Sponsored Links

Why have Telcoms used fake names on ICNIRP confromity declarations for 5G masts?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Judylegal1973

Regular Member
I work for a surveyor that was submitting 5G mast planning applications.

On advice from the Telcoms we were using an entity that was disolved and never belonged to the Telcom - ICNIRP declaration.

Thanks to months of NIMBY complaints we are now in hot water with our regulator, we are also being threatened with legal action by members of the public unhappy about their masts. We think the Telcom is in greater trouble at a Government level and with the SFO.

It’s scientifically proven as completely safe, most argue it’s safer than 4G.

Can anyone explain the rationale why a Telcomunication company might have done this? We flagged this early and they insisted we continued with the false entity.

We think their actions have significantly harmed the 5G rollout.

I won’t mention names, so please don’t ask.

Thanks,
 
Last edited:
Hi,

Your post seems very confused.

I think what you are saying is that the ICNIRP declaration was originally issued to someone other than the entity installing the mast.

The ICNIRP declaration will apply to the mast, when installed within a certain set of constraints, not to the people installing it. It really doesn't matter who the declaration was originally issued to providing that it is the same hardware being installed in a similar manner. The declaration might also be on the basis that the mast is operated in a certain way and again, providing that that is how the operator will be operating it then there is no problem.

Can you clarify what sort of falsehood you think is being spread?
 
We think their actions have significantly harmed the 5G rollout.
To be fair, I'm pretty sure they have the largest 5G coverage 😂

Honestly Three could have done this just because of the company's background. Some people are not comfortable with a Hong Kong company with links to the Chinese government iirc having access to such critical data.

What harmed the 5G rollout in reality was the frequencies apparently being used in the military... maybe I should ask people why B40 isn't an issue despite part of that being military use too
 
Sponsored Links
Honestly Three could have done this just because of the company's background. Some people are not comfortable with a Hong Kong company with links to the Chinese government iirc having access to such critical data.
But they have a real UK Address and it's not hard to figure that Three is Chinese. I'm assuming they just made a mistake and realized it could cause them problems
 
I would just flag that the references to "Telcom" in the original post are confusing, since I think they meant to say "telecoms" or "telecoms operator", as Telcom is a specific network company that doesn't really do much on the mobile front (they're focused on fibre build and business lines).
 
Here's an example of Three walking back on this (permalinks this time, didn't realise the ones on the other thread expired)

The incorrect address is submitted, I assume this gets flagged somewhere:

The "ICNIRP FORM" is resubmitted with a new address, of Cignal Infra this time instead of Three:

from
 
Last edited:
Sponsored Links
Hi,

Your post seems very confused.

I think what you are saying is that the ICNIRP declaration was originally issued to someone other than the entity installing the mast.

The ICNIRP declaration will apply to the mast, when installed within a certain set of constraints, not to the people installing it. It really doesn't matter who the declaration was originally issued to providing that it is the same hardware being installed in a similar manner. The declaration might also be on the basis that the mast is operated in a certain way and again, providing that that is how the operator will be operating it then there is no problem.

Can you clarify what sort of falsehood you think is being spread?
The ICNIRP delcation is submitted on all planning applications. Have a look on a council portal and a 5G application.
The ICNIRP issued on the planning applications is from a company that hasn’t existed since 2015, wasn’t involved in Telcom, the declarations are dated 2022 / 2023.
Planning applications are covered under the 2006 fraud act.

Appreciate your optimism but our external lawyers belive there is a serious problem. We have sought multiple opinions. Previous owner of the company used on these docs is also threatening to sue.

Can you offer advice why they would have done this?
 
I would just flag that the references to "Telcom" in the original post are confusing, since I think they meant to say "telecoms" or "telecoms operator", as Telcom is a specific network company that doesn't really do much on the mobile front (they're focused on fibre build and business lines).
Apologies Mark, I have edited to avoid this confusion.
 
Hi,

Your post seems very confused.

I think what you are saying is that the ICNIRP declaration was originally issued to someone other than the entity installing the mast.

The ICNIRP declaration will apply to the mast, when installed within a certain set of constraints, not to the people installing it. It really doesn't matter who the declaration was originally issued to providing that it is the same hardware being installed in a similar manner. The declaration might also be on the basis that the mast is operated in a certain way and again, providing that that is how the operator will be operating it then there is no problem.

Can you clarify what sort of falsehood you think is being spread?
I see your point and I laughed this off a few months ago, but more recently a 200K subs “legal” YouTube channel invited a NIMBY on to share this, and I mean when you look at the law and planning laws what they’re saying isn’t exactly wrong.

There quite literally filled out INCIRP declarations with a completely false address, when does it become “fraud” though, do they have to profit from it? Is it going to look good on the applications where you can see this was pointed out and the application was then very quickly withdrawn or resubmitted with the surveyors address/another 3rd party like the Cignal example above?
 
Hi,

The ICNIRP delcation is submitted on all planning applications. Have a look on a council portal and a 5G application.
The ICNIRP issued on the planning applications is from a company that hasn’t existed since 2015, wasn’t involved in Telcom, the declarations are dated 2022 / 2023.
Planning applications are covered under the 2006 fraud act.

Appreciate your optimism but our external lawyers belive there is a serious problem. We have sought multiple opinions. Previous owner of the company is also threatening to sue.

Can you offer advice why they would have done this?

So, is the allegation that the equipment doesn't comply (i.e. that the declaration is false), or that the declaration of compliance is administratively erroneous in that it has the wrong company details on it?

It looks like these statement are produced on a standard form with handy drop down options to select who is making what declaration so someone failing to select the correct item from a drop down menu, whilst careless, is unlikely to constitute serious fraud.

On the other hand, if the declaration is actually false in some substantial way then that would be more serious.

If someone is planning to sue then presumably they can demonstrate a loss - what loss is being claimed?
 
Sponsored Links
Hi,



So, is the allegation that the equipment doesn't comply (i.e. that the declaration is false), or that the declaration of compliance is administratively erroneous in that it has the wrong company details on it?

It looks like these statement are produced on a standard form with handy drop down options to select who is making what declaration so someone failing to select the correct item from a drop down menu, whilst careless, is unlikely to constitute serious fraud.

On the other hand, if the declaration is actually false in some substantial way then that would be more serious.

If someone is planning to sue then presumably they can demonstrate a loss - what loss is being claimed?
The issue for the Telcom provider was it was flagged to them and they carried on doing it. We understand over a thousand applications are affected. The planning inspector has confirmed they are aware of over 500 documents where fraud may have taken place in appeals.

In March’23 the provider released a statement in relation to one mast and called it an ‘unfortunate error by professionals acting in good faith.’ As surveyors we understand the importance of an entity, this was not a slip.

For fraud to have taken place there has to be gain and intent. They can demonstrate gain as the financial benefit of installation and intent by the acknowledgment they were aware of erroneous documents. Loss could be argued as an impact on someone’s property price.

We have stopped working with them but the problem is escalating.

We are trying to understand the Why. It’s been a dream come true for conspiracy theorists and NIMBY’s.
 
I see your point and I laughed this off a few months ago, but more recently a 200K subs “legal” YouTube channel invited a NIMBY on to share this, and I mean when you look at the law and planning laws what they’re saying isn’t exactly wrong.

There quite literally filled out INCIRP declarations with a completely false address, when does it become “fraud” though, do they have to profit from it? Is it going to look good on the applications where you can see this was pointed out and the application was then very quickly withdrawn or resubmitted with the surveyors address/another 3rd party like the Cignal example above?
As you can probably tell this isn’t getting any better for us. Fraud requires intent and a financial gain. We are hearing both can be argued. We are hoping for a ‘why’ that might help us defend this from our perspective.
In hindsight we got too excited by a contract with a big name.
 
Since nobody here is either a telecoms solicitor, that I know of, or representing the operator itself, then I'm not sure that you're going to get a useful answer. This is one for the courts, and perhaps you'll have to sue the operator.
 
Since nobody here is either a telecoms solicitor, that I know of, or representing the operator itself, then I'm not sure that you're going to get a useful answer. This is one for the courts, and perhaps you'll have to sue the operator.
Think we will be on a sticky wicket having taken monies and known the entity was incorrect. Thanks anyway for taking the time to reply.
 
Sponsored Links
As you can probably tell this isn’t getting any better for us. Fraud requires intent and a financial gain. We are hearing both can be argued. We are hoping for a ‘why’ that might help us defend this from our perspective.
In hindsight we got too excited by a contract with a big name.
Possibly could be argued for the surveying company yes, but what is the financial incentive for H3G? the cost of the mast is the same surely

Also is the name + address wrong, or just the name and right address?
 
Think the expected future financial benefits of owning infrastructure. All seemed to get a lot worse on Tuesday, but we are in the dark. A young agents father was furious their child has been put in this situation and there was a scene. She is no longer with us.
The address is mostly an old building they left in 2020, some newer applications it has the correct address. Some of these applications have 3-4 different entitles on them.
Also now hearing one of the smaller Telcom companies is doing the same thing (GT) on these ICNIRP form.
This is why I was hopeful to find a rationale.
They are playing right into the hands of the crazy conspiracy theorists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Cheap BIG ISPs for 100Mbps+
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Vodafone UK ISP Logo
Vodafone £24.00 - 26.00
150Mbps
Gift: None
NOW UK ISP Logo
NOW £24.00
100Mbps
Gift: None
Plusnet UK ISP Logo
Plusnet £25.99
145Mbps
Gift: £50 Reward Card
Large Availability | View All
Cheapest ISPs for 100Mbps+
Gigaclear UK ISP Logo
Gigaclear £17.00
200Mbps
Gift: None
Community Fibre UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Virgin Media UK ISP Logo
Virgin Media £22.99
132Mbps
Gift: None
Hey! Broadband UK ISP Logo
150Mbps
Gift: None
Youfibre UK ISP Logo
Youfibre £23.99
150Mbps
Gift: None
Large Availability | View All
Sponsored Links
The Top 15 Category Tags
  1. FTTP (6027)
  2. BT (3639)
  3. Politics (2721)
  4. Business (2440)
  5. Openreach (2405)
  6. Building Digital UK (2330)
  7. Mobile Broadband (2146)
  8. FTTC (2083)
  9. Statistics (1901)
  10. 4G (1816)
  11. Virgin Media (1764)
  12. Ofcom Regulation (1582)
  13. Fibre Optic (1467)
  14. Wireless Internet (1462)
  15. 5G (1407)
Sponsored

Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved - Terms  ,  Privacy and Cookie Policy  ,  Links  ,  Website Rules