VM have in some instances claimed that they could not install as they did not have the necessary permissions. This is a valid excuse if true, but has on occasion been abused by the company. VM are still liable to pay compensation for delays caused if they didn't promptly apply for any necessary permits, and for delays if they didn't act when they had the permits. If there's any attempt to play the "council delays" card, then contact your local council's highways team, and ask them if Virgin Media applied for a "Section 50 permit" near to your property, when that was applied for and when it was issued. Typically the councils are a lot more efficient than urban myth has it, and they'll take a day or two to turn these around, and it's those couple of days that VM might reasonably claim they shouldn't be liable for - in the instances I have in mind the company wilfully tried to misrepresent much longer periods of time of the delays as entirely or largely down to the council. An example of this is not installing in the first agreed timescale, then somebody goes and has a look when that circa 2 week window has already been missed, and concludes some digging in pavements is needed. That take a few days to sort out the permit, VM then try and blame the entire delay up to that date on the council, when they should reasonably have known at the outset whether the property was serviceable without the need for digging, and they had two weeks to check anyway. If this sort of situation applies to you, then there's a good chance that you'll need to take a formal complaint to the industry adjudicator, CISAS, unless the forum staff can wave their magic wand for you
If the delays were caused by wayleave agreements (legal permissions to install in, across or under somebody else's property, eg a landlord or housing association) then that always takes a long time, and the chances of getting compensation is much reduced.
