Communal Aerial Apartments Help!!

ELSEBELLE

Hey there,

Just bought an apartment that has a management company on the contract it says no satellite dishes or aerials. I called the compnay to see what we were allowed tv wise and was told there is a communal system in place. Pardon me but what does that mean, can we get sky does the installer have to hook up to their system, they really are very vague on the whole thing. Could someone please explain how this operates and what we are allowed to install. Thank you

connundrum

If you bought it from the developer then I'd ring the developer and query what provider you've to sign up to.

There were a couple of scenarios in blocks I used to manage:

Block A - the developer set up his own 'communications' company, wired the building and insisted that all apartment owners had to subscribe to their service @ €18 per month. If you wanted Sky you'd have to pay your Sky subscription ontop of the developer's €18pm.

Block B - the developer did a deal with Smart Telecom to wire the building, and all apartments had no choice but to go with Smart Telecom for telephone, broadband and TV. After a year, the owners got together and invited Sky to install a communal dish on the roof, with each owner footing the cost of installation to their apartment. Smart Telecom and the developer were not at all happy about this.

Block C - No mandatory service provider was in at the start, this lead to 90% of the apartment owners installing their own dish on their balcony. The place looked like a tip. After a year and a half of discussion we convinced the owners to take down the dishes and go for a communal dish. None of the Eastern European or Asian tenants were happy about taking down their dishes - Sky couldn't give them their desired channels.

I'd advise that you don't sign up to anything yet, talk to neighbours (make sure that you're talking to owners and not tenants) and see if there would be interest in installing a communal Sky dish (if indeed you are looking for Sky). Contact Sky via www.skyinyourapartment.ie and ask them to come out and look at the block. Maybe inform your managing agent that you're doing this.

I know it sounds like I'm pimping Sky but in my experience, if you do not already have access to NTL or Magnet, chances are you never will as it probably isn't feesible for either company to invest in cabling/infrastructure for a single block.

ELSEBELLE

Thank you very much for your help that shed some light on the matter. Cheers

WizZard

connundrum wrote: »

Block B - the developer did a deal with Smart Telecom to wire the building, and all apartments had no choice but to go with Smart Telecom for telephone, broadband and TV. After a year, the owners got together and invited Sky to install a communal dish on the roof, with each owner footing the cost of installation to their apartment. Smart Telecom and the developer were not at all happy about this.

Did they (the residents) do this with the blessing/permission of the management company? Did the developer/Smart/management company have any recourse if they were unhappy?

(Sorry for hijacking)

connundrum

WizZard wrote: »

Did they (the residents) do this with the blessing/permission of the management company? Did the developer/Smart/management company have any recourse if they were unhappy?

(Sorry for hijacking)

Residents were very unhappy about being restricted to one supplier and saught information from the competition authority on the matter. At the time (it may have changed now) there was nothing saying that the developer was wrong in allowing a sole provider to install all cabling and restricting access to it's facilities i.e. comms room and cabling.

The residents kicked up a fuss with the managing agent (me), I consulted the developer and advised that he allow Sky to install the communal dish to avoid bad publicity*. The developer grumbled, didn't give his blessing, but didn't forcibly object to the move.

Smart had a deal to install cabling and provide communications equipment to the building. Sky would have installed their own cabling and equipment and therefore wouldn't have had to use anything belonging to Smart.

The developer along with each owner was a member and shareholder in the management company. I think that the developer copped that had the issue been put to a vote, his objection would have been defeated and the communal dish would have gone in regardless.

*Several members of the residents committee were threatening to go to 'the media' with this story as it was an outrage, and clearly not allowing competition, which in fairness was true.

Victor

connundrum wrote: »

Block C - No mandatory service provider was in at the start, this lead to 90% of the apartment owners installing their own dish on their balcony. The place looked like a tip. After a year and a half of discussion we convinced the owners to take down the dishes and go for a communal dish. None of the Eastern European or Asian tenants were happy about taking down their dishes - Sky couldn't give them their desired channels.

Surely more than one communal dish could be installed?

connundrum

Victor wrote: »

Surely more than one communal dish could be installed?

Yes, more than one dish could be installed. We were never approached by a company other than Sky to install a dish though so it was kind of left at that.

Carawaystick

At least with the Sky dish, it points at the Astra2D satelite which provides BBC1-4, ITV,CH4 and otheres in the clear, so you can get a cheap lidl decoder and not pay sky.
Or even get an independent instaler to install whatever dishes the residents wish, and let the residents sort out their own decode/decrypt issues. Equipment legally bought in the EU can be legally used in the EU... like a sky box bought in Derry or Newry.

WizZard

Carawaystick wrote: »

Or even get an independent instaler to install whatever dishes the residents wish, and let the residents sort out their own decode/decrypt issues.

Sky offer hugely subsidised communal dish installations if there are a minimum number of residents willing to sign up to Sky packages

Carawaystick

but if the apartments are already wired to a central point, then any dish/LNB to feed this is fairly handy instalation stuff.

Thoie

connundrum wrote: »

Residents were very unhappy about being restricted to one supplier and saught information from the competition authority on the matter. At the time (it may have changed now) there was nothing saying that the developer was wrong in allowing a sole provider to install all cabling and restricting access to it's facilities i.e. comms room and cabling.

The residents kicked up a fuss with the managing agent (me), I consulted the developer and advised that he allow Sky to install the communal dish to avoid bad publicity*. The developer grumbled, didn't give his blessing, but didn't forcibly object to the move.

Smart had a deal to install cabling and provide communications equipment to the building. Sky would have installed their own cabling and equipment and therefore wouldn't have had to use anything belonging to Smart.

The developer along with each owner was a member and shareholder in the management company. I think that the developer copped that had the issue been put to a vote, his objection would have been defeated and the communal dish would have gone in regardless.

Sorry, I'm curious about this too. Our block is still under control of the developer, and they've said there are planning permission objections to installing a communal dish. Trying to get info from either the planning office or the developer about this permission has been like pulling teeth - 12 months later we're still no closer to an answer.

Who has the authority to apply for planning permission (if it's even needed) - the management company?

connundrum

Carawaystick wrote: »

but if the apartments are already wired to a central point, then any dish/LNB to feed this is fairly handy instalation stuff.

As mentioned in scenario B, Smart Telecom owned the cabling in the building and wouldn't allow outside contractors piggyback. Be sure to check that you can use the cabling before installing a communal dish.

You'd also have to take into consideration the different types of cabling installed compared to what is required i.e. coaxial/cat 5.

The Sky engineer who surveyed all of my blocks said that they'd run cabling on the outside of the building into each apartment. The cabling would be coloured so that it'd blend into the colour of the wall.

Thoie wrote: »

Who has the authority to apply for planning permission (if it's even needed) - the management company?

I'll be honest in saying that I've never heard of needing to apply for permission for a satellite. The communal satellite that Sky were talking about was to be the size of a normal dish - as seen on the side of thousands of houses. I can't imagine that any of those houses needed to apply for planning permission.

Besides that, the dish would usually be installed on the roof. How the hell would anyone object to a dish that they won't even see?

I would suggest going to your managing agent, but be aware that the managing agent could be under the thumb of the developer and mightn't be able to help - there were so many similar scenarios with blocks I managed. The managing agent would often bend to the wants of the developer for fear of losing the business.

I don't see why you couldn't contact an installer, ask them:

• Would permission be required to install a dish on your building
• What objections are usually raised with installations
• What would be involved in installation i.e. cabling, access to areas etc.

Get them to put the answers to your questions in writing, present your findings to the residents committee and then give it to your managing agent - demanding that action be taken. If they persist with the line of 'planning permission objections', demand to see proof of the objections. If they persist further, threaten to engage a solicitor as an independant residents committee.

athtrasna

My issue here would be that the management company owns all the actual buildings and no additions to the building should be made without 100% agreement of all company members ie all owners. As an owner of an apartment in a satellite free development I would never consent to dishes being erected. If you want a dish then buy somewhere they are allowed in!

Also only owners have rights to decide such things. Residents who are not owners should have no say in the affairs of the management company.

Plastic Bari

I had the same situation in my apartment that i was renting we could only get magnet and it was terrible

the_syco

athtrasna wrote: »

As an owner of an apartment in a satellite free development I would never consent to dishes being erected. If you want a dish then buy somewhere they are allowed in!

The benefit of a communal dish is that one dish could be situated at the very top of the apartment (on the roof, not the side), with everyone having access to it, as opposed to everyone having their own little dish on the side of their apartments.

Thoie

athtrasna wrote: »

My issue here would be that the management company owns all the actual buildings and no additions to the building should be made without 100% agreement of all company members ie all owners. As an owner of an apartment in a satellite free development I would never consent to dishes being erected. If you want a dish then buy somewhere they are allowed in!

Also only owners have rights to decide such things. Residents who are not owners should have no say in the affairs of the management company.

Just coming back to this now. This isn't a private little project - personally I don't particularly care what television provider is there, doesn't bother me one way or another. The question has been raised at every meeting so far with the majority of owners wanting a communal dish. I can't say that 100% want it, but over 95% have said they're in favour of a communal dish on the roof. Nowhere in our company articles does it say that 100% agreement is needed for things like this. Similarly, if 95% of owners said they wanted to paint the hallways orange, orange it would be, no matter how ick the other 5% think it would be, and there would be no question of "If you want an orange hallway, then buy somewhere the hallways are orange".

athtrasna

It's different if the leases specifically prohibit dishes. To change a development rule a majority would suffice but to change a lease condition requires 100% agreement. Taking your painting issue, nowhere in my lease does it say we can't have orange halls but it does say no satellite dishes or other aerials.

Keith C

athtrasna wrote: »

It's different if the leases specifically prohibit dishes. To change a development rule a majority would suffice but to change a lease condition requires 100% agreement. Taking your painting issue, nowhere in my lease does it say we can't have orange halls but it does say no satellite dishes or other aerials.

Do you not get the meaning of ONE communal dish, try reading the thread again :rolleyes:

athtrasna

There are 81 units in my development. 81 leases say no satellite dishes. That means zero not one. If all leases ban dishes, it would require 100% agreement from 81 owners to change this and erect even a single communal dish. It won't happen as I won't agree, and I am not alone so there is no chance of 100% agreement. My solicitor backs this up. Friends live in complexes with communal dishes and they are stilll ugly!

connundrum

athtrasna wrote: »

Friends live in complexes with communal dishes and they are stilll ugly!

As ugly as a dish can be when on the roof and out of view I suppose..

athtrasna

Aesthetics aside, I bought in a development where no dishes are allowed and it takes 100% agreement to change this so it can't happen. I may not have the best televisual options but nobody forced me to buy here!

gamer

On a roof ,its very easy to hide,camoflage one dish aprox 14inch wide,in amoungst the ventilation ,power boxs ,equipment,pipes etc that is on any roof,its invisible on the roof,so how can an invisibe object be ugly.THEY only need to run cables to apartments that want sky tv,many people prefer sky cos for 30euros per month you get a the ntl channels plus loadsa free channels,i dont understand anyone buying an apartment that has one broadband and tv provider ,REMEMBER the apartment block is owned by the residents if most people want sky,they should get it ,WE are supposed to be living in a free market democracy ,which means you shoud have a choice of service provider .
the average apartment roof is full of ducting pipes,cables ,etc its not exacty a thing of architectural beauty to start off it,uness you are up there ,you wont be able to see 1small dish.which can be painted to match the roof color anyway.
i agree its stupid 4 everyone to be putting up 1 dish on every balcony.
IT SOUNDS like one or 2 peope,being stubborn ,awkword because they only watch bbc 4 ,c4 ,they think sky is beneath them.
even if i hated sky i think everyone has the right to choose their own provider.

athtrasna

You miss the point. Not sure if this applies to the OP but here's my situation.

I bought in a development that is wired for NTL. If you want tv then you get NTL. Satellite dishes are expressly prohibited. Lets say 90% of the owners in my block want a communal dish installed. Well 100% of the owners own the building, and the 90% have no right to erect a dish on property that isn't 100% theirs. The roof is the roof of every apartment in this block.

Similarly I would not be happy at wiring/ducting/drilling going on at common property (ie the block structure). If it was going to be a fully serviced block with all the options then they should have been there from the start. They're not and I don't want to open the structure of my block to all the potential problems, leaks, draughts etc that installing a dish and access to all apartments would bring at this stage. And so when I bought, it said wired for NTL and no dishes and that's fine by me.

The free market element comes into it only that it's clear that nobody was forced to buy here. If you want to watch Sky, buy somewhere you can get Sky!

The building is owned by the management company ie all OWNERs not all residents. Residents have no rights in any structural issues. Owners do, but they are bound by the legal agreements/leases they signed. No owner has the right to make structural changes to common property ie the block structure. In fact they could be sued for damaging common property.

Victor

athtrasna wrote: »

Lets say 90% of the owners in my block want a communal dish installed. Well 100% of the owners own the building

Wrong. The management company owns the building. I imagine 90% of the shareholders can change the company's policies.

markpb

Victor wrote: »

Wrong. The management company owns the building. I imagine 90% of the shareholders can change the company's policies.

Exactly. The lease prohibiting satellite dishes is between the developer/management company and the owners but not between the developer and the management company. Unless the head lease specifies otherwise, there's nothing to stop the management company installing a communal dish on it's property (the structure of the building).

athtrasna

Forgive me, I didn't realise there were management company-literate posters on this thread, with so much talk of residents changing things

I am a director of our management company. We would require 100% agreement from all owners in order to install dishes in our development, checked it out and that's how it stands. maybe other companies have different leases/articles but that's in our development.

Directors are duty bound to act in the best interests of the management company and help protect the investment we all made in our properties. We cannot unilaterally decide to install dishes.

markpb

athtrasna wrote: »

I am a director of our management company. We would require 100% agreement from all owners in order to install dishes in our development, checked it out and that's how it stands. maybe other companies have different leases/articles but that's in our development.

We're considering doing this at the moment (I'm a director of my mc as well). Can I ask who told you the mc couldn't install a dish and what document they said prohibited it?

connundrum

markpb wrote: »

Can I ask who told you the mc couldn't install a dish and what document they said prohibited it?

I would be surprised if the lease, any lease specifically noted that the mgt company were not allowed to install a communal dish without 100% agreement.

The lease may insist that 100% agreement is necessary to augment the appearance/structure of the exterior of the building, which I suppose a communal dish would do.

Thoie

athtrasna wrote: »

Directors are duty bound to act in the best interests of the management company and help protect the investment we all made in our properties. We cannot unilaterally decide to install dishes.

In our case it is not up to the directors to unilaterally make that kind ofdecision, that's up to the shareholders (the owners). Our articles do not require 100% votes on anything - all you'd need then is one absentee landlord (living abroad, for example), and everything would be in stasis.

As a director I presume you're aware that it's possible (with a vote) to change the articles so that nothing needs 100% of the vote? You can set a reasonable quorum instead, then update the documents held at the CRO.

Keith C

athtrasna wrote: »

Forgive me, I didn't realise there were management company-literate posters on this thread, with so much talk of residents changing things

I am a director of our management company. We would require 100% agreement from all owners in order to install dishes in our development, checked it out and that's how it stands. maybe other companies have different leases/articles but that's in our development.

Directors are duty bound to act in the best interests of the management company and help protect the investment we all made in our properties. We cannot unilaterally decide to install dishes.

Slightly off topic but ive heard of managment companies who are imposing €10,000 excess's on insurance claims even though the insurance policy only has an excess of €750.
If anyone is paying management fee's (everyone in apts) you should be wary of any excess & request a copy of the insurance which im sure the mc are obliged to provide.

Carawaystick

OK, checked this out.

"By virtue of the principles of the free movement of goods (Articles 28 to 30 EC) and the free
movement of services (Articles 49 et seq. EC, as interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the
European Convention on Human Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to have
access to a satellite dish must have that opportunity. "[1]

As this is EU law, it trumps National, and local laws and completely overrides any contract, apartment owners have with a developer or management company.

[1]http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2001:0351:FIN:EN:PDF

COM2001 351 (final)

So it seems a lot of management co.s will need to get better information about the law, rather than relying on contracts to prohibit putting up satellite dishes.

Victor

I only understood that as an opinion, not law.

athtrasna

Carawaystick there was a multi multi page thread about that on AAM last year. Bottom line is everyone is entitled to a dish, just they have to live somewhere dishes are allowed! You are not bound to live in a development that bans dishes so no laws broken.

Carawaystick

The EC say it's a fundamental freedom of the union that dishes are allowed. this means anywhere in the union is somewhere allowed. A management company contract cannot override the basic laws of the union.

WizZard

athtrasna wrote: »

You are not bound to live in a development that bans dishes so no laws broken.

With all due respect people should be able to choose where they want to live NOT solely based on whether the developer/managing agent does or does not allow satellite dishes.

Your argument of "Don't buy there if you want a satellite dish" or similar is simply not a option for a lot of people whose only choice of where to live is based on what they can afford, or for others who are now stuck in what they had previously deemed a "temporary" home due to the housing market crash.


And although the EU decision mentioned above has never been tested in Irish courts, the basis of it is that a person has a right to a satellite dish (or is it native language programming? It's been a while since I examined it) and a contract/rules cannot impinge on a person's rights. (There is the issue of planning permission to deal with here, which can be used to block dishes in some areas - different story entirely though)

athtrasna

http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?t=74263

Lots and lots of discussion on here...lots of opinions but until there's a test case all we can do is posture!

ELSEBELLE

Hey all

Thank you to all who gave advice and help. Ok situation is having failed to contact management compnay again grrrrrr do they ever return calls?? I took it upon myself to call chorus ntl and sky to see if they were part of the communal system in the block and got a big no from all. So i looked at that skyinyourapartment.ie and apparently four people in the block have to want sky before it can be brought in so I registered just need three more. So annoying, so if it's not chorus, ntl or sky what does that leave?
Getting worried if we ever had a serious grievance with management compnay would they even respond - oh they will be on the ball looking for their fee alright. Thanks again

Geog

Does this mean that everyone in the complex has to pay for the tv dish, regardless of whether they want access to all the channels or not?

connundrum

Keith C wrote: »

Slightly off topic but ive heard of managment companies who are imposing €10,000 excess's on insurance claims even though the insurance policy only has an excess of €750.
If anyone is paying management fee's (everyone in apts) you should be wary of any excess & request a copy of the insurance which im sure the mc are obliged to provide.

In 2007 many of my blocks had an excess of approx €500, and we were instructed by the directors of several of these MC's to tell enquiring owners that the excess was €2000 - €5000 depending.

The thinking was that by telling them that the excess was so big, it'd reduce the amount of claims per year, which in turn would reduce the premium and therefore the management fee.

Of course, an owner who is full paid up with management fees has a full right to request a copy of the insurance schedule, which would show what the actual excess was.

Be aware that by not paying your management fee, you are not paying towards the insurance premium, and therefore may not be able to make a claim for water damage etc. I haven't seen a case involving this brought to court though so I can't be sure what way it'd go. We were instructed not to process any claims where the mgt fee hadn't been fully paid.

Geog wrote: »

Does this mean that everyone in the complex has to pay for the tv dish, regardless of whether they want access to all the channels or not?

Sky would install the dish for free. Each owner pays a fee for installation only if they wish to sign up for the service.

athtrasna

ELSEBELLE wrote: »

Hey all

Thank you to all who gave advice and help. Ok situation is having failed to contact management compnay again grrrrrr do they ever return calls?? I took it upon myself to call chorus ntl and sky to see if they were part of the communal system in the block and got a big no from all. So i looked at that skyinyourapartment.ie and apparently four people in the block have to want sky before it can be brought in so I registered just need three more. So annoying, so if it's not chorus, ntl or sky what does that leave?
Getting worried if we ever had a serious grievance with management compnay would they even respond - oh they will be on the ball looking for their fee alright. Thanks again

For a start you need to learn the difference between the management agent who's the one you've been calling, and the management company. There's a big difference and it's important to know and understand it as an apartment owner, maybe buy Robert Gogan's book. It will also explain about fees, the agent's fee is a small proportion of the fee collected.

As for the television provider, my guess is Smart telecom as they also do tv and do deals for apartment blocks.

Keith C

connundrum wrote: »

In 2007 many of my blocks had an excess of approx €500, and we were instructed by the directors of several of these MC's to tell enquiring owners that the excess was €2000 - €5000 depending.

The thinking was that by telling them that the excess was so big, it'd reduce the amount of claims per year, which in turn would reduce the premium and therefore the management fee.

Of course, an owner who is full paid up with management fees has a full right to request a copy of the insurance schedule, which would show what the actual excess was.
Be aware that by not paying your management fee, you are not paying towards the insurance premium, and therefore may not be able to make a claim for water damage etc. I haven't seen a case involving this brought to court though so I can't be sure what way it'd go. We were instructed not to process any claims where the mgt fee hadn't been fully paid.



Sky would install the dish for free. Each owner pays a fee for installation only if they wish to sign up for the service.

So if the damage was €20k, you'd ask the owner to pay €10k x/s then claim the other €10k off the insurance? or get €10k off owner, pay €500 x/s on insurance to claim for the damage, what happens to the €10k x/s the owner paid?

Sounds highly immoral what your doing, mgt fee's contribute towards insurance, if there are insurance claims people are entitled to claim.
Numerous water damage claims would suggest apartment is poorly built.

Doesnt matter what excess you charge, apartment/block insurance is going to rise drastically over the next few years.

connundrum

Keith C wrote: »

So if the damage was €20k, you'd ask the owner to pay €10k x/s then claim the other €10k off the insurance? or get €10k off owner, pay €500 x/s on insurance to claim for the damage, what happens to the €10k x/s the owner paid?

Sounds highly immoral what your doing, mgt fee's contribute towards insurance, if there are insurance claims people are entitled to claim.
Numerous water damage claims would suggest apartment is poorly built.

Doesnt matter what excess you charge, apartment/block insurance is going to rise drastically over the next few years.

I must point out that I am not a managing agent any more.

Essentially, telling the owners that the excess was €10k initially would be the only action we'd take. If the claim went through, then we wouldn't be in a position to take any monies awarded by the insurance company for the claim.

We tell the owner the excess is €10k (as per your example).
Owner wishes to proceed with claim for €20k damages.
Claim is processed by us and insurance company.
Owner is awarded €19,500 (minus the €500 actual excess).

Telling people of the 'high excess' was only a deterrent. Also be aware that we'd be acting on instructions of the directors of the management company, so the immoral responibility would be shared between ourselves (MA), the directors (MC) and some owners who have been putting in severely inflated/false claims over the years.