Threadgold House Case: What Landlords Should Know

Updated September 2026. This article was reviewed and corrected in September 2026. The property in EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited v London Borough of Islington [2019] UKUT 53 (LC) is Threadgold House, not Quadrant House, and the decision was given on 18 February 2019; we have also corrected the rent, which was not nominal, and the compensation awarded.

Threadgold House Case: Key Lessons

• Case Summary: Threadgold House

• Key Issues:

• Tribunal Decision:

• Key Findings:

• Rights under the Electronic Communications Code:

• Agreement Terms:

• Rent and Compensation:

• Implications for Landlords:

• Public Benefit: 

• Compensation for Damage: 

• Limited Rent and Control: 

• Summary:

The legal framework for telecommunications infrastructure is crucial for both operators and landlords. This blog examines the Threadgold House case, shedding light on the Tribunal’s decision and its implications for landlords, particularly in relation to the Electronic Communications Code.

Case Summary: Threadgold House

Case Name: EE Limited and Hutchison 3G UK Limited v. The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Islington

Citation: [2019] UKUT 53 (LC)

Date: 18 February 2019

Key Issues:

The Operators sought rights under the Electronic Communications Code to install electronic communications apparatus on the roof of Threadgold House, a ten-storey block of flats on the Dovercourt Estate owned by the London Borough of Islington.

Tribunal Decision:

The Council withdrew its objection to an agreement being imposed shortly before the final hearing, so the Tribunal had to establish the terms of the agreement, the consideration and compensation payable, and whether it had power to impose the agreement in the form of a lease.

Key Findings:

Rights under the Electronic Communications Code:

The Tribunal had already granted the Operators interim rights, and it imposed a ten-year agreement under paragraph 20 of the Code. It also confirmed that it has power to impose an agreement in the form of a lease.

By the final hearing, the Council no longer disputed the Operators’ need for the site to maintain coverage in the area.

Agreement Terms:

Because the Council had not complied with the Tribunal’s directions on the draft agreement, it was barred from objecting to the Operators’ proposed terms, other than the amounts of consideration and compensation. The agreement imposed was for ten years, terminable after five years, with the rent reviewed by reference to inflation after five years.

Rent and Compensation:

The Tribunal rejected the suggestion of the Operators’ expert that the rent should be a nominal £1 a year. Applying the Code’s no-network assumption, it valued the rights themselves at a nominal £50, but found that willing parties would agree £1,000 a year to reflect the burdens on the Council, such as building insurance, caretaking, management and roof repairs. Because the Operators had offered £2,551.77 a year, that higher figure was written into the agreement.

No compensation was payable at the start of the agreement, but the Council was entitled to its reasonable legal and surveying costs of the agreement and to compensation for any loss or damage caused by installing the apparatus.

Implications for Landlords:

Public Benefit:

The ruling facilitates improved telecommunications services, which can benefit tenants and the wider community.

Compensation for Damage:

Confirms that landlords can recover reasonable legal and surveying costs and compensation for loss or damage caused by the installation of telecommunications equipment, although the Council’s other compensation claims were dismissed.

Limited Rent and Control:

The Tribunal found a rent of £1,000 a year, far below the £21,000 a year the parties had agreed in principle during earlier negotiations, which limits potential revenue for landlords. Additionally, landlords have limited ability to refuse installations or negotiate terms, impacting property management and redevelopment plans. 

Summary:

The Quadrant House case underscores the strong rights granted to telecommunications operators under the Electronic Communications Code, emphasising the public benefit of improved network infrastructure. While it supports operators in network expansion, it imposes limitations on landlords, including low rents and reduced control over properties. This case highlights the balance between public interest in telecommunications infrastructure and property owners’ rights, setting a precedent for similar disputes. Landlords must navigate these challenges, understanding the limitations and opportunities presented by the Tribunal’s decisions.

Related Services

If you need expert advice on the topics discussed in this article, our specialist surveyors can help:

• EE Phone Mast Leases

• Get a Free Lease Check

Call us on 01691 791543 or contact us online for a free consultation.