Closed consultation

Legislative proposals to address broadband rollout in leasehold flats

Updated 18 December 2025

Applies to England and Wales

Introduction

High-speed digital infrastructure is increasingly essential for everyday life. Access to this infrastructure drives transformation across public services with enhanced connectivity improving access to education, healthcare and employment.

The high-speed digital infrastructure sector itself is worth £50 billion ^{[footnote 1]} and underpins the modern digital economy and much of the wider UK economy. It is a key driver of productivity, increasingly essential for the UK’s economic growth and its importance will grow over the coming decade. 

High-quality connectivity is critical to the UK’s international competitiveness, through enabling innovation across the economy and ensuring our people, businesses and public services do not fall behind international counterparts. 

We are committed to delivering nationwide gigabit coverage by 2032 reaching a minimum of 99% of premises across all populated areas of the UK. The government has made significant progress towards this target, including through Project Gigabit, the government’s programme to deliver gigabit-capable broadband to UK premises that are not included in suppliers’ plans. According to the independent website ThinkBroadband.com, 89% of premises in the UK can now access a gigabit-capable connection ^{[footnote 2]}.

There however remain persistent challenges in deploying gigabit-capable broadband to certain property types and particularly to flats. This consultation seeks feedback on the barriers and potential legislative solutions to aid the timely and effective rollout of broadband infrastructure

Executive summary

Gigabit-capable broadband is essential for the UK’s economic growth, productivity, and international competitiveness. While significant progress has been made, gigabit-capable broadband deployment to flats, especially flats owned by leaseholders, lags behind other property types. This disparity is most pronounced in urban and suburban areas, where gigabit-capable broadband coverage for flats remains below that of other property types such as houses. We believe this disparity will continue as the roll out of gigabit-capable broadband infrastructure continues, risking leaving occupants of flats without access to gigabit broadband services which are essential for modern life.

This consultation seeks views on the barriers to deployments to flats including network operator difficulties in identifying the correct parties to negotiate deployment arrangements with, and a lack of perceived incentives for some freeholder owners of flats to engage with network operators. These challenges risk leaving many flats without access to high-speed broadband, undermining the government’s commitment to nationwide gigabit coverage by 2032.

The Electronic Communications Code (“the Code”) provides the legislative framework governing network operators’ rights to install and maintain telecommunications infrastructure on, under, and over land. This is designed to provide a framework for landowners and network operators to enter into agreements on a consensual basis. Where agreements cannot be reached, network operators can go to the courts and obtain an order to access land if the landowner refuses unreasonably. To address specific challenges in multi-dwelling units, such as flats, the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act (TILPA) 2021 amended the Code. TILPA introduced additional rights to enable network operators, to apply for a court-imposed agreement where a landowner of a building containing flats fails to respond to repeated requests for access.

The proposed policy builds on the existing framework under the Code by addressing scenarios where the landlord is unknown by network operators, or where the landlord is not minded to engage with connectivity issues or the deployment needs in leasehold flats. It does so by giving leaseholders a right to request a gigabit capable connection, and by imposing a duty on freeholders not to unreasonable refuse such a request. The intention is to create a clear mechanism to ensure that leaseholders connectivity needs are addressed promptly, even when the relevant landlord cannot be readily identified by network operators.  These proposals are intended to strengthen leaseholders’ ability to ask freeholders to act on their behalf. We consider that the proposal will empower leaseholders by giving them a legal mechanism to initiate requests for connectivity, ensuring that the access needed for deployment is not solely dependent on freeholder cooperation. It may also encourage engagement by freeholders, who are required not to unreasonably refuse such requests, thereby reducing delays caused by inactions. By clarifying responsibilities and establishing an expectation of cooperation, the policy intends to facilitate faster deployment. It is intended that this increased clarity and efficiency would enable network operators to deploy infrastructure more quickly, while the accelerated roll out of gigabit-capable connection will support broader connectivity objectives, benefitting both leaseholders and the wider community.

This consultation seeks to build our evidence base and seeks views on the above proposals and whether they would effectively address the barriers to infrastructure deployment in flats, particularly in scenarios where landlords are unknown by network operators.

Why we are consulting

This consultation seeks views on the barriers to deployments of gigabit-capable broadband connections to flats and on proposals to improve leaseholders’ ability to obtain gigabit-capable broadband connections in flats.

Consultation details

• Issued: 15 December 2025

• Respond by: 11:59pm on 16 February 2026

Enquiries to:

Barrier Busting Task Force
Digital Infrastructure Directorate
Department for Science, Innovation and Technology
2nd Floor
22 Whitehall
London
SW1A 2EG

Email: mduconsultation@dsit.gov.uk

Consultation reference: Legislative proposals to address broadband rollout in MDUs

Audiences:

This is a public consultation and open to any individual or organisation.

We particularly seek views from:

• operators (both infrastructure providers and service providers)
• landowners or leaseholders
• others who could potentially be a party in requests for broadband connections
• others who have already agreed, or may in the future agree, for electronic communications equipment to be installed on property.

The Public Sector Equality Duty analysis has identified no negative impacts or risks that this policy will lead to less accessibility for any demographic group. Increased gigabit connectivity in MDUs will empower younger residents, who in particular live in Multi Dwelling Units (MDUs), improving their ability to work remotely and access high speed internet from their homes. We will continue to update this analysis as the policy develops, following consultation.

Territorial extent:

• the geographical scope of this consultation is England and Wales

How to respond to this consultation

Your response will be most useful if it is framed in direct response to the questions posed, though further comments and evidence are also welcome.

Submit your responses online.

This consultation will run until 11:59pm on 16 February 2026.   

When responding, please state whether you are responding as an individual or representing the views of an organisation.

Your response will be most useful if it is framed in direct response to the questions posed, though further comments and evidence are also welcome.

In exceptional circumstances, if you need to submit a hard copy or require another format (e.g. braille or large font) please contact mduconsultation@dsit.gov.uk.   

Confidentiality and data protection

Information you provide in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be disclosed in accordance with UK legislation (the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004).

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential please tell us, but be aware that we cannot guarantee confidentiality in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not be regarded by us as a confidentiality request.

We will process your personal data in accordance with all applicable data protection laws. See our privacy policy.

Quality assurance

This consultation has been carried out in accordance with the government’s consultation principles.

If you have any complaints about the way this consultation has been conducted, please email: betterregulation@dsit.gov.uk.

Question 1: Please provide your full name and if you are responding on behalf of an organisation or a group? If so, name of stakeholder.

The proposals

Background

Digital infrastructure rollout

Digital infrastructure, including gigabit broadband, underpins the UK economy, is a key driver of productivity, and will only grow in importance in the future. This is why the government is committed to delivering nationwide gigabit coverage by 2032, reaching a minimum of 99% of premises across the UK.

Gigabit connectivity provides faster, more reliable and more resilient connections, better able to meet the growing demands of consumers. This enhanced connectivity improves access to education, healthcare and government services, reduces long-term unemployment and allows better use of home working as well as reducing loneliness through better access to communication. In the Superfast Broadband Programme Evaluation: key benefits and impacts report ^{[footnote 3]} published in March 2025, the Superfast programme also found a house price premium for premises with better connectivity.

The government’s strategy for supporting gigabit rollout is twofold. In (typically rural) areas that are not included in operators’ commercial build plans, the government provides public funds to operators to provide access to gigabit-capable broadband. In areas that are included within operators’ commercial build plans, the government seeks to remove barriers to the deployment of gigabit-capable broadband infrastructure.

Scale of the Issue

Our analysis of BDUK Open Market Review (OMR) and Ordnance Survey (OS) data for May 2025 suggests that there are 1.2 million flats in England and Wales that do not have access to a gigabit-capable broadband service. There are a number of reasons (including commercial viability of deploying to a building) why these properties may not have access, but it is vital that network operators are able to deploy the necessary infrastructure to deliver services. 

The deployment of gigabit-capable broadband to flats, and in particular to individual flats with a leasehold tenure (leasehold flats), is lagging behind deployment to other property types. Leasehold flats are defined in the Scope of the Leaseholder Right section below. Our analysis of BDUK OMR and OS data shows that as of May 2025, only 79.6% of flats had access to a gigabit-capable broadband connection, compared to 86.1% of all residential premises. This position is even starker when considered in the context of areas where deployment rates are high, such as in urban and suburban areas where coverage for residential properties is 90.8% but stands at only 80.7% for flats.

Further, analysis of HM Land Registry leasehold data and BDUK OMR data reveal that 78.9% of leasehold flats have a gigabit-capable connection, falling behind deployment rates of 80.4% for freehold flats. Additional information regarding this analysis can be found in the analytical annex accompanying this document.

This supports that there are unique challenges to deploying to flats and particularly to leasehold flats that will continue to impact as the roll out of gigabit-capable infrastructure continues. These challenges are detailed in the continued concerns around gigabit-capable broadband deployments to flats section below. The proposed legislative measures are expected to remove the difficulty of identifying parties to negotiate access rights with (under the Code) and increase responsiveness from relevant freeholders. This will help more parties to enter Code negotiations, resulting in increased rates of deployments of gigabit-capable connections to flats. It will allow leaseholders of flats to gain access to gigabit-capable services and is expected to lead to the overall objective of accelerating broadband rollout to flats, which supports the government’s target of 99% gigabit coverage by 2032.

Overcoming barriers to gigabit-capable broadband deployment

Electronic Communications Code

The legal framework underpinning rights to install and maintain electronic communications infrastructure on private and public land is contained in the Electronic Communications Code (“the Code”), which is part of the Communications Act 2003. The Code supports efficient, cost-effective deployment and maintenance of robust digital communications networks. The Code strives to ensure an appropriate balance is achieved between the public interest in these networks and the private rights of landowners and other infrastructure site providers. The Code provides mechanisms for network operators to obtain Code rights and for the tribunal or court to impose those rights where agreement cannot be reached. The Code has been subject to amendments, including through the Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure Act 2022 (“the PSTI Act 2022”) and the Telecommunications Infrastructure (Leasehold Property) Act (TILPA) 2021.

The PSTI Act 2022 (Part 2) provisions were designed to address feedback from stakeholders about how the Code could work more effectively for landowners and network operators. Most of these measures have been commenced, and the government has committed to implementing the remaining provisions.

TILPA amendments to the Code were designed to address specific issues relating to the deployments to multi-dwelling units (including flats). Providing network operators, a fast-track route to the courts for an order imposing Code rights where landowners are repeatedly unresponsive to a request for Code rights to deploy infrastructure.

Continued concerns around gigabit-capable broadband deployments to flats

The evidence indicates that deployment of gigabit-capable broadband to flats is facing barriers that may not be resolved solely through the existing framework. Currently, only 78.1% of leasehold flats have gigabit-capable broadband, compared to 86.1% of other property types, such as houses. This coverage gap, coupled with the scale of the challenge—suggested to be around 1.2 million flats—demonstrates that impetus is needed. Project Gigabit experience further confirms the practical complexities operators face in flats.

Taken together, these factors indicate a need for policy intervention. By giving leaseholders, a right to request a gigabit-capable connection and placing a duty on freeholders not to unreasonably refuse such requests, the proposed policy aims to address the coverage gap and streamline deployment processes. Helping to ensure that flats are not left behind in the rollout of gigabit-capable broadband.

Whilst network operators can go to the courts to obtain permanent Code rights, we do not believe this to be a viable option given the scale of the suggested 1.2 million flats that require a gigabit-capable broadband connection, and the time it takes for a decision to be reached. Additionally, we believe the barriers to deploying gigabit-capable broadband to flats extend beyond unresponsive landowners. As noted in the scale of the problem above, our analysis suggests that barriers have led to a disparity in gigabit-capable broadband coverage in leasehold flats (78.1%) when compared to other property types, such as houses (86.1%).

There is a risk that flats will continue to be left behind as deployment continues if government does not consider whether intervention is necessary. Both network operators and landowners (in response to a government information gathering exercise in 2024) continue to highlight difficulties which are delaying the rollout of gigabit capable broadband connections to flats.

Furthermore, Building Digital UK, a directorate within the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology responsible for delivering government-funded broadband infrastructure programmes has highlighted that the delivery of some Project Gigabit contracts has also illustrated the complexities that operators face when attempting to deploy infrastructure to flats.

Most notably, stakeholders raised as key issues, identifying the correct party to grant Code rights, and the lack of drivers for freeholders (who are not the occupant of a flat) to act on behalf of leaseholders. These issues can mean that it is not viable for a network operator to install their infrastructure. This is because the timeframes do not always align with a network operators’ other deployments within a region, should freeholders not be responsive. Therefore, these proposals seek to build on the existing mechanisms within the framework by addressing the challenge where the landowner is unknown.

The government therefore believes that a leaseholder right to request a gigabit capable connection, and the corresponding duty for a landowner to respond, and not unreasonably refuse connectivity requests, could provide the appropriate drivers to aid deployments to flats.

These proposals are intended to strengthen leaseholders’ ability to ask freeholders to act on their behalf. We consider that the proposal will empower leaseholders by giving them a legal mechanism to initiate requests for connectivity, ensuring that the access needed for deployment is not solely dependent on freeholder cooperation.

It may also encourage engagement by freeholders, who are required not to unreasonably refuse such requests, thereby reducing delays caused by inaction. By clarifying responsibilities and establishing an expectation of cooperation, the policy intends to facilitate faster deployment. It is intended that this increased clarity and efficiency would enable network operators to deploy infrastructure more quickly, while the accelerated roll out of gigabit- capable connection will support broader connectivity objectives, benefitting both leaseholders and the wider community.

Question 2: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the issues referenced in this consultation act as barriers to deployment of gigabit-capable broadband in flats?

Question 3: Where it is agreed that identification of a party to obtain Code rights from is a barrier, could you provide data as to how often this has occurred and how often you believe it will likely occur in the future?

Question 4: Where it is believed that the ability to reach a Code agreement is the barrier to deployment of gigabit-capable broadband to flats, could you provide data as to how often this has occurred and how often you believe it will likely occur in the future?

Question 5: How often have identified parties to negotiate a Code agreement with for the deployment of gigabit-capable broadband to flats been unresponsive, and could you provide data on how often you believe this will be a problem in the future?

Question 6: Are there any other issues that you consider as barriers to the deployment of gigabit-capable broadband to flats?

Question 7: Where other issues have been identified as barriers to the deployment of gigabit-capable broadband to flats, could you provide data as to how often this has occurred and how often you believe it will likely occur in the future?

Question 8: Where a freeholder has been contacted by a network operator seeking to deploy a gigabit-capable connection, what is the typical time for a response from a freeholder?

Question 9: What proportion of freeholders have failed to engage at all with network operator requests and how many freeholders have been contacted by network operators?

Question 10: In your view, how effective are existing mechanisms under the Electronic Communications Code and TILPA in overcoming delays caused by non-responsive or uncooperative landowners? Please provide examples.

Question 11: To what extent do you agree that freeholders lack incentives to facilitate gigabit-capable broadband deployment? Why?

Question 12: Do leaseholders currently experience difficulty securing broadband upgrades because freeholders are difficult to identify? Please provide evidence.

Question 13: In the absence of the proposals, please could you provide data on the projected deployment rates of gigabit-capable broadband to flats?

Question 14: Could data be provided on the projected deployment rates of gigabit-capable broadband to flats taking account of the proposals?

Landowners’ Rights

As noted above, the Code currently carefully strikes a balance between the public benefits of broadband provision and the rights of landowners of private land. The proposed policy builds on this framework by addressing scenarios where the landlord is unknown by network operators. The proposals introduce a targeted mechanism to improve the deployment of gigabit-capable broadband to flats by empowering leaseholders with a right to request a gigabit-capable connection from the freeholders, and by imposing a duty on freeholders not to unreasonably refuse such a request. They also include safeguards intended to protect freeholders’ rights.  The proposals similarly seek to ensure that private property rights are respected, whilst reflecting the need for flat occupants to have access to the best digital connectivity. The benefits of full-fibre broadband include faster speeds, a more reliable connection with fibre-optic technology, support for multiple devices on one connection and futureproofing against increased demand and technologies. This approach is intended to ensure that the flats are not left behind in the roll out of gigabit-capable networks.

We understand that in many cases the freeholder will be a leaseholder’s landlord. However, there are also a significant number of “intermediate landlords” within leasehold ownership schemes, for example, a leaseholder under a headlease with a freeholder who has granted leases of flats to individual leaseholders in respect of which they are the landlord. Sometimes there is more than one “intermediate landlord” in respect of a flat. These arrangements create complexities that need to be factored into the development of leaseholders’ right to request gigabit deployment and we have included questions throughout the different parts of this consultation seeking input on this.

Network Operator Market

We have sought to create proposals that address the barriers that may prevent timely roll out of gigabit-capable broadband to flats. The focus of the proposed policy is on any leaseholder who does not have a gigabit-capable connection and therefore it is not envisaged this would distort the supplier market.

Whilst doing so, we have sought to ensure that all network operators are afforded equal opportunities to take advantage of the proposals and that no one network operator is provided an additional advantage over others in deploying to flats. The proposals also avoid making amendments to the Code that could lead to market disruption.

Policy Proposals

Leaseholder right to request a gigabit-capable connection and freeholder duty to respond.

To address barriers and help ensure that as many leasehold flat owners get access to gigabit-capable broadband as soon as is possible, the government proposes to provide a new leaseholder right. This will aid flat leaseholders to get access to gigabit-capable broadband and provide requirements for relevant freeholders to act on their behalf. The new leaseholder right to request a gigabit-capable broadband connection will be implied into an existing lease. This right to request will be supported by a duty placed upon freeholders not to unreasonably refuse a gigabit capable broadband request.

We believe that the provision of a leaseholder right to request, and a corresponding duty for relevant freeholders not to unreasonably refuse, will remove the need for identifying an appropriate party to negotiate, as the freeholder will approach a network operator regarding a connection, following representation to the freeholder from the leaseholder. It will also provide drivers for Code negotiation commencement between freeholders and network operators.

Leaseholder right to request a gigabit-capable connection

Scope of the Leaseholder Right

Government proposes to create a formal right for leaseholders to request a gigabit-capable connection from their relevant freeholder (the right to request). The right to request does not grant network operators any automatic rights of access under the Code. The operators would still need to secure Code agreements. The policy is intended as a nudge measure to ensure that operators can readily negotiate with the appropriate freeholder. The right to request is therefore complementary to the Code, and is intended to reduce delays in negotiations rather than bypass the Code process.

Therefore, we expect Code agreements to remain a key element in an operator gaining access to a building – these proposals are aimed at providing additional rights to leaseholders to get freeholders to act on their behalf regarding a gigabit-capable connection. The right to request would relate to an appropriate gigabit-capable broadband connection. These are typically delivered through the provision of fibre optic cabling to dwellings.  However, the proposed measures would be technology neutral as to the means of delivering a gigabit-capable broadband connection. For a connection to be appropriate, infrastructure deployed would need to deliver a connection to a public gigabit-capable electronic communications network that is capable of delivering broadband access services at download speeds of at least 1,000 Mega-bits per second (MBPS).

The right to request would be applicable to buildings that contain more than one dwelling such as flats. The definitions of a dwelling and flats are set out in s.112 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002:

A “dwelling” means a building or part of a building occupied or intended to be occupied as a separate dwelling

A “flat” means a separate set of premises (whether on the same floor)—

(a) which forms part of a building,
(b) which is constructed or adapted for use for the purposes of a dwelling, and
(c) either the whole or a material part of which lies above or below some other part of the building, …

We consider that this right to request should apply to each individual leaseholder within a building containing 2 or more residential leases. A relevant lease for the purposes of the right to request being any lease over 21 years when originally granted, and which is primarily used for residential purposes.

This would allow any existing or future leaseholder to exercise the right to make a request. This includes where a leaseholder may own the share of the freehold ownership within a building of flats, as well as a leasehold interest, but still requires consent from another relevant freeholder to obtain a gigabit-capable connection.

By allowing any applicable leaseholder the right to request, this would mean that it would be applicable regardless of the ownership, building management or lease situation, ensuring as many leaseholders have the right to make a request as possible including under the following arrangements:

•  Leaseholders managing a building through a Right to Manage (RTM) company.

•  Leaseholders who have bought the freehold of their building (collective enfranchisement).

• Where intermediate leases exist (including those created in shared ownership contexts).

• Where a tribunal appointed manager is in place in respect of a property.

Whilst this is the case, the government made a clear commitment in its manifesto, reaffirmed in the King’s Speech and a recent written statement, that it will reinvigorate commonhold by reforming the legal framework to make it both a preferred and workable alternative to leasehold. Commonhold provides full freehold homeownership for flats and other interdependent buildings. It has been specifically designed for homeownership in multi-dwelling buildings and provides for the effective management and upkeep of buildings without a third-party landlord.

The commonhold structure allows any unit owner, with a seconder, to bring a vote to the commonhold association. If supported by a majority of votes the subject of the vote will be approved, for example, upgrading the building to a gigabit-capable connection. Given the existence of this mechanism, and the small number of existing commonhold units, we do not think an equivalent right to request is necessary for commonhold unit owners.

The specific focus of correspondence and feedback that government has received about barriers to deployment has related to residential flats. As such we do not believe that our proposals should provide the right to request to apply to leaseholders in houses or commercial premises. This would not however exclude leaseholders in buildings with mixed dwelling and work units providing there is more than one dwelling in the building.

We also believe through our work with local authorities and housing associations that there are alternative methods to address deployment issues to social housing flats. With many local authorities and housing associations producing best practice guidance and having the ability to reach agreements for deployments at scale for multiple buildings. As such, we do not propose to include social housing within our measures but, will consider the position of shared owners with a private freeholder.

As set out in the scale of the issue section above, our analysis suggests that gigabit–capable broadband deployments to leasehold flats are lower than to any other landholding tenure. As such we are not seeking to apply measures directly to any other landholding tenures. It should however be the case that where a leaseholder has let their flat out, that the leaseholder could still exercise their right to request a gigabit-capable broadband connection on behalf of their tenant. Whilst this is the case, we are keen to hear from respondents about the nature of any barriers to deployments to other tenures and if further interventions may be required.

Question 15: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the government’s proposal to introduce a right for residential leaseholders (See Scope of the Leaseholder right) to request a gigabit-capable connection? If not, why not?

Question 16: To what extent do you agree or disagree that any residential leaseholder of a flat should have the right to make a request for a gigabit-capable connection? If not, why not?

Question 17: How should intermediate landlords be incorporated within the new right/obligation being proposed in respect of gigabit-capable broadband deployment requests?

Question 18: Are you aware of any barriers to installation of gigabit-capable connection to leasehold arrangements other than to flats (for example commercial properties or houses)? If so, please specify the barriers and the type of leasehold arrangements they apply to.

Question 19: Do you believe the right to request a gigabit-capable connection should apply to leasehold arrangements other than flats i.e. commercial properties or houses? If so, please provide data to support the position.

Question 20: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the right to request a gigabit-capable connection should not be extended to leaseholders in local authorities and housing associations? If so, please provide data to support the position.

Question 21: Is an intervention required to assist renters in flats gaining access to gigabit-capable broadband services? If so, would a similar right to those being provided for leaseholders be appropriate for renters and could data be provided to support the position?

Question 22: Should the right to request apply in mixed-use buildings (residential & commercial)?

Process

We believe that the process for exercising the right to request should be as simple and straightforward as possible. To exercise this right, it is proposed that leaseholders would have to make a formal request in writing to their relevant freeholder stating that they are requesting an appropriate gigabit-capable broadband connection (the request) noting the property in question. So that a leaseholder does not have to take steps before making the request, we propose that it would not have to include any details of the proposed installation, such as building plans or technical specifications nor deployment arrangements. These arrangements would normally be resolved by parties as part of Code negotiations or through Code rights being exercised and would therefore be difficult for a leaseholder to obtain. Where a leaseholder has been in discussions with a network operator, or is aware of a network operator that could deploy to the block of flats, this information could be included in the request, but this would not be a formal requirement.

Typically, when a network operator deploys infrastructure to a building containing flats, provision will be made for each flat to obtain a connection. As such, and to reduce the potential amount of requests that a freeholder may receive, it is believed that leaseholders should be able to make collective requests to a relevant freeholder.

We do not believe that these measures should introduce significant requirements as to how the request is provided to a freeholder by a leaseholder. As such the request should be provided to the freeholder in accordance with existing lease terms (including in the format specified in the lease) or in accordance with any relevant landlord and tenant, or commonhold legislation, pertaining to service of statutory notices.

We believe that the right should be exercised reasonably and not without purpose or as a repeat request unless circumstances have changed. Suitable circumstances where the position may have changed may be where an appropriate gigabit broadband connection is not available to the leaseholder, who becomes aware of a network operators plan to deploy to the block of flats where previously the building had been omitted. Should this be the case, the leaseholder request should include details of the change of circumstance to aid the relevant freeholder’s consideration of the request.

We are also keen to hear views on whether the new right and duty should extend to a leaseholder requesting an alternative appropriate gigabit-capable broadband connection to an existing gigabit connection already available to the relevant dwelling (see below at Reasonable Request Refusals). Should the new measures extend to these circumstances, we believe it would be appropriate for the leaseholder to specify to the freeholder in their request as to why they are seeking a further wholesale network operator to provide an installation to support gigabit services. We are keen to hear on what basis respondents believe this could or should be applicable. This could be based on the ability of the current connection to meet the requirements of an appropriate gigabit-capable broadband connection (a connection to a public gigabit-capable electronic communications network that is capable of delivering broadband access services at download speeds of at least 1,000 Mbps).

We believe additional content should be included in a repeat request where previous requests by a leaseholder have been refused due to the inability of 2 appropriate network operators to provide a gigabit-capable connection to a particular building. This should include any information about a change in circumstances, such as the availability of a wholesale network operator in the region of the relevant building containing flats.

Question 23: Do you agree or disagree that the above process is appropriate, if not what else is believed to be required?

Question 24: Do you think that the above process should be different if there is an intermediate landlord in place in respect of a flat?

Question 25: Do you agree or disagree that a leaseholder should be able to make a request when a gigabit-capable connection is available to the flat in question?

Question 26: In what circumstances do you believe it would be appropriate for a leaseholder to make a request when a gigabit-capable connection is available to the flat in question?

Question 27: Do you agree or disagree with the rationale for a repeat application being made? If not, what else do you consider relevant?

Freeholder duty

Scope of Freeholder Duty

As noted above, we are seeking to ensure that leaseholders are able to exercise the right to request a gigabit-capable connection. As such, a corresponding duty for freeholders to not unreasonably refuse the request is proposed.  This duty would continue to apply where the parties responsible for building management functions (as defined in s.96 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002) are carried out by another party who is not the freeholder. It is proposed that the duty would still apply to the freeholder where their consent is required. To ensure the duty has as wide an application as possible, it is proposed that it would apply to freeholders irrespective of the ownership, building management or lease arrangements in place including where:

• A Right to Manage Company exists for the block of flats
• Where a collective enfranchised company exists for the block of flats
• Where a lease has been sold on to shared leasehold owners.
• To a tribunal appointed building manager.

In these circumstances it would be the responsibility of parties such as right to manage companies, management companies who undertake management functions (as defined in s.96 Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002) to seek the consent of the freeholder or relevant superior landlord. Where a “relevant freeholder” is referenced below, this should be taken to include freeholders irrespective of the arrangements detailed immediately above.

Question 28: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the scope of the freeholder duty? Do you consider that anything further should be considered?

Question 29: How should intermediate landlords and their proprietary interests be factored into the duties and what should their scope be, if any?

Freeholder duty process

To ensure that expedient consideration is given to a leaseholder’s request, a small number of steps are proposed for freeholders, these are to be completed within prescribed timelines to support a decision being provided to a leaseholder in response to a request for a gigabit-capable broadband connection:

Step 1: Acknowledgement

Following receipt of the request, the freeholder should provide a leaseholder with a written acknowledgement of receipt of the request. It is not believed that measures need to extend to cover the content of the acknowledgement nor how it is provided to the leaseholder. In practice it would appear appropriate for the acknowledgement to be communicated through the same methodology as the request and in accordance with existing lease terms, or in accordance with any relevant landlord and tenant or commonhold legislation pertaining to service of statutory notices.

To ensure that the process is expedient, we propose that the acknowledgement should be provided to the leaseholder within 28 calendar days (excluding public holidays) of receipt of the request.

We do not believe that a relevant freeholder will need a significant amount of information to consider the leaseholder’s request. As such we do not propose to include a formal mechanism for a relevant freeholder to ask for more information from a leaseholder about the request received. We are keen to hear from respondents as to whether it is believed that a further step is required, including what further information a relevant freeholder may require, the amount of time that obtaining such information could take and any additional costs associated with obtaining the information.

Question 30: Do you consider it appropriate for an acknowledgement to be provided to the leaseholder’s request?

Question 31: To what extent do you agree or disagree that no prescriptive information should be required to be included in the acknowledgement?

Question 32: Do you consider that 28 calendar days is an appropriate time period for a relevant freeholder or their representatives to provide a written acknowledgement to a leaseholder’s request?

Question 33: Do you consider that relevant freeholders will need additional information in the request, to consider the leaseholders request and fulfil the duty? If so, what additional information would be required?

Question 34: Do you believe it is necessary for a formal step to be included allowing for a relevant freeholder to request additional information regarding the leaseholder’s request?

Question 35: If so, do you believe additional time should be afforded for the provision of further information beyond 28 calendar days? If so, what would be an appropriate amount of time to obtain information prior to an acknowledgement being provided.

Question 36: What additional costs do you believe would be incurred by a relevant freeholder should an additional step be included allowing for a request for additional information regarding the leaseholder’s request?

Question 37: Do you consider that any additional steps are required for a freeholder to act on a leaseholder’s request?

Question 38: Do you consider that adjustments to the process need to be made where there is an intermediate landlord?

Step 2: Identifying and contacting appropriate network operators

To be able to ascertain if a gigabit-capable broadband connection could be provided to the property, it will be necessary for a relevant freeholder to engage a network operator. To ensure that the companies contacted by the freeholder are suitable, a freeholder should only seek out information regarding a connection to the block of flats from an appropriate network operator. We consider the following factors to be relevant when considering if a network operator is appropriate:

• If the network operator has been granted Code powers by Ofcom to install and maintain electronic communications apparatus;
• Whether the network operator deploys infrastructure that is able to host a gigabit-capable connection, such as fibre to the premises; and
• and whether the network operator deploys infrastructure in relevant parts of the country. For example, an operator which only installs infrastructure in a region far removed from the block of flats in question would not be considered an appropriate operator for a freeholder to contact.

To assist relevant freeholders in ascertaining which companies constitute an appropriate network operator, it is proposed that materials will be made available on gov.uk providing links to details about network operators and their contact details.

We do not believe that it would be appropriate for measures to prescribe how a relevant freeholder should contact an appropriate network operator. In practice, much of the information about a potential deployment to a specific block of flats can be ascertained through network operators’ websites using the postcode or address of the flat or through making an enquiry to network operators. Network operators will typically be able to readily confirm if their current or planned network coverage would be able to extend to a flat location.

Question 39:  How quickly do you consider that you would be able to respond to a relevant freeholder’s request for confirmation that a connection can be provided to a specific block of flats?

Question 40: To what extent do you agree or disagree that measures should stipulate that a freeholder should contact an appropriate network operator?

Question 41: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the criteria detailed to describe an appropriate network operator (a Code operator who deploys gigabit capable infrastructure and operates in relevant parts of the country).

Question 42: Do you consider the provision of information on Gov.UK is a suitable means of aiding relevant freeholders with the selection of an appropriate network operator to approach? Are there alternative means of supporting relevant freeholders with appropriate network operator selection?

Question 43: Are there materials or guidance you believe should be made available or signposted on gov.uk to assist freeholders and their agents select an appropriate network operator?

Question 44: Do other considerations need to apply to intermediate landlord contexts?

Step 3 – formal response

Process

Following the receipt of information from a network operator, we believe it would be appropriate for a freeholder to provide a written formal response to the leaseholder who made a request. This decision would be based on the feedback provided by appropriate network operators as to whether a connection could be provided to the block of flats or not.

The decision would precede negotiations for a Code agreement and would not need to reflect the negotiations, nor the subsequent use of Code rights by network operators where agreed or imposed by the Courts. As such, the decision would not need to take account of matters relating to the means of a gigabit-capable connection being provided and would not guarantee a connection. The decision would exclude any considerations relevant to Code negotiations, the conferral of Code rights or the exercise of Code rights by a network operator including the costs of any deployment. As such any issue relating to infrastructure types, routing, the impact on the building, access requirements, surveys and complying with relevant legislative requirements to undertake a deployment would not be relevant.

To ensure this process is expedient and increases the speed of connectivity provision, we propose that this decision should be provided back to the leaseholder by the freeholder or their representatives, 28 calendar days (excluding public holidays) after an acknowledgement is sent. This would be the case where a relevant freeholder has needed to contact more than one appropriate network operator (see below at Network Operators unable to connect).

As with the previous steps, to allow for existing practice, lease terms and relevant statutory provisions about the service of statutory notices, we do not believe that the means of the freeholder providing the leaseholder with a written decision should be prescribed.

Following receipt of information from a network operator, a decision will need to either confirm that a gigabit-capable broadband connection is to be provided or indicate that it will not be possible for an installation to be provided to the block of flats.

As such, where the decision indicates that a gigabit-capable broadband connection is to be provided, the decision would need to be communicated to a leaseholder that it is subject to Code rights being conferred to a network operator prior to a deployment.

Where a refusal is to be provided, the formal response should clearly set out the reasons for refusing a gigabit-capable connection and why it is believed that this is reasonable. This response should include details of the appropriate network operators contacted and any rationales provided by the network operators as to why they would be unable to provide a connection.

Before providing a leaseholder with a decision that a connection is not to be installed, we believe that a relevant freeholder should have contacted at least 2 appropriate network operators who have indicated that an installation could not be made for the block of flats. We consider this to be required so that one appropriate network operator indicating that they would not be able to provide a connection to a particular block of flats would not result in a refusal ending the process.

It is not believed that it would be appropriate for measures to prescribe how a relevant freeholder undertakes the action of contacting an appropriate network operator. Whilst many network operators provide information via their websites regarding whether they can deploy to an individual property, the methods for obtaining this information varies amongst network operators. In many cases where a network operator indicates that a deployment can be made to a specific block of flats it will not be necessary for a freeholder to contact multiple companies.

Question 45: Do you consider it appropriate for a freeholder to provide a formal written response to the leaseholder in response to a request for gigabit capable connection?

Question 46: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the formal response should be provided to the leaseholder within 28 calendar days after a request acknowledgement is sent to the leaseholder? If not, what duration do you believe would be appropriate?

Question 47: Do you consider it appropriate that the formal response should be provided to the leaseholder in line with existing lease arrangements? If not, what method do you think would be appropriate?

Question 48: To what extent do you agree or disagree that a formal response should either indicate that a connection is to be provided (subject to a Code agreement being reached with a network operator) or a refusal to the request for a gigabit-capable connection?

Question 49: To what extent do you agree or disagree that a formal response with a refusal should include the rationale for why a connection is not to be provided and why the freeholder believes this is reasonable?

Question 50: To what extend do you agree or disagree that a formal response with a refusal should include the details of the appropriate network operators approached and any reasons they have provided as to why a connection could not be provided?

Question 51: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the rationale for why a connection is not to be provided should include the details of the network operators approached by the freeholder and the reasons as to why the network operators were unable to provide a connection?

Question 52: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the freeholder should also set out why they believe that a refusal is reasonable?

Question 53: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal that freeholders should be free to choose how they obtain information from network operators?

Question 54: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the factors for freeholders to consider when selecting an appropriate network operator to approach following a leaseholder request? If not, what factors do you think should be taken into account?

Question 55: To what extent do you agree or disagree that a freeholder should have approached at least 2 appropriate network operators before providing a refusal to a leaseholder request in a formal response?

Question .56: Do other considerations need to apply in an intermediate landlord context?

Reasonable request refusals

Where a freeholder has contacted 2 network operators that meet the appropriate factors, there are a number of circumstances we have considered in the context of a reasonable refusal by a relevant freeholder:

• Where 2 appropriate network operators have been contacted and have specified reasons why they are not able to provide a gigabit capable connection to a specific block of flats:
• Where 2 appropriate network operators are seeking to charge excessive amounts for a gigabit-capable connection to the building:
• Where gigabit-capable broadband services are already available within the block of flats
• Where a freeholder is voluntarily organising a gigabit-capable connection or is in the process of responding to one or more leaseholder requests:
• Where compliance with the duty would require the freeholder to breach an existing term of a lease, any other statutory obligations or lead to derogation from grant

Network operators unable to connect

Where 2 appropriate network operators have been approached by a relevant freeholder and have indicated that they are unable to provide a gigabit capable connection to the building and flats in question, we believe it would be reasonable for a freeholder’s formal response to refuse a connection.

As the deployment of gigabit broadband continues across the UK, we envisage that the likelihood for refusals on this basis will reduce, but we understand there will be situations where appropriate network operators are unable to deploy to an individual block of flats. This may occur where there is no existing network operator presence in the building’s location and where network operators have no plans for a deployment in the region which could facilitate a connection. Where this position has been confirmed by 2 appropriate network operators, we believe that it would be a reasonable for a relevant freeholder to refuse in these circumstances.

Whilst network operators would typically be able to provide ready responses to a freeholder enquiry about deployments to a particular building, should network operators contacted provide ambiguous or partial responses to a freeholder that do not indicate that a gigabit-capable connection could be provided, we believe the freeholder should be able to consider the response in the same way as an indication that a connection cannot be provided.  

As noted above, the formal response refusing a connection should include the details provided about the appropriate network operators approached and the reasons as to why they are unable to deploy to the block of flats in question. Blocks of flats that remain not covered by commercial plans may be in scope for support for full fibre rollout through Project Gigabit.

Question 57: To what extent do you agree or disagree that 2 appropriate network operators not being able to deploy to the block of flats should constitute grounds for a reasonable refusal by a relevant freeholder?

Network operator costs

Network operators have indicated that they do not typically charge for the deployment of infrastructure to blocks of flats and will absorb the costs of deployments. Whilst outside of the scope of the proposed measures, typically under a Code agreement, network operators will provide renumeration to the relevant party i.e. in the case of blocks of flats, a small sum of money or other form of payment in kind will be made to the relevant freeholder.

However, we understand there are some circumstances where a network operator seeks to charge for a particular deployment. These may be sought where the costs of deployment are beyond a network operators’ typical cost per premise for a deployment.

As such, a network operator in response to a freeholder enquiry about a gigabit-capable connection being provided for a particular building, is likely to confirm whether a connection can be provided or not. Another response from the network operator may indicate that gigabit-capable connection could be provided but only if some network operator costs for the deployment would be met.

In these circumstances, the cost amount is only likely to be finalised at the point of a deployment. As such they could be considered outside the scope of the duty. Typically for a gigabit deployment currently, the costs sought by a network operator for a building connection would be passed onto the leaseholders by relevant freeholders through existing service charge arrangements. We are however keen to hear from respondents about the costs that could be incurred and whether any adaptations are needed to the proposed duty.

As such we are keen to hear from all parties about the circumstances where a network operator offers to connect a block of flats but requires payment to do so. We are seeking views on the frequency of this occurring, the amount that network operators request, the variation in the costs based on locations and the types of blocks of flats involved (such as number of dwellings included) and how much of the costs would be passed on to each individual leaseholder in the building. This information will help form a view as to whether it would be reasonable for the duty to not unreasonably refuse a connection to include a cost cap, exemption or other measure based on network operator cost charges.

Question 58: To what extent do you agree or disagree that any costs requested by a network operator, and relevant to a freeholders decision, should both remain outside of the new duty and be dealt with through existing arrangements (i.e. passed on by relevant freeholders to leaseholders through service charges)?

Question 59: Do other factors in relation to the recharging of costs of deployment need to be considered in intermediate landlord contexts?

Question 60: How often do network operators estimate that their costs exceed their typical cost per premise for a gigabit broadband deployment to a block of flats?

Question 61: At what point are the costs for a deployment sought by a network operator typically charged for a gigabit-capable connection for a building containing flats?  If costs are charged, for what reason and how much is sought?

Question 62: Where network operators seek to recover their costs for a gigabit broadband deployment to a block of flats, how much does the cost vary based on the building being in an

a) urban area
b) sub-urban area
c) small town
d) rural area?

Question 63: Where network operators seek to recover their costs for a gigabit broadband deployment to a block of flats, how much does the cost vary based on the number of flats in the building?

Question 64: Where you believe that the network operator’s costs should be considered as part of the new duty, to what extent do you believe that the costs passed on to leaseholders via service charges should be limited? To what extent do you agree that any network operator cost in excess of a limit should provide the basis for a freeholder to reasonably refuse a connection in an in-principle decision?

Existing Connectivity in flats

There may be circumstances where the leaseholder is not aware that appropriate gigabit-capable broadband infrastructure is available within the block of flats allowing for a connection within their dwelling. In this circumstance we believe a freeholder should be able to refuse a connection noting the existing provision that the leaseholder is not aware of. Similarly, should a freeholder already be organising an appropriate gigabit broadband connection either voluntarily, or through responding to another leaseholder request or a prior request form the same leaseholder, it would be appropriate for the freeholder to point to these arrangements as a reason for refusing the leaseholder’s request.

Where gigabit-capable services are already available to the dwelling in the block of flats, the freeholder may reasonably point to the existence of existing infrastructure. There may however be circumstances where a leaseholder is seeking the provision of broadband infrastructure from an alternative wholesale network operator than those already present in the building. In this circumstance, we are keen to hear from respondents as to whether the right to request a gigabit-capable connection and the corresponding freeholder duty should extend to consideration of a request for a further gigabit-capable connection. Should an extension of the duty be required the leaseholder request would need to address why an additional installation is being requested.

Whilst it is unlikely to occur in many instances, as network operator deployments tend to be to all flats in a block, we do not consider it would be reasonable for a freeholder to refuse a request where existing gigabit capable connectivity is available in the building but not to the flat in question.

Further, where a freeholder has been unable to obtain a connection previously, including through a refusal in response to a leaseholder request, this should not provide a reasonable ground to refuse a request. Given the expansion of networks, technological developments and the pace of gigabit broadband deployment, it is quite possible that the ability of a network operator to deploy may have changed. Whilst this is the case, a relevant freeholder should not have to repeatedly consider applications that are excessive, lack serious purpose or are repetitive, unless there is an evidenced change of circumstances. Applications that are excessive or lacking in purpose could occur where there is no value in the application. An example of which would be where a leaseholder has access to appropriate multiple network operator infrastructure capable of providing a gigabit-capable broadband connection. Similarly, should a repeat request not include details as to why the circumstances have changed, such as through a network operators build plans changing for the block of flats, then the relevant freeholder should be able to refuse the request at the point of the acknowledgement.  

Breach of existing lease terms

The aim of the right to request a gigabit-capable broadband connection and corresponding duty is to ensure that it applies in as many circumstances as possible. As such we intend for the implied terms to apply as widely as possible. The duty as described stops short of work to reach a Code agreement and the exercise of Code rights and as such we believe should not infringe on issues typically considered around the arrangements for a deployment. However, to assess whether additional reasonable refusal grounds are required, we are keen to hear views on where compliance with the duty would require the freeholder to breach an existing term of a lease, any statutory obligations or lead to a derogation from grant.

Question 65: To what extent do you agree or disagree with the other circumstances identified where it may be reasonable for a freeholder to refuse a connection? Are there others where you would consider it reasonable for the freehold to refuse?

Question 66: Are there scenarios specific to intermediate landlord contexts that are likely to present challenges?

Question 67: Do you believe that there are other circumstances where a refusal should be deemed reasonable?

Question 68: Do you believe that the freeholder duty would lead to breach of existing terms of a lease, any statutory obligations or lead to a derogation from grant?

Freeholder costs of compliance with the new duty

The new steps to be undertaken by a relevant freeholder in response to a leaseholder request for a gigabit broadband connection are designed to be minimal and easily followed. In line with existing principles, we propose that the freeholder should be able to pass on reasonably incurred costs, if any, when complying with the duty on to leaseholders, including those that did not make requests, through existing service charge arrangements. We are however keen to hear from respondents how much it is anticipated that the costs of compliance with the new duty a freeholder would incur.

The proposed new duty does not infringe upon or impact upon any arrangements related to the Code. As such, where a Code agreement needs to be reached by a network operator for the use of another party’s (the freeholder’s) land in order to install, operate or maintain a digital communications network or system of infrastructure, any costs incurred by a freeholder in negotiating and reaching such an agreement are not incurred as part complying with the duty. As such these Code related costs should not be passed on to a leaseholder as costs incurred as part of the proposed duty. Any costs associated with Code related matters including costs incurred by a freeholder should be dealt with in line with existing practice and remain separate from complying with the new duty.

Question 69: Do you consider that the costs of complying with the freeholder duty would be minimal and could you provide an estimate as to how much you believe compliance would equate to based on each step in the process?

Question 70: Where a gigabit-capable connection is provided to leasehold owned flats currently, what are the typical costs (excluding any network operator costs) incurred by freeholders passed on to leaseholders through service charges?

Step 4: Final confirmation

We believe that the final step that a freeholder should undertake to comply with the duty is to provide a final confirmation to a leaseholder who made the request as to whether a connection is to be provided or not. This would not impact upon any Code negotiations but simply reflect the outcome. Where a Code agreement has not been reached, whilst not part of the new duty, the freeholder could seek to reach an agreement with another network operator.

As with the other preceding steps, this final confirmation should be provided in writing. It is not believed that measures should prescribe the content of the final confirmation nor the method that this is provided to a leaseholder, allowing for existing lease arrangements and terms to be followed.

Question 71: Do you consider it appropriate for a written final confirmation to be provided by the freeholder to the leaseholder in response to a request?

Question 72: To what extent do you agree or disagree that the final confirmation should be provided to a leaseholder in line with existing lease arrangements?

Question 73: To what extent do you agree or disagree that no prescriptive information should be required to be included in the final confirmation?

Question 74: To what extent might the right to request and the freeholder duty need to be amended to account for different ownership, building management or lease arrangements, including intermediate leasehold contexts?

Enforcement

The government considers that a leaseholder should be able to bring an action on the basis that a freeholder has not acted reasonably in response to the request. This ability should apply to a decision where a refusal is issued. The enforcement mechanism should be the same as the existing mechanisms before the County Court for breach of the terms of a lease.

Question 75: Do you consider this to be the appropriate way of enforcing the proposed freeholder duty?

Next steps

Following this consultation, which closes on the 16 February 2025, we will assess whether the proposed policies are appropriate to achieve the intended aims and publish a response. This will inform any potential future legislation addressing gigabit-capable broadband rollout into flats.

1. GDP output approach, low-level aggregates [Retrieved 18 November 2025] ↩

2. local-broadband-information [Retrieved 18 November 2025] ↩

3. Superfast Broadband Programme Evaluation: Benefits and Impacts ↩