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

Tony

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

Bluefoam wrote: »

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

Bluefoam

Tony wrote: »

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

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

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

spockety

Bluefoam wrote: »

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

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

hahaha.. hello Square One!!

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

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

Oh the irony.

Tony

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

Bluefoam wrote: »

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

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

Bluefoam

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

Tony

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

Bluefoam wrote: »

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

How Strange

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

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

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

Bluefoam

Tony wrote: »

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

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

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

Tony

How Strange wrote: »

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

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

Bluefoam

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

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

spockety

Bluefoam wrote: »

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

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

How about this question:

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

Tony

Bluefoam wrote: »

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

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

Ste.phen

spockety wrote: »

How about this question:

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

How does it break the law exactly?

Tony

Bluefoam wrote: »

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

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

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

Bluefoam

Still no answer from either of you.

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

spockety

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

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

Tony

Bluefoam wrote: »

Still no answer from either of you.

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

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

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

wil

Bluefoam wrote: »

Still no answer from either of you.

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

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

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

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

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

How Strange

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

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

Tony

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

How Strange wrote: »

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

How Strange

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

Tony

How Strange wrote: »

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

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

MrVostro

How Strange wrote: »

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

markpb

MrVostro wrote: »

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

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

faceman

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

markpb

Ah interesting. Got a link?

Ulsterman 1690

Came across this on the $ky website.

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

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

Tony

Its no problem to add hotbird

Ulsterman 1690 wrote: »

Came across this on the $ky website.



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

Ulsterman 1690

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

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

byte

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