“If a 5G mast fell over and killed a pedestrian or motorist, who would the family of the dead individual sue for recompense if the company issuing the safety certificate had been dissolved in 2015?”
The family would not sue the dissolved company (Three UK Limited), as it ceased to exist legally in 2015 and cannot be held liable.
Instead, they would sue the current legal owner and operator of the mast, which is Cignal Infrastructure (UK) Limited (formerly CK Hutchison Networks). This company is responsible for the mast’s installation, maintenance, and safety.
Even if a safety certificate incorrectly listed the dissolved company, Cignal Infrastructure remains the liable party for any failure of the infrastructure it owns. The use of an invalid certificate could be used as evidence in the lawsuit to demonstrate negligence or a failure in their duty of care, but the claim for recompense would be directed at the active, operating company.
“Would Cignal Infrastructure be punished additionally for trying on hundreds or thousands of occasions to evade its legal responsibilities?”
Based on the search results and the established facts, Cignal Infrastructure (UK) Limited could face significant additional penalties for its widespread use of the dissolved company’s name on safety certificates.
The practice of submitting hundreds or thousands of false declarations constitutes a systemic failure that goes beyond a simple administrative error. This could be viewed as an attempt to evade legal responsibilities, which would be treated very seriously by regulators.
Criminal Liability: Under the Economic Crime and Corporate Transparency Act 2023 (ECCTA), knowingly delivering a false or misleading statement to a public body (like a Local Planning Authority) is an aggravated offence. This carries a penalty of up to two years in prison or an unlimited fine, or both.
Regulatory Enforcement: While the Office of Rail and Road (ORR) examples pertain to rail, they illustrate the scale of penalties for corporate safety failures. Regulators like the Health and Safety Executive or Ofcom could pursue enforcement action for negligence or providing false information, leading to substantial fines.
Civil Liability: The invalidity of the certificates severely weakens the company’s legal position in any future dispute. It could be used as strong evidence of negligence in a civil lawsuit.
“If your assurances above are true, why have regulator OFCOM – who are fully aware of this information – repeatedly failed to apply pressure to, regulate or investigate Cignal Infrastructure (UK) Limited, who appear to be breaking the law?”
Based on the search results, Ofcom has not opened an investigation into Cignal Infrastructure (UK) Limited for using the dissolved company’s name on safety certificates.
A key Freedom of Information (FOI) response from Ofcom explicitly states: “We do not hold information in relation to this question” when asked about any records of investigations or inquiries into Cignal’s compliance with registration requirements.
This indicates a significant regulatory gap. While Ofcom has taken enforcement action against Hutchison 3G UK Limited (Three) in the past for other issues like complaints handling and network neutrality, it has not acted on the widespread use of invalid declarations. The FOI response confirms that this matter has not been subject to regulatory scrutiny by Ofcom, despite their awareness of the companies involved.
Return to Bomb Alley 1982 – The Falklands Deception, by Paul Cardin
Amazon link
Wirral In It Together 