DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Non-motoring legal advice
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113390--------------------------------------------------
bt openreach damaging property
DIR By: mickR
Date: March 16, 2026, 7:16 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Bt openreach recently changed a pole opposite my house. they
disconnected all the overhead cables a wound them up to each
property.
on re attaching them the very careful and conscientious workmen
draped the both mine and my neighbours cables across the roof
screen pillars and bonnet of my car and proceeded to untangle
them from a distance. thus damaging the paintwork.
not content with that they caught the cable on my security
camera (which had been recording all this) and wrenched it off
the wall breaking it.
i report report damage.
claim form is sent from claim handlers "Keoghs".
completed and returned 22nd Feb
since then they have ignored all attempts to get an update or
ack receipt.
in the event I might issue a CC claim, would I address it to
Keoghs, Openreach or BT?
thoughts please.
#Post#: 113392--------------------------------------------------
Re: bt openreach damaging property
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: March 16, 2026, 7:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You would address it to the defendant - which appears to be
whoever employed the allegedly negligent workmen. Unless a
solicitor has agreed to accept service on behalf of the
defendant.
#Post#: 113419--------------------------------------------------
Re: bt openreach damaging property
DIR By: mickR
Date: March 16, 2026, 11:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
from what I can see, Openreach is a legally separate entity to
BT.
so I assume from what you say SP, I need to find out if Keoghs
have assumed legal responsibility from Openreach?
#Post#: 113423--------------------------------------------------
Re: bt openreach damaging property
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 16, 2026, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Mick, you are very, vary bad at reading what has been written.
#Post#: 113425--------------------------------------------------
Re: bt openreach damaging property
DIR By: mickR
Date: March 16, 2026, 12:21 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Andy, you are definitely not wrong
🤦‍♂️ im glad one of us is awake.
taxi to specsavers...
#Post#: 113632--------------------------------------------------
Re: bt openreach damaging property
DIR By: mickR
Date: March 18, 2026, 12:39 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, they responded for the first time since receiving the damage
claim form after 24 days. I replied asking specifically if they
had legally agreed to accept CCClaims on behalf their client,
and if not to supply the correct address for service.
they replied but ignored my requests and said
"Please note there is no official investigation period for
property damage claims, however we do try to adhere to the 90
day protocol period given. Our investigations are underway and
we will revert to you as soon as these are complete."
90 day protocol?
any idea what that refers to?
#Post#: 113638--------------------------------------------------
Re: bt openreach damaging property
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 18, 2026, 1:34 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Off the top of my head, either some entirely internal process
designed to kick the issue into the long grass, or some entirely
made up bollox designed to make you lose the will to live.
The bottom line is that they have negligently injured you
(damaged your property) and you are entitled under the law of
tort to be made whole (be appropriately compensated).
If there is some alternative process, other than suing in the
county court, that is beneficial to you (e.g. if there is an
Ombudsman that will hand them their arses on your behalf - which
I would assume there isn't), then it might help them to tick the
appropriate boxes to that process.
Unless Openretch (no longer called BT Openretch, but still
wholly owned by BT) have told you that Keoghs is their address
for service, Openretch @ <Openretch's registered address> is the
correct address for service. However, it may be prudent to
follow up on your original complaint to Openretch asking them to
confirm their address for service (effectively a nudge before
letter before claim).
There is an expectation that both parties will behave
reasonably, which arguably includes not going straight into
threats of litigation - although the letter before action (which
is very much a threat of litigation) is the only mandated step.
For the matter to be kicked down the corridor to the wife's
cousin's hairdresser's catwalker, who then takes the thick end
of a month to respond to the effect that they might get around
to looking at it within 3 months, but only if they feel like it,
suggests that if you try to be any more reasonable, they'll
charge you extra for the vaseline.
#Post#: 113646--------------------------------------------------
Re: bt openreach damaging property
DIR By: mickR
Date: March 18, 2026, 3:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
thanks Andy,
when I said "they" responded I meant Keoghs. Openreach only
directed me to Keoghs in the first instance and ive had no
contact with them since. however a letter of complaint won't go
amiss. maybe to the CEO Mr Clive Selley.
#Post#: 115994--------------------------------------------------
Re: bt openreach damaging property
DIR By: mickR
Date: April 15, 2026, 12:09 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> Off the top of my head, either some entirely internal process
designed to kick the issue into the long grass, or some entirely
made up bollox designed to make you lose the will to live.
>
> The bottom line is that they have negligently injured you
(damaged your property) and you are entitled under the law of
tort to be made whole (be appropriately compensated).
>
> If there is some alternative process, other than suing in the
county court, that is beneficial to you (e.g. if there is an
Ombudsman that will hand them their arses on your behalf - which
I would assume there isn't), then it might help them to tick the
appropriate boxes to that process.
>
> Unless Openretch (no longer called BT Openretch, but still
wholly owned by BT) have told you that Keoghs is their address
for service, Openretch @ <Openretch's registered address> is the
correct address for service. However, it may be prudent to
follow up on your original complaint to Openretch asking them to
confirm their address for service (effectively a nudge before
letter before claim).
>
> There is an expectation that both parties will behave
reasonably, which arguably includes not going straight into
threats of litigation - although the letter before action (which
is very much a threat of litigation) is the only mandated step.
For the matter to be kicked down the corridor to the wife's
cousin's hairdresser's catwalker, who then takes the thick end
of a month to respond to the effect that they might get around
to looking at it within 3 months, but only if they feel like it,
suggests that if you try to be any more reasonable, they'll
charge you extra for the vaseline.
>
--- End Quote ---
so a little update.
an email to Openreach CEO got a response same day from 2 people
who were profusely apologetic and assured me they will stick a
rod up err... investigate Keoghs position. que another 4 weeks
of precisely FA. So today another few emails to the top brass at
openreach secured another response from the same guy saying he
would again stick a r ... investigate the position but could not
get involved in the investigation or direct Keoghs to do
anything despite being the principal to their agent Keoghs.
Ta da, an email from team leader at Keoghs explaining that the
"90-day protocol" is in fact Civil Procedure rules ...
" Civil Procedural Rules allow the Defendant 90 days
from receipt of the statement of claim (Claim Form) to
investigate and reach a decision on liability. For legal
liability to attach, the Defendant must accept or the Claimant
(yourself) must prove negligence by the Defendant. 
Liability decision will be notified to the Claimant (yourself)
as soon as possible, within the 90 day period.
or in my language.. "we've got 90 days so we are taking all of
them to investigate liability and are ignoring the cctv footage
you supplied of them actually carrying out the damage"
this is the first ive heard of Keoghs being Openreach's insurer
as from what I could see they are a Legal firm.
#Post#: 115998--------------------------------------------------
Re: bt openreach damaging property
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: April 15, 2026, 12:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph 6 of the Practice Direction regarding Pre-Action
Conduct and Protocols provides -
--- Quote ---
>
> Steps before issuing a claim at court
>
> 6. Where there is a relevant pre-action protocol, the parties
should comply with that protocol before commencing proceedings.
Where there is no relevant pre-action protocol, the parties
should exchange correspondence and information to comply with
the objectives in paragraph 3, bearing in mind that compliance
should be proportionate. The steps will usually include—
>
> (a) the claimant writing to the defendant with concise details
of the claim. The letter should include the basis on which the
claim is made, a summary of the facts, what the claimant wants
from the defendant, and if money, how the amount is calculated;
>
> (b) the defendant responding within a reasonable time – 14
days in a straight forward case and no more than 3 months in a
very complex one. The reply should include confirmation as to
whether the claim is accepted and, if it is not accepted, the
reasons why, together with an explanation as to which facts and
parts of the claim are disputed and whether the defendant is
making a counterclaim as well as providing details of any
counterclaim; and
>
> (c) the parties disclosing key documents relevant to the
issues in dispute.
--- End Quote ---
So, it seems that "a reasonable time" ranges from 14 days for a
straightforward claim to a maximum of 3 months for a "very
complex one".
This does not seem to entirely translate to "f*ck off, we have 3
months to look into it, if we can be bothered". As they have
vaguely referred to the Civil Procedure Rules without citing
which particular rule they are deliberately misrepresenting,
this ought not to be surprising.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page