Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

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

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    watty
    Registered Users Posts: 32,417 ✭✭✭✭watty


    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

    Do you have shares in UPC/NTL?
    Have you looked at how many Polish, Italian, French, German, Spanish etc channels they do?
    Have you compared picture quality with a professional TV aerial for RTE, TV3 & TG4 and with Free Satellite for 10 BBC channels, 5 ITV channels and with Sky for pay TV channels?

    It is more appropriate to quote costs per person rather than building. How long is a piece of string? Sky will even subsidize Communal Satellite installs, which can be used for Free To Air channels. NTL is subscription only.

    €200 per point at build time. €250 per point later if you cheat with outdoor cables. €450 per point doing it as a tidier retrofit. It doesn't cost much extra to have dish picking up 4 satellites. Sky boxes still work.


  • Options
    #63
    Borzoi
    Registered Users Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭Borzoi


    spockety wrote: »
    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"...

    Without dealing with the 'rights' issue, where I think we disagree anyway ;)

    There are ways and means of dealing with a ManCo even while the builders are on site - there will still be AGMs. You can call EGMs if you feel that strongly. Directors can be removed. TBH if most residents are in agreement, and that's what you'll need for EGM, a communal dish would work out cheaper anyway.

    But standing up to all and sundry and shouting your rights is a poor tactical move


  • Options
    #64
    spockety
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,440 Mod ✭✭✭✭spockety


    How can defending your own rights, no matter how hard you shout, be a poor tactical move? If we stopped shouting for our rights, we would be stood all over in all walks of life. I'm now exiting this debate.


  • Options
    #65
    Tony
    Registered Users Posts: 11,325 ✭✭✭✭Tony


    spockety wrote: »
    I'm now exiting this debate.

    How come? Your points are well made

    Desktop PC Boards discount code on https://www.satellite.ie/ is boards.ie



  • Options
    #66
    MrVostro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 177 ✭✭MrVostro


    I was on the committee in the complex where i lived a few years ago,
    Satellite dishes went up everywhere. I always wanted one but never put one up as i thought some day they would be forced to remove them.
    The day came and the committee voted to force people to remove their dishes.

    Here's what happened in conjunction with the management agents and the committee.

    -Vote was taken to act on dishes.
    -Letters were sent out telling people to remove their dishes within 14 days or have them removed by a contractor and get a fine. Some people stood at their wall and refused to have their dishes removed.
    -14 days passed and most dishes were removed.
    -Fines of €200 per dish were sent to the rest who's dishes werent removed. And bills of €100 per dish was sent to those who had had their dishes removed by the contractor.
    -Some paid up. Others didnt.

    Now comes the really interesting bit.

    -Some residents countered by sending bills for damages to their property (missing satellite dishes, cut cables etc ).
    -The management committee got legal advice on collecting the fines and the charges for removal and what should be done about bills from people.

    Now the best bit.

    -After legal advice it turned out that.
    1-Management companies are not allowed to issue and collect fines. They have zero power at all there.

    2-Management companies/committees etc cannot damage or remove anyone else property (including satellite dishes and cables)

    3-We had to pay contractors out of kitty, never recovered the money. Had to pay for the re-installation and replacement of dishes that were removed (after the first few word got around very fast and all were asking for theirs back). So this futile exercise cost each and every owner of property in the complex in the end. What a waste

    Moral of the story is - You cant be asked to pay a fine by your management team. They cant touch anything that you own (your dish) without your permission. In short they can bark but can never bite.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Tony wrote: »
    I saw nothing immature in that post?

    Neither I.

    In fact Bluefoams point was immature in the extreme (as in, bend over , shut up and take it attitude)

    It is neither right nor legal no matter what the 'rules' say.


  • Options
    #68
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Tony wrote: »
    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.

    i agree and have witnessed this many a time.


  • Options
    #69
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    watty wrote: »
    Tone it down a bit.

    You can give opinions on this subject without getting personal.

    See my grovelling apology above. Apologies again.


  • Options
    #70
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    MrVostro wrote: »
    I was on the committee in the complex where i lived a few years ago,
    Satellite dishes went up everywhere. I always wanted one but never put one up as i thought some day they would be forced to remove them.
    The day came and the committee voted to force people to remove their dishes.

    Here's what happened in conjunction with the management agents and the committee.

    -Vote was taken to act on dishes.
    -Letters were sent out telling people to remove their dishes within 14 days or have them removed by a contractor and get a fine. Some people stood at their wall and refused to have their dishes removed.
    -14 days passed and most dishes were removed.
    -Fines of €200 per dish were sent to the rest who's dishes werent removed. And bills of €100 per dish was sent to those who had had their dishes removed by the contractor.
    -Some paid up. Others didnt.

    Now comes the really interesting bit.

    -Some residents countered by sending bills for damages to their property (missing satellite dishes, cut cables etc ).
    -The management committee got legal advice on collecting the fines and the charges for removal and what should be done about bills from people.

    Now the best bit.

    -After legal advice it turned out that.
    1-Management companies are not allowed to issue and collect fines. They have zero power at all there.

    2-Management companies/committees etc cannot damage or remove anyone else property (including satellite dishes and cables)

    3-We had to pay contractors out of kitty, never recovered the money. Had to pay for the re-installation and replacement of dishes that were removed (after the first few word got around very fast and all were asking for theirs back). So this futile exercise cost each and every owner of property in the complex in the end. What a waste

    Moral of the story is - You cant be asked to pay a fine by your management team. They cant touch anything that you own (your dish) without your permission. In short they can bark but can never bite.

    Happy Days. Sort of, as only the residents lose in the end.
    Another fine mess our beloved country calls progress (Management bloody Companies)


  • Options
    #71
    wil
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭wil


    markpb wrote:
    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 don't like them (asthetics, damage done to walls, window frames during installation, etc)
    I am sure management could make reasonable rules regarding the quality of work done, standards required, wiring etc ensuring there is nothing done detrimental to other users, as for aesthetics there are many solutions, but there CAN NOT BE a blanket ban on installation of satellite dishes in apartments whether rented or owned.

    For a bit of common sense application it might be worth looking at the US situation to see how management companies there (have been forced to) address exactly the same issues. We seem to be several years behind.
    markpb wrote:
    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.
    Unfortunately not. There are several people connected with management companies, small minded enough to be bothered by something they cant see, or that they have to stand on tiptoes on warddrobes to see from the top corner of their window
    markpb wrote:
    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.
    TINLA but TICS
    The right is yours just as much as anyone elses. All the issues you raised can be addressed without infringing on this right. As you can see Hagar went out of his way to reduce visible impact and not damage in any way the existing structure but was still asked to remove it.

    If you begin with the understanding that it is a right, the onus is on the management company to ensure this right is not infringed upon by the rules it makes. Rules made doing so eg Blanket ban on dishes, are absolutely not enforceable despite all the legalistic jargon and the letters well paid solicitors may send. Solicitors do not enforce law, they often interpret it to the requirements of whatever case the are working on, but they cant change a law or its meaning.
    Bluefoam wrote:
    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
    I am not aware of any laws safeguarding the right to drying of clothes but there is regarding dishes.
    I am not sure why a properly installed dish on a roof would bother anyone unless it interfered with parking their helicopter. Do these people spend a considerable amount of time being bothered by odd shaped clouds or birds.
    A properly drawn up policy would ensure that dishes placed would have to be installed to a standard which didnt cause damage to surrounding structures. An unjust rule just means people will justifiably break it but in an ad-hoc manner.

    Balconies despite being in the ownership of the ManCo are for exclusive use of the apartment dweller so arguments preventing use of this facility to enable satellite reception are baseless.
    I discussed this previously
    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.
    Again a rule attempting to deny your rights is not enforceable, contract or not.
    Bluefoam wrote:
    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...
    Please dont ask me to rewrite my "its a right" speech
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53647322&postcount=43

    Legal ownership or not does not prejudice this right.
    Electricity is a service, telephone landlines are a service, needless to say all apartments are provided with access to these services whether you choose to use or not. Could a management company decide that apartments shouldnt be allowed to have elctricity because electric cables would have to pass through walls owned by the management company. Same for telephone lines. Management companies seem to think they can provide services on the basis of vested interest ruling out all others. The EU has decided otherwise.

    As spockety said in a far from immature manner - Its a right. Think about it for a little while before you decide on which side of the maturity fence he stands.
    Borzoi wrote:
    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
    Show me the law enshrining the rights of ManCo in our constitution. Or maybe they have them in the EU "constitution" Before making farcical interpretations of constitional provisions that dont exist, perhaps you should read what has already been written by the Director of Consumer Affairs about management companies, that recently invented, all powerful, world dominating entity "The Management Company" IANAL indeed. NOR are they judges.

    However there has been plenty written on access to satellite services.
    Bluefoam wrote:
    The EU law does not entitle everyone to Satellite TV, it does however entitle the consumer to choice...
    It enshrines your right to satellite services, much as it enshrines your right to life, right to freedom, etc. Management companies, being God, of course can overrule these rights by whatever they choose to put in their rules.:rolleyes:
    Do we need to spell it out.
    I T S A R I G H T.
    If you consider yor rights to be farcical, perhaps you'd be more comfortable living in Burma.

    Vested interests everywhere will try and convince you out of your rights.
    For them it's usually "Money's right & money's right enough".
    markpb wrote:
    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.
    You also appear to be ignoring said same laws and rights. If you have read them fully, they are pretty clear.
    Rather than have me repeat my previous post which put end to all these nonsensical arguments the last time they were raised, read
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53641150&postcount=37
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=53647322&postcount=43
    in the context of the whole thread.

    Nobody is arguing a right to do damage to a building. Buildings do not have to be damaged to provide a service.
    This is a right whether you own, lease or rent.
    Ownership of the outside of the building is not a prerequisite in deciding if you are entitled to avail of this right.

    Please please please everyone read the entire EU document before posting uninformed opinions on the subject.
    http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/doc/info_centre/communic_reports/satellite_dish/antenna_en.pdf
    and the follow on judgements as posted previously.

    The onus is on the ManCo to enshrine these rights in their rules, not attempt to deny them.
    Any arguments to the contrary are akin to attempting to find rules or reasons where your right to life could be applied selectively.
    While management companies are under the control of vested interests, they will continue to try to convince you out of God and EU given rights

    Allow common sense to prevail.
    Keeping in mind its a right, if you adopt a reasonable approach, then all objections can be adequately addressed in everyones interest.
    spocketys template makes a good start in dealings with ManCos.
    post 47 of
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055124066&page=3

    Edit - Along with a laminated copy of MrVostros post:):cool:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    Bluefoam
    Registered Users Posts: 7,710 ✭✭✭Bluefoam


    wil wrote: »

    I am not aware of any laws safeguarding the right to drying of clothes but there is regarding dishes.

    Taken entirely out of context to re enforce your own agenda. I chose a certain lifestyle & presumed that as everyone else in the complex had signed up to the same agreement that they concurred & it turns out that the vast majority did. People have a right to live in communities where satellite dishes are not visible, for aesthetic reasons or otherwise, if you do not share their point of view, you should go & live somewhere where people do share your views. You might ridicule me for my viewpoint, but nonetheless it is valid.

    My point about people putting dishes on the roof was that they did manage to cause severe damage to the communal building & to a neighbours property without ever considering the ramifications. The damage done was worth thousands of euros. Just cos some plonker wanted a satellite dish and didn't go about it the right way.
    wil wrote: »
    As spockety said in a far from immature manner - Its a right. Think about it for a little while before you decide on which side of the maturity fence he stands.

    His argument was poorly formulated and entirely one sided & therefore was immature. I was not discussing his use of language.

    I can see why my argument is being opposed here. But I can understand the mé fein attitude. Its the I want, I want, I have to have generation...


  • Options
    #73
    Sir Oxman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,492 ✭✭✭Sir Oxman


    Bluefoam wrote: »
    Taken entirely out of context to re enforce your own agenda. I chose a certain lifestyle & presumed that as everyone else in the complex had signed up to the same agreement that they concurred & it turns out that the vast majority did. People have a right to live in communities where satellite dishes are not visible, for aesthetic reasons or otherwise, if you do not share their point of view, you should go & live somewhere where people do share your views. You might ridicule me for my viewpoint, but nonetheless it is valid.

    My point about people putting dishes on the roof was that they did manage to cause severe damage to the communal building & to a neighbours property without ever considering the ramifications. The damage done was worth thousands of euros. Just cos some plonker wanted a satellite dish and didn't go about it the right way.



    His argument was poorly formulated and entirely one sided & therefore was immature. I was not discussing his use of language.

    I can see why my argument is being opposed here. But I can understand the mé fein attitude. Its the I want, I want, I have to have generation...


    Where is that right? Does that right you espouse negate my right to receive satellite broadcasts? I don't think so.
    My right is paramount to your right, within reason (ie I cannot erect my dish on your property or the front of a building without planning consent) (btw, what exactly does 'otherwise' mean?) and the Mg Company can spout all they want against that and quote rules and produce signed documents - as wil and others have pointed out, it means nothing against an individuals right to receive satellite broadcasts in their own language throughout the EU.

    I am more than willing (as a good tenant) to consider a communal solution but I will not be browbeaten by anyone (owner or tenant or so-called Mg Companies or smartarsed solictors)

    In my experience, everywhere I have moved into over the past ten years has had NO television provider from 5mths to 12 mths after I moved in, what would you have me do? Wait, do without then get hosed by an in-house monopoly whereby I cannot choose my TV provider and then have to pay over the odds for an inferior product without any competition?

    Is that what this country has become - people living their lives by dodgy documents drawn up by one or two developers?

    Jaysus, anyone who has ever found anything intrinsically unfair (and I know this is well down the scale on unfair things in life) would agree that this widespread crap is totally unfair and there IS a happy, compromising solution.
    Unfortuantely, some well-to-do people will lose out on their presumed moneyspinner but hey, the little man ( you and I) can win...


    PS Anyone considering starting something to reverse the crap tenants/owners of these blocks have to put up with, I will join and do whatever I can.


  • Options
    #74
    wil
    Registered Users Posts: 4,188 ✭✭✭wil


    Bluefoam wrote: »
    Taken entirely out of context to re enforce your own agenda. I chose a certain lifestyle & presumed that as everyone else in the complex had signed up to the same agreement that they concurred & it turns out that the vast majority did. People have a right to live in communities where satellite dishes are not visible, for aesthetic reasons or otherwise, if you do not share their point of view, you should go & live somewhere where people do share your views. You might ridicule me for my viewpoint, but nonetheless it is valid.

    My point about people putting dishes on the roof was that they did manage to cause severe damage to the communal building & to a neighbours property without ever considering the ramifications. The damage done was worth thousands of euros. Just cos some plonker wanted a satellite dish and didn't go about it the right way.

    His argument was poorly formulated and entirely one sided & therefore was immature. I was not discussing his use of language.

    I can see why my argument is being opposed here. But I can understand the mé fein attitude. Its the I want, I want, I have to have generation...


    I have no agenda here, it doesn't even affect me, and I did not take that simple point out of context. How can I make what was clearly said, much clearer? I'll try.

    "There is no law to let you dry clothes where you like but there is a law that lets you place a dish to get a beam from a bird of your choice. So they can make a rule to stop you in the case of clothes but not in the case of a dish."

    Imagined agendas aside, Tell me you read through the various posts that I mentioned, the 17 page EU document, the following EU communication, the US cases, the law, findings, appeals and final conclusion and current situation as has to be adopted by the self same styled management companies over there. They are sorry they took it to court because they lost all their bullying privileges they had insidiously garnered at the behest of vested interests. Now they are stuck with having to provide satellite services or allow people use their own under fairly lax rules. We have the same situation here they had years ago, with management companies denying their rights despite similar laws.

    And no you dont have any of the other rights you mentioned, there are no laws for these rights, they havent been enshrined in any constitution, enacted in law or stated in case law. These are as you correctly pointed out "Points of view."

    In no way am I attempting to ridicule you for your viewpoint, in fact you have a very valid viewpoint, but your particular point of view in this case is not a right. I can make farcical illustrations to try and allow you to understand, but if you cant appreciate the difference between a right enshrined in law and a lifestyle choice or a point of view then you never will understand and that is what the enforcers of law are there for, for those that dont or choose not to understand.

    If you read my previous posts, you can see I am not simply stating this to frustrate or annoy. I can well appreciate the various issues associated with randon and wreckless placings of dishes. The fact is if ManCos formulated fair policies encompassing the rights of all concerned then this need not happen. As I keep saying read the EU doc, 17 pages but not very legalistic at all. Allowances are made for all these concerns to be met, on the one simple basic understanding, this is a right. So knowing people have a right to these, then its up to you and the ManCo to allow people this right but in a way that does not impinge too much on matters that concern you.

    There are plenty of options but you have to be of the understanding that these options are there to help accomadate the right not prevent it.
    The damage to the roof you mentioned could have been prevented if the correct policies were in place, people would know what was required and how to go about it, rather than as I said previously in ad-hoc manner but disregarding an unjust rule.
    Bluefoam wrote:
    His argument was poorly formulated and entirely one sided & therefore was immature. I was not discussing his use of language.

    If an argument is onesided, it is immature, Hmmm
    Does that not render your whole post immature by your reasoning.
    Poorly formulated and one sided. The law says it is allowed, you say it isnt, I guess you have a point there because he did say what the law says, and you said the opposite. Pretty one sided on both counts.

    He cited laws, references etc, and you cited, what did you cite?

    Nope, afraid I still cant get my head around it, I will have to consult my children on the validity of your statement.

    Spocketys reasoning is exactly that - Reasoning, probably based on reading the legal documents and various associated references, etc.
    Your reasoning appears to based on your "lifestyle choice", presumptions and "point of view"

    Your last 2 sentences confirm the agenda is all yours. Tú féin


  • Options
    #75
    Borzoi
    Registered Users Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭Borzoi


    wil wrote: »
    yada yada yada

    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


  • Options
    #76
    MrVostro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 177 ✭✭MrVostro


    Dont know why you guys are even arguing. Simple fact is the management company cannot take YOUR dish down without your permission. They cannot fine you. and you can take them yo court if they do.


  • Options
    #77
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,250 ✭✭✭markpb


    MrVostro wrote: »
    Dont know why you guys are even arguing. Simple fact is the management company cannot take YOUR dish down without your permission. They cannot fine you. and you can take them yo court if they do.

    No management company that I'm aware of takes the dish, they just remove it from their property. Some leave it at your front door, others keep it in a store room for you to collect.
    1-Management companies are not allowed to issue and collect fines. They have zero power at all there.

    I missed your post earlier on. I presume there was a problem with your lease agreement because plenty of management companies around the country use fines to enforce the rules, they've no other way of doing it. I can assure you that we've issued fines and interest for non-payment of service fees and had those payment stand up in court.


  • Options
    #78
    faceman
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    markpb wrote: »
    No management company that I'm aware of takes the dish, they just remove it from their property. Some leave it at your front door, others keep it in a store room for you to collect.

    its not their property to remove. they have to ask you to move it. As its not their property, if they wish to remove it themselves they have to go to court.


  • Options
    #79
    markpb
    Registered Users Posts: 9,250 ✭✭✭markpb


    faceman wrote: »
    its not their property to remove. they have to ask you to move it. As its not their property, if they wish to remove it themselves they have to go to court.

    In exactly the same way as it's not the owners property they're attaching it to. Take a simpler example... if I walk up to your house and stick a satellite dish to the outside of it, do you think the law would stop you removing that dish even though you don't own it?


  • Options
    #80
    faceman
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    markpb wrote: »
    In exactly the same way as it's not the owners property they're attaching it to. Take a simpler example... if I walk up to your house and stick a satellite dish to the outside of it, do you think the law would stop you removing that dish even though you don't own it?

    well for a start we arent talking about people's houses, we talkin about appartments. We're also talking about a limited company, not an individual. In the example you cited you could call the gardai. its not the same.


  • Options
    #81
    Hagar
    Closed Accounts Posts: 16,793 ✭✭✭✭Hagar


    markpb wrote: »
    In exactly the same way as it's not the owners property they're attaching it to. Take a simpler example... if I walk up to your house and stick a satellite dish to the outside of it, do you think the law would stop you removing that dish even though you don't own it?
    Suppose you had a 1% shareholding in the house and claimed that it was attached to your 1%?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    How Strange
    Registered Users Posts: 6,339 ✭✭✭How Strange


    Slightly off topic but in response to someone else's comment - management companies can legally issue fines and apply interest if the lease documents say they can.

    If the lease documents don't say this they can still do it if they propose a special motion at an AGM, put it to the members and the motion is passed by a majority.

    Then it is legal and above board. Fines are usually applied for anti-social behaviour and it is probably the only way a management company can hold a negligent landlord accountable for the actions of their tenants. This is particuarly important where residents are being terrorised by other residents drinking, fighting and intimidating others. And yes, it happens more regularly than you think. Without the fines, the landlord will ignore it once the rent is being paid. If he/she is being charged €200 for each incident they soon get rid of the tenants.


  • Options
    #83
    anotherlostie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,722 ✭✭✭anotherlostie


    When I moved into my apartment two years ago, I had to sign up to the house rules. These included not having satellite dishes. For a year I struggled with a TV supply that was at times dreadful, and at times passable. But now it is excellent, and nobody can complain anymore.

    In relation to not having to do what the rules say because it is not enshrined in law (mentioned earlier), well where I work you have to leave the company premises (not office) in order to have a cigarette - a 3-5 minute walk. Now this might not be something in Irish law, but it is what we live by at work. So if you don't like it, you leave (as one person did), and I would say that if you don't like your house rules, you find somewhere else to live.

    Finally, it is important to remember that it is not just the ManCo's that don't like the dishes; many of the residents don't either, and these residents have just as much right to what is/ isn't allowed in the development as those shouting loudly for their dishes.


  • Options
    #84
    faceman
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 16,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭faceman


    How Strange wrote: »
    Slightly off topic but in response to someone else's comment - management companies can legally issue fines and apply interest if the lease documents say they can.

    If the lease documents don't say this they can still do it if they propose a special motion at an AGM, put it to the members and the motion is passed by a majority.

    Then it is legal and above board.

    not entirely correct. if you have signed a contract that doesnt detail files and then later through a special motion or EGM the members pass the motion to apply fines, then a clause can be put in new contracts no problem. However for existing contracts, an adendum can be issued but if the contract signee does not wish to sign the adendum, then you cannot levy fines against them.


  • Options
    #85
    Dr Pepper
    Registered Users Posts: 839 ✭✭✭Dr Pepper


    Interesting point 'How Strange'.. <edit - and rebut faceman>

    In relation to the topic of dishes, management co's and property laws and how they relate to each other, I'd agree with a previous poster who point out that most of the discussion here is just speculation and interpretation. Even a legal expert could probably twist the available legislation one way or another depending on his/her requirements!

    Regarding my own case, my dish is still up since August. I have NOT received any requests to remove it despite all of the warnings in big bold text in documentation that the ManCo send out every now and then (no documents specifically about dishes, just general rules, notices, etc).


  • Options
    #86
    Dr Pepper
    Registered Users Posts: 839 ✭✭✭Dr Pepper


    anotherlostie wrote: »
    When I moved into my apartment two years ago, I had to sign up to the house rules. These included not having satellite dishes. For a year I struggled with a TV supply that was at times dreadful, and at times passable. But now it is excellent, and nobody can complain anymore.

    This is a classic example of where these rules are forcing tenants/apartment owners into an anti-competitive situation. Why did you put up with an inferior service for a year in the first place?

    In my case, there was really no realistic competitive alternative to Sky+ (free equipment, €45 install, €22 per month). The 'pre-wired' Magnet option (FTTH) only allowed me to get TV in a package with internet and/or phone (€99 install and extra equipment charges IIRC). These packages are of no use to me and started at €40/50 per month (can't remember the exact figures but it's all on their website under FTTH packages). Basically, my point is, Sky+ was a far superior option for me (for a number of reasons) at half the cost. I'll be damned if I'm gonna ignore that so I can follow the ManCo rules whose legal footing appears rather dubious (see this thread!).

    Btw, thanks for all the input! I'll post here if there are any further developments in my own case.


  • Options
    #87
    How Strange
    Registered Users Posts: 6,339 ✭✭✭How Strange


    faceman Quote:..not entirely correct. if you have signed a contract that doesnt detail files and then later through a special motion or EGM the members pass the motion to apply fines, then a clause can be put in new contracts no problem. However for existing contracts, an adendum can be issued but if the contract signee does not wish to sign the adendum, then you cannot levy fines against them.

    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.

    I know its splitting hairs but I suppose in developments where you have huge anti-social behaviour MC's have to do something. Now some owner with spare time and money on their side could take a case against their MC but in reality if that were done and it was found that MC's can't do it then the residents/landlords who don't give a f*ck about anyone else can ride roughshod over everyone making it a miserable place to live.

    Living in apt blocks means that people must do things for the common good rather than for personal gain/preference. Satellite dishes are a whole other area and I can see that MC's will have to take people's preference for sky or foreign channels into account as part of the common good.

    I hate the look of them hanging off walls etc but NTL is crap and I've been sorely tempted myself to just go and get a dish. I have so far resisted.


  • Options
    #88
    MrVostro
    Closed Accounts Posts: 177 ✭✭MrVostro


    markpb wrote: »
    I can assure you that we've issued fines and interest for non-payment of service fees and had those payment stand up in court.

    Really, Have you once collected a fine legally through the courts form a person who stood up to you? .. Ever

    I bet you havent. Like all management companies its the fear that you trade on. If people just ignored you or took you to court you would lose every single time.

    Seriously, we checked this out. Its just not legal for you to issue fines or to dismantle someone elses property without their permission. Im sure if those who were fined in the past decided to ask for their money back, you would legally have to give it back.

    Has anyone here ever paid a fine to their apartment management company? If so you should ask for it back.


  • Options
    #89
    spockety
    Moderators, Education Moderators Posts: 5,440 Mod ✭✭✭✭spockety


    anotherlostie wrote: »
    Finally, it is important to remember that it is not just the ManCo's that don't like the dishes; many of the residents don't either, and these residents have just as much right to what is/ isn't allowed in the development as those shouting loudly for their dishes.

    I promised myself I would get out of this thread, but some of the misinformed rubbish that is being spouted is unreal.

    Fact 1: Management Co's ARE the residents.
    Fact 2: Aesthetic reasons are not considered by the EC to be a valid reason to prevent someone from installing a satellite dish. You might not like the look of a dish, but to be honest, that is basically tough. If you don't like it, we live in a democracy, petition your government to have the law changed so that aesthetic reasons are a valid reason to prevent dish installs!

    Anybody who posts on this thread from now on without having read all EC rulings and directives on this should be BANNED! (imho ;-) )


  • Options
    #90
    Tony
    Registered Users Posts: 11,325 ✭✭✭✭Tony


    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

    Desktop PC Boards discount code on https://www.satellite.ie/ is boards.ie



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    anotherlostie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,722 ✭✭✭anotherlostie


    spockety wrote: »
    I promised myself I would get out of this thread, but some of the misinformed rubbish that is being spouted is unreal.

    Fact 1: Management Co's ARE the residents.
    Fact 2: Aesthetic reasons are not considered by the EC to be a valid reason to prevent someone from installing a satellite dish. You might not like the look of a dish, but to be honest, that is basically tough. If you don't like it, we live in a democracy, petition your government to have the law changed so that aesthetic reasons are a valid reason to prevent dish installs!

    FACT 1: Actually you ARE not right since my development is still ongoing so the management company has not been transferred to the residents. We liaise with them via the residents association.

    FACT 2: But you ignore my point (based on the work condition), that if you don't agree with the terms when you are signing up to live somewhere, then find somewhere else, and to hell with aesthetics.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement