'No Satellite Dish' rule in Apartment Building - Advice?

watty · 24-10-2007 8:34am

Tony wrote: »

If access routes have to be created from scratch then yes it will be more expensive but in most cases some of the existing wiring can be used. 200 per apartment would be ok if you are doing it at the build stage but a figure of 4 to 500 per apartment I think is more realistic on an existing build with cable route access. Its just a pity that no consideration is given to this at the design stage. It has serious consequences for the apartment dwellers.

Yes. agree 100%

markpb · 24-10-2007 9:48am

Our estate has a blanket ban on dishes because a lot of the residents and a majority of the owner-elected board of directors want it that way*. I can't imagine any action being taken against an owner for having a dish inside or a digiglobe or something similarly unobtrustive in their balcony.

To install a communal dish in my estate, we'd have to charge everyone €500 to cover the installation and an extra fee each year for maintenance. At the moment, about half the people I've spoke to are in favour and the other have are opposed to dishes. Would it be fair to charge that kind of money on people who don't want Sky? Ignoring for a moment that not all of the people who want a dish, want Sky so a communal dish wouldn't be any use to them.

I'm not trolling by the way, I'm on the board of directors for my estate so I'm trying to explain things from the other side of the fence. I'm still undecided on this one, I don't like them (asthetics, damage done to walls, window frames during installation, etc) but I understand why people want them. In particular, the way the buildings in my estate are designed, there's no back and front, their are entrances on both sides so no matter where the dish is, it's very visible.

* I'm still reading those EU documents linked above so they may change things. The view of the rest of my board is that we can't stop people mounting dishes on their property but since neither the walls nor the balcony are their property so it's not an issue.

Bluefoam · 24-10-2007 10:03am

I lived in an apartment block. We chose to live there partly because the quality of the design and build was superior to other apartments we could have bought & we wanted a high quality of life in an appealing environment, allot of it was to do with the massive balcony which was a very important part of our living environment and which we used allot. There were rules in place to limit satellite dishes and hanging of cloths on balconies - needless to say that many residents ignored the rules and put up dished and put cloths lines on their balconies - some of them were members of the committee. Most of the dishes were put on the roof area by people who owned the top apartments, believing that if they couldn't be seen by other residents they would get away with it.

Anyway, one of the apartments on the ground floor started to flood from the walls during heavy rain & it was found that on installing one of the dishes that the waterproof membrane on the roof was damaged.

The building belongs to all of the residents. So if you want to change the rules, you need to vote on it - if the other residents don't agree with you you should not do your own thing - I am glad I live in a house now, all apartment complexes end up looking like Beirut due to ignorant tenants...

ciaran76 · 24-10-2007 10:22am

Our estate has mixed aparments and houses. About 2 weeks ago the Management Company sent out letters saying people had 7 days to remove their dishes. If they did not they would do so themselves.

Anyway 7 days past and they came around and removed the majority of them.

We have access to NTL and Sky but to get Sky you have to go through a cable company who are charging an extra €18 a month for access to the communal dish on the roof.

Anyway alot of people were not happy of this removal of their dish from the wall. I understand peoples complainst but when they moved in they could read this in their contracts they signed.

€18 a month for access to a communal dish which every house/apartment was pre-wired to is alot so a good few people just went with NTL/UPC as it was cheaper.

Tony · 24-10-2007 11:06am

ciaran76 wrote: »

We have access to NTL and Sky but to get Sky you have to go through a cable company who are charging an extra €18 a month for access to the communal dish on the roof.

I'm always suspicious when a company charges an ongoing revenue stream for hardware (with the exception of maintenance) when they are not programme providers. My thinking is every apartment should be wired for satellite with a basic Terrestrial service as standard, then the individual owners can choose what service they want from FTA, UPC or sky, even hotbird and astra 1 could be accommodated. In this scenario individual dishes become irrelevant.

spockety · 24-10-2007 12:26pm

ciaran76 wrote: »

Anyway alot of people were not happy of this removal of their dish from the wall. I understand peoples complainst but when they moved in they could read this in their contracts they signed.

As has been pointed out previously, just because there is something in the 'rules', contract, or lease, does not make it binding if it is contrary to legal statute.

If your house rules or lease had a paragraph that stated that on the first day of every month every resident must launch fireworks from their balcony, would it be binding? Of course not, because it is ILLEGAL, no matter what you signed. The same applies here.

Bluefoam · 24-10-2007 12:32pm

spockety wrote: »

As has been pointed out previously, just because there is something in the 'rules', contract, or lease, does not make it binding if it is contrary to legal statute.

If your house rules or lease had a paragraph that stated that on the first day of every month every resident must launch fireworks from their balcony, would it be binding? Of course not, because it is ILLEGAL, no matter what you signed. The same applies here.

If you sign an agreement to bide by the rules (not laws) of the complex you should do so. If you are opposed to the rules, you should petition your fellow residents and committee. If your opposition to the rules is reasonable you will have no problem changing them. If your fellow residents disagree with you, you should remember what you agreed to sign and stick to the wishes of the community.

spockety · 24-10-2007 12:48pm

Bluefoam wrote: »

If you sign an agreement to bide by the rules (not laws) of the complex you should do so. If you are opposed to the rules, you should petition your fellow residents and committee. If your opposition to the rules is reasonable you will have no problem changing them. If your fellow residents disagree with you, you should remember what you agreed to sign and stick to the wishes of the community.

You are either completely missing the point, or you have actually not bothered to read any of the EU documents or directives on the matter.

In trying to sound as unpatronising as possible, let me spell it out for you;
Your Management Company or fellow residents, or community etc., have no RIGHT to impose an illegal rule such as this on you. If you don't believe me, please read the directives. To get you started, let me quote you a relevant paragraph:

"Moreover, as the Court of Justice has repeatedly pointed out, it is not only the actions of
public authorities which must not restrict this fundamental freedom, but the same principle
also applies to other kinds of rules aiming to regulate service provision collectively. In fact,
removing obstacles to the free movement of services, a fundamental objective of the
European Union, would be compromised if the obstacles to be removed were only those set
by the state and did not include those resulting from the exercise of their legal autonomy by
associations or organisations which are not governed by public law.."

It is ILLEGAL to restrict access to satellite reception by rule. What more do you need see or read before the message gets through?

The onus should not be on an individual resident to 'petition' fellow residents in order to have an ILLEGAL rule removed! It should obviously just be ignored.

BTW, in most cases, these no dish rules are not put in at the request of residents.. in
new developments the rules are put in from the off by the developers while they hold onto
control of the Management Company. In a lot of cases this is to protect cosy arrangements
with monopoly cable operators on site. How can you possibly think this is in any way fair or right?
In my particular case, the issue was brought up with the developers who are in control of the
directorship of the management company, and they refused flat out to even discuss anything to
do with satellite dishes, be it individual, or communal.

Bluefoam · 24-10-2007 1:02pm

spockety wrote: »

You are either completely missing the point, or you have actually not bothered to read any of the EU documents or directives on the matter.

In trying to sound as unpatronising as possible, let me spell it out for you;
Your Management Company or fellow residents, or community etc., have no RIGHT to impose an illegal rule such as this on you. If you don't believe me, please read the directives. To get you started, let me quote you a relevant paragraph:

"Moreover, as the Court of Justice has repeatedly pointed out, it is not only the actions of
public authorities which must not restrict this fundamental freedom, but the same principle
also applies to other kinds of rules aiming to regulate service provision collectively. In fact,
removing obstacles to the free movement of services, a fundamental objective of the
European Union, would be compromised if the obstacles to be removed were only those set
by the state and did not include those resulting from the exercise of their legal autonomy by
associations or organisations which are not governed by public law.."

It is ILLEGAL to restrict access to satellite reception by rule. What more do you need see or read before the message gets through?

The onus should not be on an individual resident to 'petition' fellow residents in order to have an ILLEGAL rule removed! It should obviously just be ignored.

BTW, in most cases, these no dish rules are not put in at the request of residents.. in
new developments the rules are put in from the off by the developers while they hold onto
control of the Management Company. In a lot of cases this is to protect cosy arrangements
with monopoly cable operators on site. How can you possibly think this is in any way fair or right?
In my particular case, the issue was brought up with the developers who are in control of the
directorship of the management company, and they refused flat out to even discuss anything to
do with satellite dishes, be it individual, or communal.

You don't seem to understand that depending on your legal position in relation to the ownership of the building, you may not have the right to effect the fabric of the building - this does not effect your right to have a dish, however it does severely limit the way in which you may choose to mount it. You should be a bit more mature in you responses and formulate a full argument before singling out a bit of a passage you have read...

spockety · 24-10-2007 1:07pm

Well as I have pointed out before, the external facades of a building are owned by the Management Company, of which apartment owners are equal shareholders. So technically, you do have a very real interest (in terms of ownership) of the outside wall/balcony of your apartment. You ARE the Management Company.

There are more ways to mount a dish than by drilling holes in a wall anyway, but these 'rules' don't take that into account.

As for the maturity of my response, perhaps you should respect my argument by bothering to read it and understand it correctly. You have gone from a position of saying "you should respect these rules, simple as that", to saying "well whatever about your right to have a dish, you can't drill holes in the wall because you don't own it".

How Strange · 24-10-2007 1:22pm

Used to work for a management company so there are two issues with regards to satellite dishes

Firstly, it contravenes your EU rights to deny people access to tv channels in their own language so a management company cannot say you are not allowed to put up a dish. Most management companies have to thread very carefully when sending out notices as they know they could be taken to court by an owner/resident with enough spare time and cash to bring a case against them.

Secondly, it is against your lease to attach anything to an external wall of the building. Owners might be members of the management company but the walls are common property and belong to the management company as a collective so one owner saying 'I'm a member so I own the wall so I can fix a dish to it' isn't correct. If all the owners/residents went around fixing dishes etc to the walls there would be chunks taken out of them which would lead to problems with water ingress and dampness. So bottom line you cannot fix a satellite dish to the external walls.

A communal dish is the best way to resolve the issue of random dishes popping up all over the place and management co's are starting to see that. However, you'll always have one moany, contrary f*cker who says 'I don't want satellite tv, I'm happy with NTL so I'm not paying'.

Also, satellite dishes on the external walls of a property make it look rundown and like a tenement. So again, its in the interests of a management co to look at a communal dish.

However, you can put a dish on your balcony and under the EU rules there is nothing a management co can do to remove it. I used to try to infer this to foreign people when they rang me. I couldn't come out and say it but I tried to hint that anything on the balcony is private property and cannot be removed.

Tony · 24-10-2007 1:29pm

Bluefoam wrote: »

You should be a bit more mature in you responses and formulate a full argument before singling out a bit of a passage you have read...

I saw nothing immature in that post?

faceman · 24-10-2007 1:56pm

this is becoming more and more a common topic these days. From a consumer perspective, i have been on both sides at some time or another, i.e. wanted a dish when i wasnt "allowed" and being pi$$ed off with another neighbour who did. (i will get to that later)

heres my take anyway for what its worth. Even before debate on the topic kicked off, i always felt that these anti dish clauses were restricting consumer choice undeservedly and had to be in breach of some law somewhere. however as its never been challenged in court in ireland, that really dont matter. Management companies can still add it to the contracts.
Perhaps this thread can spark it, but why not put a petition together and send it to a TD for action? look at the focus management companies got last year over their practices. Im sure this could get the similar focus if enough people lobbied.

As for aesthetic reasons, that dont wash with me. I have yet to find a modern appartment complex in ireland that looks like a tenament as the result of dishes. There are far worse things that can do that, namely noisey neighbours, skangers hangin around etc etc.

Finally the neighbour I was pi$$ed off with. Well i had a duplex that i owned and neighbour lived underneath in an appartment. his dish was erected and what i considered my balance wall and it was a shoddy job too. My issue was where it was placed and the poor job done on it.

Arguments against damage etc as some posts have would be non existent if there were proper guidelines on how dishes should be erected.

Borzoi · 24-10-2007 3:31pm

spockety wrote: »

Well as I have pointed out before, the external facades of a building are owned by the Management Company, of which apartment owners are equal shareholders. So technically, you do have a very real interest (in terms of ownership) of the outside wall/balcony of your apartment. You ARE the Management Company.

Yes you have an interest in the ManCo - but legally it's a sperate entity. What you are suggesting is tantamount to saying as a Shareholeder in AIB that all the money in the bank is yours. By all means go to AGMs get involved with the ManCo, and try to get the rules changed, good luck.

But this suggestion of rights is in my opinion farcical - I suspect (and IANAL) that the property rights of the ManCo as enshrined in our constitution would probably out weigh the EU law. Even if you could prove that the ManCo was denying you your right to Sky

spockety · 24-10-2007 3:43pm

Actually EU law overrides national law in many areas. I suggest european courts would take a dim view of having your right to satellite TV denied over the matter of how or where a dish is mounted. Of course, IANAL, and unless and until someone takes a case in Irish courts we are all just speculating.

Given the number of people affected, I'm surprised it hasn't made it to court before now.

Hagar · 24-10-2007 3:50pm

Borzoi wrote: »

I suspect (and IANAL) that the property rights of the ManCo as enshrined in our constitution would probably out weigh the EU law.

I believe the Constitution deals with the rights of the citizens of the State. A company is only a legal entity not a citizen and doesn't have rights as such. INALE.

Bluefoam · 24-10-2007 3:56pm

I think the two issues are being mixed up here. We have established that you have a right to television, whatever the source. However, the fact that under planning and property law that you may not fix objects to the fabric of the building does not effect these rights. You can find alternative methods of receiving the signal.

Therefore, you are not entitled to fix a satellite dish to the wall of your building if your lease/planning/owners rights do not entitle you to do so...

The EU law does not entitle everyone to Satellite TV, it does however entitle the consumer to choice...

markpb · 24-10-2007 4:00pm

spockety wrote: »

I suggest european courts would take a dim view of having your right to satellite TV denied over the matter of how or where a dish is mounted.

You keep harping back to the same EU law and human rights convention but you're ignoring the other part of the law that people have mentioned - you do not own the property you're trying to attach the dish to, you're a shareholder in a company which owns it but it's not yours.

Ultimately this may be solved by a court case but what you keep forgetting is that if a management company has to defend itself against a court case, all the owners including the one bringing the case will have to pay for it. Sueing your MC is like shooting yourself in the foot. Like others have said, the best way to resolve this is to go to the AGM and discuss it with the other owners and with the directors (assuming of course the developer has handed over control of the estate).

spockety · 24-10-2007 4:13pm

You're talking about an ideal world. As I've already said, my Management Co will be controlled by developers for at least another 2 or 3 years based on the amount of development left to do. I have heard of other developments where developers have retained a single apartment in a development in order that they don't have to hand over the directorship of the management co to residents at all!! I am personally dealing with a Management Co who have point blank refused to even acknowledge that the word "satellite" even exists except for to say "no satellite dishes"..
As a result of this, my RIGHT to install a satellite dish is being infringed, it is as simple as that. The commission have dealt particularly with apartment blocks where management co's or co-operatives are responsible for communal property etc.,

"However, neither freedom of expression nor the principle of the free movement of
services should be considered absolute prerogatives. The individual right to install a
satellite dish, which is covered by freedom of expression, must be exercised in such a
way as to respect certain information and consultation arrangements, as required in
apartment blocks, for example, and should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.

Naturally, the opportunity to install a satellite dish should not be hindered by
excessively costly installation and operational arrangements which would result in the
restriction of an individual's opportunity to receive all the programmes of his choice;
even less should it be hindered by a general ban or groundless rejection, or opposed for
aesthetic or technological reasons, for example."

To my mind, that says that the individual has a right to install a satellite dish, but that in the case of an apartment block etc, that right must be exercised in consultation with the management company. If the management company turn around and say point blank "no individual dishes, no communal dish, full stop", then it is my belief that they are breaking the law. It is up to the Management Company to come up with the conditions which allow apartment owners to install a satellite dish, whether individually, or as a community, but blanket bans are out of order.

spockety · 24-10-2007 4:39pm

Bluefoam wrote: »

I think the two issues are being mixed up here. We have established that you have a right to television, whatever the source. However, the fact that under planning and property law that you may not fix objects to the fabric of the building does not effect these rights. You can find alternative methods of receiving the signal.

Therefore, you are not entitled to fix a satellite dish to the wall of your building if your lease/planning/owners rights do not entitle you to do so...

The EU law does not entitle everyone to Satellite TV, it does however entitle the consumer to choice...

*sigh* You obviously have not done any reading of any of the links to EC documents already posted in this thread.

They have said NOTHING about being entitled to television.. they are SPECIFICALLY dealing with the right to install a satellite dish, and in fact they specifically point out that cable tv is not a substitute:

"It would therefore be unacceptable to force private individuals to
receive TV programmes via the cable network rather than via a satellite dish."

Ok look, I'll post up another quote for you.

"The Commission would first point out that any private individual wishing to install a
satellite dish should, as a rule, have the right to do so, and that the notion 'right to
satellite reception' for individuals was explicitly set out in the Commission
communication on satellite dishes of 27 June 2001 (COM(2001)351 final)."

Bluefoam · 24-10-2007 4:56pm

spockety wrote: »

*sigh*

"The Commission would first point out that any private individual wishing to install a
satellite dish should, as a rule, have the right to do so, and that the notion 'right to
satellite reception' for individuals was explicitly set out in the Commission
communication on satellite dishes of 27 June 2001 (COM(2001)351 final)."

Thanks you have made it clear to me - you have the 'right to
satellite reception', However, that does not mean you can put a satellite dish on a wall that you have no rights to...

The right to satellite reception does not override the rights of the building shareholders...

spockety · 24-10-2007 5:06pm

Bluefoam wrote: »

Thanks you have made it clear to me - you have the 'right to
satellite reception', However, that does not mean you can put a satellite dish on a wall that you have no rights to...

The right to satellite reception does not override the rights of the building shareholders...

And your evidence to back this up is... what exactly..?

Actually, forget it, I give up... your inability to digest my arguments has beaten me into submission, congratulations.

Sir Oxman · 24-10-2007 5:08pm

property wrote: »

i am a property manager and would advice anyone attempting to put up a satellite dish on your apartment not to... it will end up costing you money.. most property managment companies will issue you with a 7 day notice to remove the dish or they will remove them. The normal cost of this could be anything between €70 and €150 depending on the managment company. My advice.... get together with your board of directors, discuss your budget options and decide what funds you have available and what items for your community are of improtance. If the funds are available you can request your managment company to put in a communal dish - this can cost anything from €30000 to €50000 for the complex, again depending on how many apartments there are and how new the complex is... if funds are low, then you need to convince everyone to stick to NTL... or get an NTL box GOOD LUCK

w <snipetty snip >

I have a right to satellite broadcasts and your diatribe above does not affect that right one bit (barring planning laws)

(Background: Lived in about 4 apt schemes and in every one, newly built, no TV service was available for up to one year. Does anyone expect people to live like that? No is the answer, and definitely NOT to be tied into a one-company contract which true to the Oirsih way, is a money making scheme for certain people)

Go away and try scaring kids on Halloween night.

EDIT: Sorry, Watty and the poster. Got carried away!

Hagar · 24-10-2007 5:17pm

@ Property, First post? Yeah, right.:rolleyes:

Why don't you use your regular account to air your views?

I suspect from the tone of your post that you enjoy trying to lay down the law using the anonymity of a management company to hide behind and here you do it as a one post wonder.

faceman · 24-10-2007 5:21pm

spockety wrote: »

"The Commission would first point out that any private individual wishing to install a
satellite dish should, as a rule, have the right to do so, and that the notion 'right to
satellite reception' for individuals was explicitly set out in the Commission
communication on satellite dishes of 27 June 2001 (COM(2001)351 final)."

Asking a question here because its not clear to me.
when it says "should, as a rule," does that mean, they we do have a right or we should have a right?

Where "Do" means, you do legally in the eyes of the EU.
"should" meaning, you should but its not in law yet.

Anyone know for sure?

Bluefoam · 24-10-2007 5:21pm

spockety wrote: »

And your evidence to back this up is... what exactly..?

Actually, forget it, I give up... your inability to digest my arguments has beaten me into submission, congratulations.

I understand your argument, I just don't agree with you. You can't go around drilling holes in buildings without following the correct procedure. I fully understand the frustration you have and even understand your requirement/wish to have satellite TV.

People who buy apartments have to live with the decision's they have made in terms of limited freedoms, rights which other types of property owners have.

If you wanted full freedom to the entire property you should have bought a different type of property.

One of the major deciding factors in buying our current house was to escape from the issues surrounding management co.s, and have full control over our property & not have to put up with *rs*h*l*s who only have their own interests at heart.

watty · 24-10-2007 5:25pm

delah wrote: »

why don't you go do something less boring instead?

<snippity snip>
I do not like that and other boardsters don't either.

I have a right to satellite broadcasts and your diatribe above does not affect that right one bit (barring planning laws).

Tone it down a bit.

You can give opinions on this subject without getting personal.

watty · 24-10-2007 5:31pm

It's a legal principle that certain rights can't be waived as a condition to signing a contract.

However you can't drill holes in someone else's wall. Two wrongs etc...

A clamp onto a balcony, window sill, large weighted tripod on balcony or roof (it must be safe) etc is another story.

NTL is not a substitute for FTA satellite or TV aerial.

Be good everyone or there will be thread lockings and banages. Keep it civil.

Tony · 24-10-2007 5:37pm

I wonder how people would react if any other service was restricted by a management company, say for example you decided to use gas and you were told that in addition to paying Bord Gais you had to pay another company for use of the pipes in the building. I think this rea;;y boils down to lack of provision at the design stage and "cosy" arrangements with newly formed so called cable providers.

spockety · 24-10-2007 5:41pm

Bluefoam wrote: »

I understand your argument, I just don't agree with you. You can't go around drilling holes in buildings without following the correct procedure. I fully understand the frustration you have and even understand your requirement/wish to have satellite TV.

People who buy apartments have to live with the decision's they have made in terms of limited freedoms, rights which other types of property owners have.

If you wanted full freedom to the entire property you should have bought a different type of property.

One of the major deciding factors in buying our current house was to escape from the issues surrounding management co.s, and have full control over our property & not have to put up with *rs*h*l*s who only have their own interests at heart.

It is entirely possible to have a satellite dish up that does not involve drilling holes into communal walls!

"House rules" don't take account of this, it is simply a blanket ban. Do you, or do you not accept that such a blanket ban is in contravention of EU law on the free movement of goods and services?

'No Satellite Dish' rule in Apartment Building - Advice?

Comments