Fighting apartment management company over right to own dish

EricM

It hasnt fallen over, signal is good, i dont get all channels but i get all the ones i watch anyway.

My balcony has grooves in the floor boards, so its kind of wedged in where it cant fall over.
It does wobble in the wind though, but hasnt intterupted my viewing.

Some channels are more sensitive then others (i used 147 for testing since its seems the most sensitive), i have to have it positioned perfectly, others will work with no disruption even if the dish moves a bit.

gazzer

I moved into my house (not apartment) 5 years ago and had to sign up for a management company. At the time NTL was not out in my area and there was no sign of them coming in the months ahead so I decided to get a satellite dish. About 2 months later the rules of the management company came in my door.. I had been in my house 3 months at this stage and this was the first time I had seen these rules.

One of the rules was that I could not have a satellite dish outside my house. My dish is just above my bedroom window. I ignored the letter and havnt heard anything from them since. Now having said that the company are in charge of maintaining my estate do a terrible job and I personally feel that somebody who buys a house should not have to pay 1000 a year just to have the grass near their house cut but thats for another thread.

Besprechen

smcelhinney wrote:

Its amazing the things that management companies put in their contracts these days. Im actually considering talking to one about the condition they put in about preventing me from drying clothes on my balcony. Thats a civil liberty, and Im an energy conscious person. Who do they think they are?

my new place is the same.. Its built into a covenant that there is no clothes drying on my balcony but to be fair the balconies are tiny where i am and I dont think it'd look very good. Cant wait now to see the reaction when I put a window tint on the inside of the windows to shield the eyes of my nosey neighbours!:cool:

uberwolf

smcelhinney wrote:

Most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

:rolleyes:

I own, so I have understandably had to concern myself with the legalities of it somewhat more than yourself. But your ignorance of the matter shouldn't be your only argument.

You may take my word for it, or those of the others who have backed up what I have had to say.

As the management company (of which all owners are shareholders) own the complex, the company exclusively licences the use of the balcony to the owner of that apartment to use within the terms of that licence - tables yes, sattelites no, etc depending on the whim of the solicitor who originally drew up the licence agreement, guided by the planning permission granted and guidelines in place by the planning authority.

If you don't accept that go post on accom / prop. It is the case, and that is the position the OP is in.

kmick

Option A
Stock up on essential goods like water, carbohydrates (rice, pasta, freeze dried potatoes) and vitamins. Buy some automatic weapons and earplugs and heavy duty goggles (for the flashbangs). Reinforce your doors and windows with heavy metal plates welded to the internal metal builiding supports. Then sit it out.

Option B
Ignore it. The wheels of justice move very slowly.

wil

"Whim" is exactly the problem the EU has addressed.
The management company, solicitor, county council or government has no right to restrict the use of satellite dishes by individuals unless within the rules they make they also enshrine this right. Any exception has to be exactly that, an exception and exception for good reason not and absolutely not Whimsy.
From what is written down, any mediocre solicitor could drive a coach and four through almost all these whimsical rules, You may not automatically have right to a table or clothes drying but you do to a satellite dish.

The commissions publication I listed earlier basically says that the right to receive satellite broadcasts of your choosing are protected under the Freedom of Goods and Services.

"Given that Community law takes precedence over national law, Articles 28 and 49 lay down rights for the interested parties that the national authorities are required to respect and protect.
Moreover, they not only render automatically inapplicable any conflicting provision of current national law, but also preclude the valid adoption of new national legislative measures to the extent to which they would be incompatible with community provisions 20."

"The bodies of every Member State are under an obligation to ensure the primacy of Community law. This holds not only for the national courts, but for all administrative bodies,"

"any national measure which limits the ability to receive transmissions and
services via satellite dishes is also required to be compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which specifically enshrines “the freedom to receive ... information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”27.

In reference to aesthetics

"Thus an attempt must be made to reconcile aesthetic considerations with the fundamental right of any interested individual to have access to information and services by installing a satellite dish.
Such an assessment can only be done by looking at the individual circumstances in each case.
Nonetheless, such restrictions must be duly substantiated, and the aesthetic considerations must be real and not merely a pretext. In addition, given the principle of proportionality, these restrictions cannot be applied in general. Each individual case must be looked at, and, where specific restrictions are necessary, measures which impinge as little as possible on the fundamental freedom in question must be preferred."

and in reference to historic or listed building restrictions

"Moreover, for aesthetic reasons, it is not uncommon for particularly strict conditions to be set for any changes or additions to be made to listed buildings because of their monumental, architectural or historical value.
In sum, these circumstances are highly unusual and may justify special rules precisely because they are so different from ordinary situations which have no such restrictions and constraints."

In fact the OP situation is practically stated in the document as an example of an acceptable provision -
"giving preference to placing individual satellite dishes in areas that would not be visible from the street, or as unobtrusive as possible (for example on a private, interior balcony or in a spot behind the edge of the roof rather than on the facade of the building)"

That is as is published by the EU Commission and not hearsay of passersby or vested interests.

So basically if management companies etc want to make rules these rules have to enshrine the rights to satellite reception of choice in them and not simply ban them. Whimsy does not make rules.


Addendum
How many thrown up blocks of apartments could be considered to have an iota of monumental, historic or architectural value.
Only in Ireland could you be offended by a satellite dish but no problem falling over the mounds of rubbish for collection that businesses leave straddled our footpaths every week, illegal dumps in ditches all over our coutryside, umpteen poles and posts in every direction on our streets making it nigh on impossible for blind or wheelchair use, then they erect an even bigger pole on our capitals main thoroughfare Ronald MacDonald St and call it a monument.

Sir Oxman

wil wrote:

"Whim" is exactly the problem the EU has addressed.
The management company, solicitor, county council or government has no right to restrict the use of satellite dishes by individuals unless within the rules they make they also enshrine this right. Any exception has to be exactly that, an exception and exception for good reason not and absolutely not Whimsy.
From what is written down, any mediocre solicitor could drive a coach and four through almost all these whimsical rules, You may not automatically have right to a table or clothes drying but you do to a satellite dish.

The commissions publication I listed earlier basically says that the right to receive satellite broadcasts of your choosing are protected under the Freedom of Goods and Services.

"Given that Community law takes precedence over national law, Articles 28 and 49 lay down rights for the interested parties that the national authorities are required to respect and protect.
Moreover, they not only render automatically inapplicable any conflicting provision of current national law, but also preclude the valid adoption of new national legislative measures to the extent to which they would be incompatible with community provisions 20."

"The bodies of every Member State are under an obligation to ensure the primacy of Community law. This holds not only for the national courts, but for all administrative bodies,"

"any national measure which limits the ability to receive transmissions and
services via satellite dishes is also required to be compatible with Article 10 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, which specifically enshrines “the freedom to receive ... information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers”27.

In reference to aesthetics

Thus an attempt must be made to reconcile aesthetic considerations with the fundamental right of any interested individual to have access to information and services by installing a satellite dish.
Such an assessment can only be done by looking at the individual circumstances in each case.
Nonetheless, such restrictions must be duly substantiated, and the aesthetic considerations must be real and not merely a pretext. In addition, given the principle of proportionality, these restrictions cannot be applied in general. Each individual case must be looked at, and, where specific restrictions are necessary, measures which impinge as little as possible on the fundamental freedom in question must be preferred."

and in reference to historic or listed building restrictions

"Moreover, for aesthetic reasons, it is not uncommon for particularly strict conditions to be set for any changes or additions to be made to listed buildings because of their monumental, architectural or historical value.
In sum, these circumstances are highly unusual and may justify special rules precisely because they are so different from ordinary situations which have no such restrictions and constraints."

In fact the OP situation is practically stated in the document as an example of an acceptable provision -
"giving preference to placing individual satellite dishes in areas that would not be visible from the street, or as unobtrusive as possible (for example on a private, interior balcony or in a spot behind the edge of the roof rather than on the facade of the building)"

How many thrown up blocks of apartments could be considered to have an iota of monumental, historic or architectural value.
Only in Ireland could you be offended by a satellite dish but no problem falling over the mounds of rubbish for collection that businesses leave straddled our footpaths every week, illegal dumps in ditches all over our coutryside, umpteen poles and posts in every direction on our streets making it nigh on impossible for blind or wheelchair use, then they erect an even bigger pole on our capitals main thoroughfare Ronald MacDonald St and call it a monument.

So basically if management companies etc want to make rules these rules they have to enshrine the rights to satellite reception of choice in them and not simply ban them. Whimsy does not make rules.

Well said.
Sole provision of TV provider in (thrown-up) apt blocks and estates are a money-making scam riding the arse of tenants and owners - and that is the end of it.
The reason they can do it is the rollover mindset of Irish people (inc myself though I have pointed out I have stuck one and a half fingers up at my so-called 'management' company - landlord in agreement with me)

It's written down so it must be law.:rolleyes::mad:

Sir Oxman

EricM wrote:

It hasnt fallen over, signal is good, i dont get all channels but i get all the ones i watch anyway.

My balcony has grooves in the floor boards, so its kind of wedged in where it cant fall over.
It does wobble in the wind though, but hasnt intterupted my viewing.

Some channels are more sensitive then others (i used 147 for testing since its seems the most sensitive), i have to have it positioned perfectly, others will work with no disruption even if the dish moves a bit.

Thanks.

I think I'll stick with my makeshift solution.;)

uberwolf

wil wrote:

"Whim" is exactly the problem the EU has addressed.
The management company, solicitor, county council or government has no right to restrict the use of satellite dishes by individuals unless within the rules they make they also enshrine this right.

you chose one word in what I had to say. Unfortunately you have failed to recognise that a whim is a perfectly legitimate rationale when you're deciding what do with private property. The balcony is another entities private property, i.e. the management company's.

What you're proposing is the legislation you're citing allows you to attach a satellite to your neighbours gaff, simply because you can't get coverage from your own. Obviously this is not the case. You have no rights over the balcony, no claim except through a stake in the management company.

Your only legal solution, afaics, is to petition the management company to relax the rules governing the use of the balcony, and then defend that position when a local authority attempts to break the legislation you have cited.

Do you honestly not understand that? No one is saying what you can or can't do with your own property.

EricM

is it legal for the management company to say they own the balcony?, this seems like a loophole to deny me of my rights.

It would seem like common sence that the balcony belongs to the owner of the apartment.

uberwolf

you buy what you buy!

All common areas are owned by the management company. This extends to balconies.

wil

sententia absentis funditus. Please read and re-read what the EU Comission is saying. They spent 17 pages telling us in fairly clear English and whatever other EU language is preferred. They havent drafted specific legislation because in their opinion the current legislation is clear enough. They may have to if abuse continues. This is a right. If someone wants to make rules which may infringe on this right then they must enshrine within those rules the right. It's pretty clear. I honestly understand that.

I am not aware of any EU law on the rights of management companies, even if there were, it is also pretty clear, it is not allowed to make a rule that contravenes this right of freedom of goods and services.
Irrespective of whether anyone thinks this is correct or not.

So as the balcony is as you say not owned by the person who bought the apartment, why dont they stick no tresspassing signs on it and arrest homeowners as they sniff the morning air? Because that is nonsensical.
Landlord rents apartment, they still own the apartment but they dont retain the right to simply walk in, the apartment is now the home of another whose right to enjoy his home and right to privacy preclude the other rights of the owner. And so it remains until the person vacates the apartment.
Management companies are meant to serve the collective good not act as dictators. In theory they are there to protect the interest of the owners and not to act as a law unto themselves, to provide services and maintenance for the common good. What they do in practice doesnt always correspond. And while the developers keep their hand in they want their money.
As a relatively recent "entity" in Ireland they are still unregulated (some due late 2007 or whenever (National Property Services Regulatory Authority and National Property Services Regulatory Authority Bill), other than under the Companies Act. The NCA commissioned a report on the PM industry, its findings making 25 recommendations including regulation, protective measures, the establishment of a professional body and qualifications for those working in the industry.
Ann Fitzgerald , Executive Chair of the NCA and Director of Consumer Affairs said, "We commissioned the report because consumers, primarily young people, are very vulnerable when they buy apartments or homes in multi-unit developments. Our research showed that they are unsure of their rights and don't know how the management company and management agent system works. Apartment living is now an integral part of Irish life and it is imperative that consumers are properly protected`
They produced a useful explanatory doc on PM Companies
http://www.consumerconnect.ie/eng/Hot_Topics/Campaigns/Management%20Companies%20Booklet.pdf

The contract you sign is meant to be a fair contract, not a denial of rights. Of course people need rules, some more than others and they are for the common good of all living in the confines of apartment blocks. You dont have a right to litter or play loud music or graffiti your walls but you do have a right to satellite services.
A balcony serves no purpose on its own, it cannot be rented or sold on its own. Without an apartment to service it, it is a pigeon loft.
Therefore a balcony comes as part of the rented or purchased unit. It is not an external fitting that can be moved around, blocked off, whatever. It is within your exclusive use or control. What is the point otherwise. Was it built there to give a management company something to lord over. This is all nonsense. A right is a right is a right.
Common area, Huh? perhaps when antigravity boots replace heelys.
(Visions of uberworld - management company representatives organise a barbie on Erics balconey and dont invite Eric)
If you try to remove or block that right then you are in the wrong.
It is absolute nonsense to try illustrating your argument with some farcical situation of putting your dish on another persons wall, that is their home, it is not for your use. A balconey on your apartment is for your use, whether you own it or not. This regularly cited nonsense argument serves purely to misdirect and has no merit. For a start you would likely have to commit tresspass to do so.

If a management company wishes to restrict the use of the balconey etc and not allow discrete dishes on them then they first of all have to have a pretty good reason for this, not a made up one, then second they have to provide a means to allow proper access to satellite services.
That is the very clear point missed, it doesnt matter really what rules they make so long as your rights are accomadated and addressed within those rules.

Different jurisdiction but they had pretty much the same rights and policies in the US though the same problems with management companies, in 1996 and again after appeal (moan whine Fifth Ammendment, constitution etc ) against it by IREM (Institute of Real Estate Management - umbrella organisation) in July 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Order 98-273, issued by the FCC, would remain in effect, ie confirmed that "In general, a satellite dish that is 1 meter (39.37 inches) or less may be installed on an area that you own or where you have exclusive use" Stems from the same basic rights as we have in the EU.
"The FCC confirmed that a unit owner has the right to install a dish in areas such as balcony that has been designed to be used only by that unit owner/tenant even if association management or maintenance personnel has access to that areas.
"Tenants on rental properties may install satellite dishes on balconies, porches and other properties with leaseholds."
http://www.fcc.gov/mb/facts/otard.html
http://www.irem.org/pdfs/publicpolicy/Telecom.pdf (the inustries own publication)
IREM very unhappy, but common sense prevailed'

US aside I fail to see what is not clear here. This is a right not a privilege, a right. Do we need word specific legislation to spell out every single eventuality where others try to abuse our rights.
If a management company held you locked captive in your apartment until you paid your overdue fees because they wrote it in the rules, despite the fact that some people may think is fine, they have no right to deny you your right to freedom. I could keep using ridiculous analogies here, wasting my time but unless the EU draft some superior EU law under which these rights may be denied then it still remains, your right, my right.

Now on a "perfectly legitimate rationale" I think I'll paint my house pink with purple polkadots, convert it in to a giant wormery and invite NASA to launch their next spaceshuttle from the lawn.
Damn, common sense prevents me.
Sadly it is well and truly lacking in the person (and many like them) that posted the letter under the OPs door. When common sense cannot prevail there really is nothing more to say. Do.

spockety

*clap clap*

proper order, great write up.

Sam Radford

Wil, I love your posts. They are lucid and to the point. I agree entirely.

Sponge Bob

a one liner would be to write to the management company and tell them they are in breach of the EU directive for not providing a communal dish, over to them!

go to www.eccdublin.ie for advice

spockety

Actually there is no 'communal dish' directive, just the directive that asserts the right to receive satellite TV.

I think the best approach is to write to your Management Co/Agency, and say something like :

"Dear XXX,

Further to your letter demanding removal of my satellite dish at Apartment ZZZ, I would like to advise that forcing me into a situation where I cannot receive a satellite signal would be a breach of my rights under European law regarding freedom of movement of goods and services throughout the EU.

You can read a directive from the European Commission at this web address, where they assert the EU citizens right to receive satellite signals, and the basis for this right under existing law.

http://blah.blah.blah/blahblahblah.html

I am happy to discuss the situation with you, where I am sure we can reach a compromise that everyone is happy with in terms of the location/design/appearance of my satellite dish. However, my right to receive satellite signals via a dish is not up for compromise or debate.

I look forward to hearing from you, and until such time as we reach an agreement on this matter, my existing dish will remain in place.

Best regards,

BLAH.
"

wil

Spockety- Excellent template.
If everyone concerned did this, then with a little sense I am sure some common ground could easily be reached. Most people would be willing to find a solution that suited everybody such as discrete/hidden/disguised dishes or common dishes.
SamR., Spock.. Appreciation appreciated but as they (should) say one good post doesnt make a forum. The doctor however said to keep taking the tablets.;)

Tony

Great post Wil

wil

I came across a further recent (2006) meeting memo from the EU
(Ive mentioned this elsewhere but for completeness I will add here)
It states pretty clearly that any association etc is not exempt from complying with the freedom of Goods and Services

"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 (see, inter alia, the judgments of 12 December 1974, Walrave, 36/74; 9 June 1977, van Ameyde, 90/76; 14 July 1976, Donà, C-13/76; 15 December 1995, Bosman, C-415/93, and 13 April 2000, Lehtonen, C-176/96)."
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/cm/617/617113/617113en.pdf

cmb.

spockety wrote: »

Actually there is no 'communal dish' directive, just the directive that asserts the right to receive satellite TV.

I think the best approach is to write to your Management Co/Agency, and say something like :

"Dear XXX,

Further to your letter demanding removal of my satellite dish at Apartment ZZZ, I would like to advise that forcing me into a situation where I cannot receive a satellite signal would be a breach of my rights under European law regarding freedom of movement of goods and services throughout the EU.

You can read a directive from the European Commission at this web address, where they assert the EU citizens right to receive satellite signals, and the basis for this right under existing law.

http://blah.blah.blah/blahblahblah.html

I am happy to discuss the situation with you, where I am sure we can reach a compromise that everyone is happy with in terms of the location/design/appearance of my satellite dish. However, my right to receive satellite signals via a dish is not up for compromise or debate.

I look forward to hearing from you, and until such time as we reach an agreement on this matter, my existing dish will remain in place.

Best regards,

BLAH.
"

this is a great template - the only question i have is what relevant legislation can i quote in sending this as this is becoming an issue with our management co. who are uninterested in genuine eyesores such as underwear drying on balcony railings etc but are satellite dish nazis

Nothingbetter2d

they cannot deny you your satellite dish....its a breach of basic human rights... you choose a dish because (lets face it) cable service is not upto scratch in ireland. I have chorus digital where i am and as i type this the service is down for the second day in a row. it seems to go down at least 2 days out of every week and im sick of it..... i am going to cancel my subscription as soon as the contract period is up and go and get sky digital (which for my parents seems to work even when there are gails forces storms outside). also sky digital is much better value for money cos at least all their systems work (pay per view, hd sky+ and interactive services) and has at least 4 times more channels than cable offers, no cable company in ireland can rival Sky Digital's level of tv services.

also Cable broadband aint all that it's cracked up to be either... i had NTL 6mb broadband when i lived in dublin and it was rubbish...spent more time down than up... so bad i ended up getting magnet broadband instead which was 8mb uncontended for the same money as ntl's 6mb 20-1 contention at the time.

incidently you might wanna try this method

http://www.skyinyourapartment.ie/