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

spockety

anotherlostie wrote: »

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.

Whether it has been handed over or not, you are still a shareholder in the Management Co.

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.

I ignored your point about work conditions because it is so ridiculous a comparison I didn't think it was even worth arguing against.

As I have said, and as the EC have said, aesthetics are no reason to block a dish install. I'm not going to base my choice of where I live on other people's opinions of how ugly a satellite dish is! It's laughable.

I think that Nissan Micras are pig ugly, do you think a house rule banning them from parking in an apartment complex car park would be legal or right?

anotherlostie

Why is it ridiculous?

You want to work somewhere, you abide by terms and conditions.

You want to live somewhere communal like an apartment development, you do the same that are clearly laid down to you. Non?

And please no more insulting comments in your replies, or I'll be the one not responding.

Tony

anotherlostie wrote: »

Why is it ridiculous?

You want to work somewhere, you abide by terms and conditions.

You want to live somewhere communal like an apartment development, you do the same that are clearly laid down to you. Non?

And please no more insulting comments in your replies, or I'll be the one not responding.

So where does it end, what if the management company decides no more cars are allowed do you simply say " ok i'll move out" . When terms are conditions fly in the face of your legal rights you simply ignore them, to do otherwise would create an unacceptable precedent.We still live in a Republic right?

spockety

See, the problem is is that people are refusing to accept that a blanket ban on dishes in apartment complexes is illegal, despite the documentary evidence being clearly placed on front of them over, and over, and over, and over, and over, in this thread.

As long as people don't accept that, there is no point in arguing with them, because it means that they have obviously not read any of the EC directives or rulings on it.

Good day.

kkontour

anotherlostie wrote: »

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.

Surely if you have paid your Management Company annual fee, you are a shareholder in the company?

Bluefoam

anotherlostie wrote: »

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.

Sorry but as an owner of one of the properties you are in fact a shareholder in the management co.

The Developer has to stay on as a director of the MG Co. until the development is in a fit condition to be handed over, at which stage they can remain as shareholders (if they retain ownership of some of the property/ies) or they can leave altogether. While the developer is director of the co. you are still entitled to take part as a committee member with them as head of the committee, which actually gives you a very good opportunity to voice any concerns...

markpb

MrVostro wrote: »

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.

I guess you could ask the seven owners who've had payment rulings made by a court, the four owners who've had installment rulings, the one owner who's had his file passed to the sheriff or the guy who is currently in jail for ignoring a court order telling him to pay the service fee, interest, debt collection charges and fines. If you want to call that trading in fear, then go ahead. But the difference is our legal advice comes from various judges.

Tony

I think guys here are simply ignoring the evidence as it does not suit their arguement

spockety wrote: »

See, the problem is is that people are refusing to accept that a blanket ban on dishes in apartment complexes is illegal, despite the documentary evidence being clearly placed on front of them over, and over, and over, and over, and over, in this thread.

As long as people don't accept that, there is no point in arguing with them, because it means that they have obviously not read any of the EC directives or rulings on it.

Good day.

MrVostro

markpb wrote: »

I guess you could ask the seven owners who've had payment rulings made by a court, the four owners who've had installment rulings, the one owner who's had his file passed to the sheriff or the guy who is currently in jail for ignoring a court order telling him to pay the service fee, interest, debt collection charges and fines. If you want to call that trading in fear, then go ahead. But the difference is our legal advice comes from various judges.

Any of those 'Cases' to do with dishes by any chance?
Any to do with actual real LAWS that were broken where all the management company had to do with it was report them?.

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.

Bluefoam

Tony wrote: »

I think guys here are simply ignoring the evidence as it does not suit their arguement

My thoughts exactly

markpb

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

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

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

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

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.

Bluefoam

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.