011, 3:35:10 AM10/20/11
to
On Oct 19, 9:45 pm, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I also don't know about your reference to BT - I don't know whether
> the GPO (as it would have been then) originally had responsibility for
> the equipment.
In MK my understanding is that it did.
> I also don't know about your reference to BT - I don't know whether
> the GPO (as it would have been then) originally had responsibility for
> the equipment.
Neil
Roland Perry
Oct 20, 2011, 4:15:06 AM10/20/11
to
In message
<564117a9-1d94-46cc...@v7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, at
08:35:02 on Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>ISTR that it is owned by Milton Keynes Council (or some child of the
>Development Board), BT have the responsibility for infrastructure
>maintenance and Virgin Media sell the service. So getting it upgraded
>is somewhat of a commercial hurdle.
It was all-BT before they bailed out in 1999 (and before 1984 BT had a
monopoly on infrastructure like that), selling an operating lease to
NTL, but still responsible for the hardware. Unfortunately it's too
small a market now for either of them to be keen up upgrade the network.
--
Roland Perry
<564117a9-1d94-46cc...@v7g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>, at
08:35:02 on Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Neil Williams <pace...@gmail.com>
remarked:
>On Oct 20, 9:25 am, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> It was before the 'independent' cable TV companies (which were enabled
>> by an Act in 1984 - not to be confused with the USA's 1984 Cable Act)
>> and was separate from the phone network
>
>...but run by BT/its predecessors.
No "but", it *was*.
>
>> It was before the 'independent' cable TV companies (which were enabled
>> by an Act in 1984 - not to be confused with the USA's 1984 Cable Act)
>> and was separate from the phone network
>
>...but run by BT/its predecessors.
>ISTR that it is owned by Milton Keynes Council (or some child of the
>Development Board), BT have the responsibility for infrastructure
>maintenance and Virgin Media sell the service. So getting it upgraded
>is somewhat of a commercial hurdle.
monopoly on infrastructure like that), selling an operating lease to
NTL, but still responsible for the hardware. Unfortunately it's too
small a market now for either of them to be keen up upgrade the network.
--
Roland Perry
Ste
Oct 20, 2011, 5:25:03 AM10/20/11
to
> <ca666ee9-f82b-4324-8b85-ddb5cb43d...@b10g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, at
> 00:55:02 on Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> remarked:
> 00:55:02 on Thu, 20 Oct 2011, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>
> >I'm not sure whether we're conflating two things. The 'communal
> >aerial', at least in my area, was not the same platform as 'cable TV'
> >per se, where your telephone and everything was provided via the cable
> >from a 'cable company'.
>
> MK was the first place to get a classic wide area Cable-TV system,
> albeit an old design which delivered just a few channels. It wasn't a
> "communal aerial" system.
Ah, well that is where the misunderstanding here lay.
> >I'm not sure whether we're conflating two things. The 'communal
> >aerial', at least in my area, was not the same platform as 'cable TV'
> >per se, where your telephone and everything was provided via the cable
> >from a 'cable company'.
>
> MK was the first place to get a classic wide area Cable-TV system,
> albeit an old design which delivered just a few channels. It wasn't a
> "communal aerial" system.
Neil Williams
Oct 20, 2011, 3:45:03 AM10/20/11
to
On Oct 20, 1:55 am, Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I don't live in MK, so I don't know what their particular system was.
> But reference to an "advanced cable system" may well mean only what
> I'm describing in my town (also a newtown development).
No, there's rather more to the MK system than that. It's a full
> I don't live in MK, so I don't know what their particular system was.
> But reference to an "advanced cable system" may well mean only what
> I'm describing in my town (also a newtown development).
analogue cable system of the kind that was deployed in a lot of places
in the 1980s, though it also has a "default" UHF transmission that you
can pick up without a box, this has BBC1-Ch5 plus Sky One and Sky News
if I recall. The MK system dates from the 1970s rather than the 1960s
- the new town area is newer than where you seem to describe (if you
are in the Liverpool area as I'm sure I recall reading, is this
perhaps Skelmersdale, Kirkby or Runcorn - all 1960s new towns as
opposed to MK which is newer).
That said, the MK system is switched at the client's premises, not
centrally - so if you don't pay they have to come and physically cut
you off. There's a switch in the meter cupboards with a seal on it.
They generally assume everyone is connected and send a bill, which I
didn't pay (I think I wrote to say "get lost, come and cut me off if
you like") as I didn't use it, using instead a loft aerial with
Freeview.
Neil
Dimbles
Oct 22, 2011, 9:10:02 AM10/22/11
to
On Thu, 20 Oct 2011 08:25:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
Cable has been around for decades
http://www.rediffusion.info/cablestory.html
They had gone out of business here by the 80s but a house we bought
about then still had the cable strung to the house.
wrote:
http://www.rediffusion.info/cablestory.html
They had gone out of business here by the 80s but a house we bought
about then still had the cable strung to the house.
Roland Perry
Oct 22, 2011, 9:50:02 AM10/22/11
to
In message <mtf5a7dmbcgnovcug...@4ax.com>, at 14:10:02 on
Sat, 22 Oct 2011, Dimbles <inv...@invalid.co.uk> remarked:
strung from house to house, and across the street. I looked at buying a
house which had these cables attached but never got as far as
understanding whose permission (if anyone's) was required to remove
them. You'd need the co-operation of the house across the street,
obviously.
--
Roland Perry
Sat, 22 Oct 2011, Dimbles <inv...@invalid.co.uk> remarked:
>Cable has been around for decades
>http://www.rediffusion.info/cablestory.html
>
>They had gone out of business here by the 80s but a house we bought
>about then still had the cable strung to the house.
There are remains of one of those systems here in Nottingham. Cables
>http://www.rediffusion.info/cablestory.html
>
>They had gone out of business here by the 80s but a house we bought
>about then still had the cable strung to the house.
strung from house to house, and across the street. I looked at buying a
house which had these cables attached but never got as far as
understanding whose permission (if anyone's) was required to remove
them. You'd need the co-operation of the house across the street,
obviously.
--
Roland Perry
Dimbles
Oct 22, 2011, 10:30:03 AM10/22/11
to
On Sat, 22 Oct 2011 14:50:02 +0100, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:
We had a number to ring. I asked them to remove the cable. Got home a
couple of weeks later and it had gone
wrote:
couple of weeks later and it had gone
0 new messages