Misunderstandings about the Electronic Communications Code (the “Code”) continue to surface in negotiations between telecoms operators, landlords and their advisers. A common example is the belief that a fresh wayleave or Code agreement must be entered into every time a property is re-let.
This misconception often stems from a property-law lens being applied to a statutory telecoms regime that was deliberately designed to operate differently.
Below, we debunk some of the most common myths.
Myth 1: A new occupier means a new wayleave is required
Under standard property law, rights granted to a tenant often fall away when that tenant leaves, so it feels intuitive to some advisers that telecoms rights should be re-granted on each re-letting.
But the Code works differently.
Reality:
Paragraph 10 makes clear that once Code rights are conferred, they bind the land and therefore bind successors in title. They continue to apply to future landlords and occupiers without the need for a re-grant.
This statutory mechanism exists specifically to avoid repeated re-papering and to ensure continuity of national digital infrastructure.
Myth 2: Because the Code requires Code rights to be in writing, they must be re-granted in writing on each change of tenant
This is a common misunderstanding caused by conflating two separate concepts.
Reality:
The “in writing” requirement is satisfied by the original written grant. Once granted, the Code rights exist and persist, and successors are bound. Nothing in the Code requires a fresh written agreement every time occupation changes.
Re-papering on each re-letting is not a legal requirement – it is an unnecessary administrative burden.
Myth 3: Landlords need a new wayleave to secure an indemnity from the incoming tenant
Landlords sometimes ask for a new Code agreement purely to refresh indemnities.
Reality:
That is a commercial preference, not a Code requirement. If a landlord wants new indemnity cover, it can address this directly in its lease with the incoming tenant. It does not need the operator to sign a new agreement for the landlord to protect itself.
Importantly, a landlord’s contractual preferences cannot override the Code. If the two conflict, the statutory regime prevails.
Myth 4: Paragraph 84 allows landlords to recover costs when they request a new agreement on re-letting
Not so.
Reality:
Paragraph 84 addresses costs and compensation only when Code rights are being conferred, imposed or modified. If no new Code rights are being granted (because Paragraph 10 already binds successors), Paragraph 84 simply does not apply.
Landlord-driven “refreshes” for convenience or indemnity purposes cannot be passed to the operator under Paragraph 84.
Why These Misconceptions Happen
Many such misunderstandings arise because the Code cuts across traditional property law principles. Property lawyers who do not routinely work with the Code may understandably default to well-worn landlord and tenant concepts that simply don’t fit.
Here’s the source of the misalignment:
| Property Law Thinking | Why It Doesn’t Apply Under the Code |
| Rights are personal to the tenant and fall away when they leave | Code rights attach to the land and bind successors |
| New occupier = new paperwork | The Code avoids repeated re-granting |
| Indemnity must come from the operator | Landlords can secure indemnities in their own leases |
| Property contract principles govern telecoms rights | The Code is a statutory utility regime that overrides conflicting private (contractual) terms |
The Code is not a typical landlord and tenant framework – it has more in common with statutory utilities, compulsory rights and public-interest infrastructure law.
The Hidden Cost of Re-Papering on Re-Letting
Requesting new wayleaves on every lease event creates avoidable costs, delay and administrative friction for all parties. In reality:
- lawyers must negotiate and draft the new agreement;
- operators incur legal and administrative costs unnecessarily;
- landlord agents and managing agents invest extra time for no legal benefit; and
- deployment or upgrade of telecoms services is delayed while “paperwork catches up”.
For operators with large portfolios, this practice multiplies exponentially. A single building may change tenants every 3–5 years, across thousands of sites, the cumulative cost becomes substantial.
Crucially, the Code was designed to prevent this very inefficiency. Requiring repeat agreements:
- adds cost without adding legal value;
- creates contractual clutter and inconsistency; and
- undermines the Code’s intention to facilitate fast, cost-effective connectivity.
In a market where digital infrastructure is essential, unnecessary re-papering simply slows progress and increases cost base for no statutory purpose.
The Bottom Line
- Code rights bind the land and do not need to be re-granted on each re-letting.
- Landlord-preferred indemnity refreshes are a commercial option, not a Code requirement.
- Using Paragraph 84 to shift those costs to operators is misplaced.
- The Code is not simply another property agreement – and applying a pure property-law mindset can lead to incorrect conclusions.
