Part 2: Telecommunications Infrastructure Section 69: Use of alternative dispute resolution
Part 4 of the Code sets out a process through which an operator can apply to the court seeking code rights to be conferred by, or binding on, a person. The process is commenced by an operator serving a notice pursuant to paragraph 20 of the Code on the person. This "paragraph 20 notice" must set out the code right, the land to which it relates, the other terms of the agreement being sought, and that the operator is seeking the person’s agreement.
	Subsection (2)(a) inserts a new sub-paragraph (2A) into paragraph 20 of the Code, requiring operators to provide information about alternative dispute resolution (ADR) with the paragraph 20 notice. ADR may then be an option if an agreement cannot be reached. By placing information regarding ADR in the paragraph 20 notice, it informs the person that disputes can be dealt with without the need to proceed to court. The person is therefore informed that if an agreement cannot be reached, they may be able to go down the route of ADR to try and resolve the matter.
	New sub-paragraph (2A)(b) also requires the operator to inform the person of the potential consequences of refusing to engage in ADR, namely that the courts can take into account any unreasonable refusal to engage in ADR when deciding on what costs order to make at the end of the proceedings (as provided for by Section 69(5) of the Act, see below).
	Subsection (2)(b) inserts new sub-paragraphs (5) and (6) into paragraph 20 of the Code so that, where the operator and the person are unable to reach an agreement, there is an additional obligation on the operator to, if reasonably practicable, consider the use of one or more forms of ADR before it makes an application to the courts. If the operator fails to comply with this provision and an application is made to the courts, the courts can consider that failure when deciding on the appropriate costs order. At any time, if the operator or the person decides that they would like to engage in ADR, they can notify the other in writing.
	Subsections (3) and (4) insert similar ADR provisions into Part 5 of the Code. Under paragraph 32 of the Code, as amended by subsection (3), an operator will be required to inform a site provider of the availability of ADR and potential costs consequences of not engaging, when serving a counter-notice. Again, the operator is required to consider ADR, if it is reasonably practicable to do so, before issuing court proceedings under paragraph 32(1)(b) of the Code. Under this procedure, if at any time either the operator or the site provider decides that it would like to engage in ADR then it can notify the other party in writing. Under paragraph 33 of the Code as amended by subsection (4), the operator will be required to include in its notice details of the availability of ADR, and potential costs consequences of not engaging in that process. This procedure differs from that in subsection (3) as here in subsection (4) either party (not just the operator) must consider, where reasonably practicable to do so, whether the use of ADR would be appropriate, before issuing court proceedings under paragraph 33(5) of the Code. This is because unlike proceedings under paragraph 32(1)(b), proceedings under Paragraph 33(5) may be issued by either the operator or the site provider. If at any time the operator or the site provider decides that it would like to engage in ADR, it can notify the other party in writing.
	Subsection (5) amends paragraph 96 of the Code to place a duty on the court to consider any unreasonable refusal by either party to engage in ADR when making an order as to costs or, in Scotland, expenses.