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

markpb · 25-10-2007 4:23pm

MrVostro wrote: »

You're just making stuff up now. The worst crime against a complex thats not breaking the real law is non payment of service charges and The only thing that can happen to someone who doesnt pay the service charges is that they can be prevented from selling on until they are paid.

You can chose not to believe me if you want but I assure you're I'm telling the truth. All the service fees, interest charges and fines are covered by our lease agreement and since it's a legally binding document, if someone refuses to pay we can take them to court to get a court order. If they fail to pay, we can seek a sheriff to seize and sell their goods to the value outstanding or a judge can charge them with contempt of court and failure to obey a court mandated settlement and issue a warrant for their arrest. This has happened to various degrees over the years.

You're right that we can also put a hold on any sale and we've used this tactic too but in some cases people had no intention of selling and we needed the money sooner so we pressed ahead with legal proceedings.

I can only assume that there was something in your lease agreement that made it such a lame duck, ours was mandated and approved by the DCC Planning and we have used it countless times.

Tony · 25-10-2007 4:25pm

Bluefoam wrote: »

My thoughts exactly

See thats what I'm talking about, my comment was in support of Spocketry's post and now you have taken it out of context. Is your argument is so weak now that you have to resort to this type of behaviour?

wil · 25-10-2007 4:27pm

Borzoi wrote: »

wil? wrote:

yada yada yada

Sorry youve got me there, you might be quoting me out of context in that snipette. Who was I referring to in that quote?. It really helps to include the full text.

Borzoi wrote:

Maybe you'll consider this from the EU regs quoted page 1:
"such solutions can, for example, involve the location of the dish (indoors rather than outdoors) or the type of dish (e.g. a collective dish rather than numerous individual dishes)."

So put your interior dish up ot get your ManCo to change the rules.

In fact do what you like, because I really don't care:D

http://youtube.com/watch?v=GsVkV3AZqqI

Now that youve read the 1 page summary press release, the full 17 page document really isnt all that daunting.
The section you quoted, again out of context without the full text is quite applicable if you are resident in Dublin Castle or some other national monument or building of significant architectural merit, I am sure theres one or 2.
As for Management companies, I currently have no need for them, so I am not particularly biased either way on the relevence of said freedom.
Irrespective, exteriors dishes are fine, regardless of your POV, in accordance with acceptable guidelines as stated in the EU doc
Thanks for the musical link, but I think you'll find this is a satellite forum. Mr Marley not only stood up to rascism but also bullying. I think he might not disapprove.

markpb wrote:

^^^

All your various contrary arguments have already been dealt with in the previous thread on the subject. Enjoy

A point of view has very little legal merit unless you happen to be a judge or EU commissioner. Likewise, such points of view cannot be enforced by legal means in disregard to your rights.

There is a name for people who like to enforce their point of view on the basis of perceived social wrongs but without any legal remit. It is not a type of justice approved of by most civilised people.
Simply put, mob rule cant legally overrule your rights except by bullying, intimidation and threats.

Anotherlostie wrote:

^^^

- perfect example of vested interest at work. You are in an even worse situation, because your life is ruled by some developer trying to wring every last drop out as the building boom slows. Your rights are fairly low on his snag list.

I rule that because I dont like your point of view and many more agree with me, that you should no longer have the right to life and you will cease to exercise that right.

Dammit, foiled, you have a right to life and I dont have a right to take it away.
Oh well, we all live and learn, to eventually get along.
With a little common sense we'd all get there faster.

Now I think that's enough time wasted, Im off home soon for a sensible conversation with my 2 year old on the right to eat sweets.:)

Hagar · 25-10-2007 4:27pm

To paraphrase the famous NRA slogan,
"They can have my satelllie dish when they pry it from my cold dead fingers."

MrVostro · 25-10-2007 4:28pm

I think there is some fear here from management company reps that the general public are going to realize that they have in fact no teeth.

A quick way to settle this would be some proof that someone was actually fined for not taking down their dish, taken to court and the fine was upheld by a judge.

What actually happens is as soon as the person threatens to take the management company to court, the management company back down. It never gets to court because it has no legal basis.

So leave your dishes up and just ignore the management company. I they remove your dish talk to a solicitor.

Bluefoam · 25-10-2007 4:29pm

Tony wrote: »

See thats what I'm talking about, my comment was in support of Spocketry's post and now you have taken it out of context. Is your argument is so weak now that you have to resort to this type of behaviour?

Tony, I have made this argument repeatedly. It is you who is using my point for your argument...

Tony · 25-10-2007 4:30pm

Hagar wrote: »

To paraphrase the famous NRA slogan,
"They can have my satelllie dish when they pry it from my cold dead fingers."

Not sure the NRA is a good thing to support any argument

Tony · 25-10-2007 4:33pm

Bluefoam wrote: »

Tony, I have made this argument repeatedly. It is you who is using my point for your argument...

I was not using your point I was referring to yours and others inability to accept that a blanket ban is not enforceable given the EU directive. Don't quote me unless you include what I was replying to in future. You knew exactly what you were doing with that post.

spockety · 25-10-2007 4:37pm

Haha, actually you know that this debate really reminds me of the war vs anti-war / neo-con vs. reasonable people arguments that sprung up prior to the US invading Iraq.

I have moral and legal right on my side I reckon, so I'm happy enough, and thankfully unlike the war debate, this one doesn't involve people actually getting killed so it's a relatively clean fight.

BTW, in the face of what any reasonable person would consider overwhelming documentary evidence, have any of the "anti-dish" brigade here actually conceded yet that people have a right to install a satellite dish or receive satellite signals, even in cases where it doesn't necessarily involve altering the fabric of a building by drilling holes in it?

Mountjoy Mugger · 25-10-2007 5:09pm

This might be of some information:

Dublin City Council Apartment Owners' Forum dealing with issues relating to Management of Apartment Developments to take place on Tuesday the 30th of October at 7pm. For further information and to register go to www.dublin.ie and click Owners' Forum.

If not of some info, it might help get clarity in any case.

L1011 · 25-10-2007 5:18pm

Tony wrote: »

Not sure the NRA is a good thing to support any argument

We're in Tallaght, what the NRA supports is used to support -many- arguments

faceman · 25-10-2007 8:02pm

How Strange wrote: »

MC I worked for took legal advice on this issue before they made the change and were told that if you make the change at an AGM/EGM where all members are invited to attend, distribute an agenda 21 days before detailing that this motion will be raised at the meeting and the consequences of passing the majority then it is binding on all owners as members of the MC.

it doesnt work in this scenario because the individual's interest is their home and not a business or commercial venture. And furthermore its never been tested in court.

How Strange · 25-10-2007 9:44pm

MrVostro... I think there is some fear here from management company reps that the general public are going to realize that they have in fact no teeth.
A quick way to settle this would be some proof that someone was actually fined for not taking down their dish, taken to court and the fine was upheld by a judge.
What actually happens is as soon as the person threatens to take the management company to court, the management company back down. It never gets to court because it has no legal basis.
So leave your dishes up and just ignore the management company. I they remove your dish talk to a solicitor.

When you say no legal teeth are you solely referring to satellite dishes or are you inferring that they can't apply interest, fines, legal fees etc and take owners to court and take all the steps markpb described?
Re satellite dishes - most MC's have known for some time that they have no legal grounds to remove the dishes. However, they can undrill the dishes from the exterior walls and charge you - the owner - for the pleasure as it states in the lease that nothing must be fixed to the external walls.

markpb is spot on regarding taking owners to court. I've had experience of it and even the cockiest of owners get the shock of their lives when the sheriff gets involved.

faceman...it doesnt work in this scenario because the individual's interest is their home and not a business or commercial venture. And furthermore its never been tested in court.

MC's come under company law - something which has been highlighted in the media recently. Yes, the MC I dealt with took owners to court and persued the fines as well. The owner was told to pay up in full and contribute to legal costs. Also, a lot of judges take a dim view of owners dodging their service charges and in all the cases that went to court none of them were thrown out.

Bluefoam · 25-10-2007 10:10pm

spockety wrote: »

have any of the "anti-dish" brigade here actually conceded yet that people have a right to install a satellite dish or receive satellite signals, even in cases where it doesn't necessarily involve altering the fabric of a building by drilling holes in it?

I never denied this. I support the rights of people to chose their service. My argument surrounds effecting the fabric of the building...

wil · 25-10-2007 11:57pm

Bluefoam wrote: »

I never denied this. I support the rights of people to chose their service. My argument surrounds effecting the fabric of the building...

Very good, so now you are in agreement with Tony's earlier post.

Tony wrote:

I think a better solution would be to make it incumbent on the developer to provide each apartment with the necessary wiring so they can chose from any of the service providers. The whole argument about dishes would then fade into obscurity as they would not be necessary

The best way is to effect the fabric of the building, so that satellite services are included in the construction.
This avoids the need to affect the fabric of the building at a later stage.
Is there light at the end of this argumentative tunnel after all? Well, it's a start.

wil · 26-10-2007 12:36am

How Strange wrote: »

When you say no legal teeth are you solely referring to satellite dishes or are you inferring that they can't apply interest, fines, legal fees etc and take owners to court and take all the steps markpb described?
Re satellite dishes - most MC's have known for some time that they have no legal grounds to remove the dishes. However, they can undrill the dishes from the exterior walls and charge you - the owner - for the pleasure as it states in the lease that nothing must be fixed to the external walls.

markpb is spot on regarding taking owners to court. I've had experience of it and even the cockiest of owners get the shock of their lives when the sheriff gets involved.
......

I think for the purposes of this discussion, we should restrict it to satellite dishes and associated ancillaries. Common sense dictates that some method can be found to erect a dish in such a way as not to cause damage to the building. Otherwise it technically would not be possible to route cabling for other essential services, attach guttering, drainpipes, etc to the outside of the building as the fixing of these too would be causing so called damage.

I am sure if actual proveable damage is caused, it probably is within the remit of the ManCo to carry out any necessary repairs and look for costs to be reimbursed. I dont think anyone disputes that. Of course this leads to the question - what is actual damage. An experienced professional satellite installer is unlikely to cause damage erecting a dish.

Other issues associated with ManCos are outside the remit of this discussion as I am sure they would have their own very specific regulations and legislation to fall back on.
So we will keep this to dishes.

I presume the sheriff is only involved subsequent to court findings. I am sure no one is too keen on his company. However groundless threats are little more than bullying. They are effective when the individual isn't fully aware of his rights.

The fear for an individual facing down the solicitors employed by a ManCo is considerably greater than the concern the ManCo has for being sued for denial of rights. This is the abuse that allows such matters to continue and probably the main reason there is a growing need for very specific legislation or case law to put an end to it for once and for all.

How Strange · 26-10-2007 9:20am

wil....I think for the purposes of this discussion, we should restrict it to satellite dishes and associated ancillaries. Common sense dictates that some method can be found to erect a dish in such a way as not to cause damage to the building. Otherwise it technically would not be possible to route cabling for other essential services, attach guttering, drainpipes, etc to the outside of the building as the fixing of these too would be causing so called damage.

Yes common sense does indicate that this should be done and as I've said in earlier posts MC's will start seeing that the only plausible solution to the issue of satellite dishes is to put one on the roof and wire each apt up to it. It can be done and such work is often done when upgrading/installing a security system with intercoms in apts.

I am sure if actual proveable damage is caused, it probably is within the remit of the ManCo to carry out any necessary repairs and look for costs to be reimbursed. I dont think anyone disputes that. Of course this leads to the question - what is actual damage. An experienced professional satellite installer is unlikely to cause damage erecting a dish

Damage to walls and roof areas is quite common as people tend to bypass the sky installer and go to their local aldi/lidl or whoever has a special on dishes and hack a few bits out of the wall putting up their brackets. Again, the solution would be to get the MC to install one dish on the roof and put the costs into the service charges.

However groundless threats are little more than bullying. They are effective when the individual isn't fully aware of his rights.
The fear for an individual facing down the solicitors employed by a ManCo is considerably greater than the concern the ManCo has for being sued for denial of rights. This is the abuse that allows such matters to continue and probably the main reason there is a growing need for very specific legislation or case law to put an end to it for once and for all.

I've seen MC's close to bankrupcy because owners don't pay service charges. Cleaning is cancelled, bins can't be collected, lifts are turned off and insurance co threatening to cancel policy. FYI, when the insurance is cancelled all apt owners are in the sh!t. Why did it get to this state? Because owners wouldn't pay their charges for years on end. Us Irish people love to think that somehow everyone is out to rip us off and MC's are top of the list but for every one bad story you hear in the newspapers etc, there are hundreds being run effectively and doing great work. Going down the legal route is the way they manage to do it.

When you buy an apt you sign a contract with the MC. The argument about people not knowing their rights is crap. Would you spend up to €500k on anything else in your lifetime and not find out the legal implications? BTW, I don't work for any MC, I used to - sh!t job, too much stress - but I still have to interject when I see the MC bashing going on. Apologies for going off topic.

spockety · 26-10-2007 9:42am

Bluefoam wrote: »

I never denied this. I support the rights of people to chose their service. My argument surrounds effecting the fabric of the building...

I'm sorry, but you did deny this earlier in the thread.

Bluefoam wrote:

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

This is not about the consumer having a choice of cable/terrestrial/satellite providers or mechanisms. It is specifically about the citizen's right to install a satellite dish and receive satellite TV. Do you accept that you are wrong on that point?

I am willing to accept that I am wrong on some things, I have moved my position to a point where I understand that one should not go drilling into walls without talking to the Management Co to agree a common ground on dish appearance/location/installation as a result of what people like you have been saying on this thread. But are you (and others arguing similar here) able to accept that a free standing dish on a patio/balcony for example, is a right? Or that at the very least, if such a free standing dish is not to be accomodated, that the Management Co is obliged to provide a solution to the individual that is not cost prohibitive, or suggest reasonable conditions to the individual for where and how they can erect a dish?

Bluefoam · 26-10-2007 9:53am

spockety wrote: »

But are you (and others arguing similar here) able to accept that a free standing dish on a patio/balcony for example, is a right? Or that at the very least, if such a free standing dish is not to be accomodated, that the Management Co is obliged to provide a solution to the individual that is not cost prohibitive, or suggest reasonable conditions to the individual for where and how they can erect a dish?

Stop trying to pick fights.

I think you will find that you have completely misunderstood my argument. I am not against people who want satellite dishes, I don't believe I, or anyone else has a right to dictate how you effect your balcony. My argument has centered around the fixing of satellite dishes to buildings.

I have also interpreted the EU thingy differently & my interpretation is that your right to satellite reception does not override all other rights or common sense.

spockety · 26-10-2007 10:27am

It's not a fight, it's a debate, please don't take it personally.

Obviously it does not override all other rights. For example I could not remove your right to life by drilling a satellite mounting bracket into your head to install my dish.

Common sense is highly subjective, and I'd be surprised if common sense has any basis in law.

But yes, obviously some things are common sense, like you shouldn't drill a mounting bracket through a gas pipe. But I suspect that's not the kind of common sense you're talking about.

I have a feeling that this debate has no end, at least on this thread. I wish I could say I was surprised that despite the overwhelming amount of provided documentary evidence, the 'anti-dish' (pardon my tarring brush) arguers have hardly come round an inch. But alas I'm not, welcome to internet debates.

Tony · 26-10-2007 10:30am

to Bluefoam :This was not your position to start with, earlier in the thread you said

Bluefoam wrote: »

If your fellow residents disagree with you, you should remember what you agreed to sign and stick to the wishes of the community.

Bluefoam · 26-10-2007 10:33am

Tony wrote: »

to Bluefoam :This was not your position to start with, earlier in the thread you said

Don't be silly Tony, this is a secondary argument...

I signed an agreement as did the other residents. I expected that because they had also signed that they agreed with it. If you don't like the rules of the building don't sign up to them and choose to live somewhere where the majority support your opinions...

spockety · 26-10-2007 10:38am

Bluefoam wrote: »

Don't be silly Tony, this is a secondary argument...

I signed an agreement as did the other residents. I expected that because they had also signed that they agreed with it. If you don't like the rules of the building don't sign up to them and choose to live somewhere where the majority support your opinions...

hahaha.. hello Square One!!

I presume that you can't even accept that a Management Company or group of residents have no right to ban dishes outright, no matter what kind of majority they have?

And to think you were the one who only pointed out a few posts ago that you didn't think that one set of rights should override another!

Oh the irony.

Tony · 26-10-2007 10:39am

How is showing up the weakness of your argument being silly? Your position changes almost every time you post. For the sake of clarity I ask again will you concede that a blanket ban on dishes in apartments is unenforceable, a simple yes or no will do.?

Bluefoam wrote: »

Don't be silly Tony, this is a secondary argument...

I signed an agreement as did the other residents. I expected that because they had also signed that they agreed with it. If you don't like the rules of the building don't sign up to them and choose to live somewhere where the majority support your opinions...

Bluefoam · 26-10-2007 10:41am

Why do you sign up to the rules of the apartment if you don't agree with them?

Tony · 26-10-2007 10:47am

So you cannot even answer a simple yes or no question. I rest my case

Bluefoam wrote: »

Why do you sign up to the rules of the apartment if you don't agree with them?

How Strange · 26-10-2007 10:48am

Bluefoam Why do you sign up to the rules of the apartment if you don't agree with them?

I think that's just the Irish way. We are so programmed to think of our home as our piece of land that sharing it with other people and taking them into account just doesn't come into it. It's a case of 'that's what I want to do so f*ck everyone else'. We think the rules are for everyone else, not us.

On the continent they have a better appreciation of their collective responsibility to other residents when living in apartment blocks. We are probably a generation or two away from that. When its normal for middle class kids to be brough up in apts then we will be getting close.

Bluefoam · 26-10-2007 10:50am

Tony wrote: »

I ask again will you concede that a blanket ban on dishes in apartments is unenforceable, a simple yes or no will do.?

I don't know, I'm not a solicitor.

However, Why would you sign a contract you do not agree with?

Tony · 26-10-2007 10:52am

How Strange wrote: »

On the continent they have a better appreciation of their collective responsibility to other residents when living in apartment blocks.

You will also find that builders have a better appreciation of their responsibilities on the continent , friends I know living in the Netherlands were pre wired for broadband, cable and satellite when they moved in, all done during construction.

Bluefoam · 26-10-2007 10:54am

I have asked twice now & still no answer, can either Tony or spockety answer me please. I have been gracious enough to answer your demands.

Why would you sign a contract you do not agree with?

spockety · 26-10-2007 10:55am

Bluefoam wrote: »

I don't know, I'm not a solicitor.

However, Why would you sign a contract you do not agree with?

How about this question:

Why would YOU sign a contract which breaks the law by attempting to deny your fellow management company shareholders their right to install a satellite dish?

Tony · 26-10-2007 10:56am

Bluefoam wrote: »

I don't know, I'm not a solicitor.

Thats pretty obvious, if you were you would know that no contract is enforceable if it has no basis in law.

Ste.phen · 26-10-2007 10:57am

spockety wrote: »

How about this question:

Why would YOU sign a contract which breaks the law by attempting to deny your fellow management company shareholders their right to install a satellite dish?

How does it break the law exactly?

Tony · 26-10-2007 10:58am

Bluefoam wrote: »

I have asked twice now & still no answer, can either Tony or spockety answer me please. I have been gracious enough to answer your demands.

Why would you sign a contract you do not agree with?

A little patience may be in order. I dont check the forum every 10 secs.

Bluefoam · 26-10-2007 11:00am

Still no answer from either of you.

Why would you sign a contract you do not agree with?

spockety · 26-10-2007 11:07am

Because when you're spending 300k+ on a shoebox apartment and your place to live, the last thing you want to do to slow it down or mess things up in any way is to mount a challenge to get an illegal rule struck out before you sign anything. Come back on down to the real world please.

As Tony, watty, and others have said, aspects of a contract which break the law are not enforcable. Why should it be my problem that the Management Co or developers hadn't bothered their holes to put together a contract which is actually legally binding?

Tony · 26-10-2007 11:08am

Bluefoam wrote: »

Still no answer from either of you.

Why would you sign a contract you do not agree with?

For someone who cannot give a simple yes or no answer you are in no position to be demanding answers from others.

In the case of an apartment could be any number of reasons, financial duress may be one. Knowing that an individual clause has no basis in law I would simply ignore or delete but most likely I would ensure that i had wired to building up properly in the first place so the situation never arose. Your position is more about restrictions than solutions and if you are not part of the solution you are part of the problem.

wil · 26-10-2007 11:50am

Bluefoam wrote: »

Still no answer from either of you.

Why would you sign a contract you do not agree with?

For several years now the property market had been such that people have been paying way over the odds to get on the property ladder, based on prices decided by the market & speculative investment, so were under so much pressure to get their foot in there that it is ridiculous to suggest that the fixing of a dish would be a deciding factor on where to blow their 500grand.
You cant even be bothered to read the couple of pages relating to the topic you are discussing. Therefore I doubt you have read the libraries of legal documetation that might relate to the various aspects of any contract or small print that relates to any purchase you have made.
Do you think that most people understand or care about the legal implications and inherent legal rights they have until such point as they seek to use or address issues in relation to them. That is why they pay fortunes to solicitors to hold their hand while they are signing. So if solicitor isnt too bothered why would you.
"Sorry stop that €500000 going through, they will let us have the marble fireplaces and deluxe oak fitted kitchen in the seaview apartment but everything's off because it all hangs on an 80cm circular dish worth about €40. " Cant see that discussion happening anywhere, anytime, anyhow.

You can see just from this discussion of a relatively clearly documented right how much time is wasted on denial of it and consider how expensive it would be to get a solicitor to give you all aspects of legal interpretation.

I am sure people sign contracts every day they dont agree with for many reasons, I dont agree with the roaming rates charged on my mobile phone that I signed a contract for and if the Ombudsman sorts them out as he says I am not going to argue with him that I dont believe I should continue to continue to pay over the odds just because my contract says so. If I felt my contract wasnt legally enforceable, I would have no problem signing. It would probably get me what I want and I would have comeback by fighting the legality of the contract and winning if I knew it was clearly unenforceable.

The rest of your argument is a moot point proven purely by the amount of headbangingly frustrating discussion with people who refuse to read simple documentation.

How Strange · 26-10-2007 12:48pm

Tony Quote:...You will also find that builders have a better appreciation of their responsibilities on the continent , friends I know living in the Netherlands were pre wired for broadband, cable and satellite when they moved in, all done during construction.

Yes, thats very true but thats a problem which is landed back squarely at FF and PD's as they have been in government through the entire property boom.
Unfortunately, MC's can only manage what they have been handed over. I worked on a new development where we wanted to put in external CCTV and we found there was no wiring and no capacity for additional wiring. Why? - because its not compulsory for developers to provide for it and the government are not progressive or forward thinking enough to upset their builder cronies by legislating for it. It wouldn't cost a developer much more at a building stage to wire for cable, satellite etc but they don't because they are notoriously cheap.

Tony · 26-10-2007 12:58pm

I agree. I wonder will builders be more pro active now that its become a buyers market. Have to say though that individual house buliders don't give this much thought either, rely on electricians too much and then get upset when told the wiring is wrong when they leave it to the last minute to get the tv provision sorted.

How Strange wrote: »

Yes, thats very true but thats a problem which is landed back squarely at FF and PD's as they have been in government through the entire property boom.
Unfortunately, MC's can only manage what they have been handed over. I worked on a new development where we wanted to put in external CCTV and we found there was no wiring and no capacity for additional wiring. Why? - because its not compulsory for developers to provide for it and the government are not progressive or forward thinking enough to upset their builder cronies by legislating for it. It wouldn't cost a developer much more at a building stage to wire for cable, satellite etc but they don't because they are notoriously cheap.

How Strange · 26-10-2007 1:02pm

you would probably find that the 'luxury' developments have been prewired for cable, satellite, broadband AND there have been one or two examples recently of a communal satellite being included in the build. But all in the high end, luxury developments. The irony is it doesn't cost that much in the over all scheme to do this.

Tony · 26-10-2007 1:11pm

How Strange wrote: »

you would probably find that the 'luxury' developments have been prewired for cable, satellite, broadband AND there have been one or two examples recently of a communal satellite being included in the build. But all in the high end, luxury developments. The irony is it doesn't cost that much in the over all scheme to do this.

I agree it does not cost much more given the overall price. Recently went to look at a high end development in City west and was disappointed to see a really poor standard of wiring and theses are million euro + apartments.

MrVostro · 27-10-2007 1:46pm

How Strange wrote: »

When you say no legal teeth are you solely referring to satellite dishes or are you inferring that they can't apply interest, fines, legal fees etc and take owners to court and take all the steps markpb described?
Re satellite dishes - most MC's have known for some time that they have no legal grounds to remove the dishes. However, they can undrill the dishes from the exterior walls and charge you - the owner - for the pleasure as it states in the lease that nothing must be fixed to the external walls.

markpb is spot on regarding taking owners to court. I've had experience of it and even the cockiest of owners get the shock of their lives when the sheriff gets involved.

MC's come under company law - something which has been highlighted in the media recently. Yes, the MC I dealt with took owners to court and persued the fines as well. The owner was told to pay up in full and contribute to legal costs. Also, a lot of judges take a dim view of owners dodging their service charges and in all the cases that went to court none of them were thrown out.

For the purposes of keeping this thread on topic i'll just give a quick answer to your first question.
Management companies have no right to issue fines, charge interest etc off their own bat. If they want to do any of these they must go to court and get a ruling. They dont and they cant just ask people to hand over money. Things like non-payment of fees must be dealt with on an individual basis in court or settled out of court.
Other things like clamping charges are different. The clamping company have the power to charge fines. This is why management companies must outsource clamping.

This is a much bigger argument than this thread is about so i'll
get back to dishes.

Management companies cannot touch your dish unless and most certainly cant charge you for dismantling it unless you give them permission. If they touch it ask them for the money the dish cost you and ask them to put it back up. Send them a solicitors letter even.

A management company has never got a ruling in court in ireland that allows them to take down someone elses satellite dish from their apartment wall or balcony.

The reasons are
1 - They would have to go to court and would lose.
2 - This would be such a waste of fee payers money that every person in the complex would be very peed off indeed.
3 - Losing such a case would not be very good for future volume of the bark of management companies

Why dont the management company reps on here just settle the discussion once and for all. Produce a ruling on dismantling a dish that was in the management companies favour. The discussion would be over.
Until this happens, everyone can feel free to put up dishes provided they comply with planning regulations in your area. And put a sign on it saying that anyone removing this dish is liable to be fined €1000

. Probably holds as much weight as the management companies lease agreement.

markpb · 28-10-2007 12:06pm

MrVostro wrote: »

Other things like clamping charges are different. The clamping company have the power to charge fines. This is why management companies must outsource clamping.

You might have a point but you let your entire argument down with this one line. What makes clamping companies any different to a management company? Why do you think they have some sort of special power to fine residents? The answer is that they derive that power from the management company.

faceman · 28-10-2007 12:10pm

there is legislation around the clamping of private vehicles. But not around the de-erection (lol) of satellite dishes!

markpb · 28-10-2007 12:50pm

Ah interesting. Got a link?

Ulsterman 1690 · 28-10-2007 2:45pm

Came across this on the $ky website.

By adding a small aerial to the system, the communal platform can be made ready to accept all 'Free to Air' terrestrial channels for distribution to each home. This addition would further future-proof your development by ensuring that it is ready to accept DTT (Digital Terrestrial Television) when it becomes available (DTT is currently under trial in Ireland).

Nothing though about making Provision for Hotbird (for residents from Poland and elsewhere )

Tony · 28-10-2007 3:01pm

Its no problem to add hotbird

Ulsterman 1690 wrote: »

Came across this on the $ky website.

Nothing though about making Provision for Hotbird (for residents from Poland and elsewhere )

Ulsterman 1690 · 28-10-2007 7:13pm

Not much trouble during construction but to add it later on would it not require further duplication of cabling/amps switches ??

Incidently why are $ky recommending 80cm dishes for communal installs when 60cm (43cm in England/Wales) is deemed sufficent for individual homes

byte · 28-10-2007 7:19pm

80cm will give better signal in inclement weather, plus I suppose to allow for loss over longer lengths of coaxial cable (perhaps insertion loss with multiswitches too).

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

Comments