Renting, pushy neighbor on the "board"

Zema Grim

Hi all, hope you can help out with some advice here. I'm renting an apartment with two friends, it's in a fairly large apartment community in D15. We are in a second story place, all the ground floor apartments have their own front door, where as the second story ones have an entrance hallway and stairs that is shared between two apartments.

Unfortunately for us, we share with a lady who is on the board for the managing company I assume, or maybe just some form of residents council, I'm not really sure. We usually don't have a problem other than her exceptional nosey-ness but lately two of us got bikes to cycle to work. Her partner also has a bike, which has always remained in the hall downstairs. Now we have ours down there too, and one day I come home to find tags on our bikes stating it is against fire regulations and house rules to have them there and if we don't move them they would be taken away by the caretaker in 3 days. That was last Thursday, and the bikes are ALL still there. I haven't been home yet to do anything about it, but I won't be pushed around just because she doesn't want more bikes in the hall.

Lastly, we got Sky installed on Wednesday, and apparently she claimed that we have to take the dish down, it's also "against the rules".

So I ask you, what is the story? How much can she actually do? We rent off the lady that owns the apartment and used to live there herself, and she has never laid any such regulations on us. Thanks for reading!

mitosis

NOBODY should have bikes in the hall. Unless you have permission from the management co AND the Council you can't have a dish mounted on the building.

UDP

She is right about the bikes and the dish but she has to follow the rules too so if her partner continues to put his bike downstairs after you remove yours then you should make a complaint to the management company.

Was the note from her or from the management company?

anncoates

She's not making rules up in her head.

They are no doubt the rules of the management company and sound pretty standard.

If she owns the apartment, she is liable for obeying the rules of the management company.

gctest50

mitosis wrote: »

you can't have a dish mounted on the building.

You can if you need to receive satellite from you home country afaik

EU law > law of miserable,wet,broke country ?


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055124066&page=3

1stimpressions

Neighbour

peter_dublin

gctest50 wrote: »

You can if you need to receive satellite from you home country afaik

EU law > miserable wet country law ?

Eh your wrong. There is a very long thread about this in Legal Forum, several in the Satellite forum and other forums on here.

Short Version: The management company is the legal owner of the building, the unit (apartment) owners have only a lease and tenents own nothing, therefore nether the tenents or the leasehold (landlord) have any right to attach anything to the building as they don't own it. You can however attach your dish to a table or chair inside a window without issue if you wish.

also there is planning contraints on the amount of dishes on a building that councils can act upon if they wish. This is a clear cut case of tenents over stepping the mark with respect to the dish. Bikes should never have been in the hall. Theirs or the husbands.

Simples.

GRMA

Ignore and carry on until your landlord says anything

peter_dublin

GRMA wrote: »

Ignore and carry on until your landlord says anything

This is bad advice, at this stage the management company would be within their rights to have the dish removed (for the tenents to collect), the building returned to its original condition and charge the entire lot to the landlord who will bill the tenents for the costs.

Ignorance is not an excuse for breach of any contract or lease as i'm aware. The landlord should have provided the tenents with a copy of a household rules if any exist but it doesn't take much to know you can't go around installing dishes etc on buildings you don't actually own.

Zema Grim

Thanks for the responses guys. I'm not even interested in contesting the rules, if the dish has to come down so be it, I had no part in the Sky anyway so I'll let the lads know of their error. The bikes thing is fine too, if her partners is removed also, it's just the principal of the matter of her partner getting special treatment. For the record, have they any right to take the bikes, legally speaking?

djimi

Zema Grim wrote: »

For the record, have they any right to take the bikes, legally speaking?

If they are creating a safety hazard then I believe they are within their rights to move them, yes.

UDP

Zema Grim wrote: »

For the record, have they any right to take the bikes, legally speaking?

I think you will find that it is not entirely clear but the Gardai will say it is a civil matter and I would imagine you wouldn't get anywhere unless they damaged the bikes or satellite dish or refused to give them back.

In an apartment block I was living in they were very strict on the satellite rule. They used to go around with a cherry picker and remove satellites from balconys etc. Mine and my neighbours were removed. My neighbours called the Gardai when they discovered their satellite had been removed. They didn't have much english so the Gardai came over to me. I explained what had happened but the Gardai said they couldn't/wouldn't be able to do anything as it is a civil matter. The caretaker said "sue me" when the asked about taking the satellites without permission but offered the satellites to be picked back up but said they they would be taken away again if put back up.

The only thing you can do is make sure the rule is applied to your neighbours bike also. If it was the neighbour that left the note on your bikes then make sure to leave a similar note on her partner's bike too. You could mention on that note that you would be happy to come to a mutual agreement where all bikes are allowed or something.

djimi

While she is correct in what she says on both counts, one thing I will say is that if she is acting on behalf of the management company then she should be conducting herself in a more professional manner, ie writing proper letters with detailed explinations rather than leaving notes on bikes. She should also be practicing what she preaches...

peter_dublin

djimi wrote: »

While she is correct in what she says on both counts, one thing I will say is that if she is acting on behalf of the management company then she should be conducting herself in a more professional manner, ie writing proper letters with detailed explinations rather than leaving notes on bikes. She should also be practicing what she preaches...

Agree 100%, as a director she should be the last person breaching the rules, seems to be a case of it's okay when it suits her, if they remove the bikes they have to be returned, if they removed yours only and not the husbands she is an idiot and your landlord would have a field day at the next agm with her especially if they tried and levy any charge against your landlord. Get photos in that case and pass them on. Nothing worse as a director on a power trip who thinks the rules don't apply to themselves.

carpejugulum

1stimpressions wrote: »

Neighbour

OP might be American for all you know.

Marcusm

UDP wrote: »

In an apartment block I was living in they were very strict on the satellite rule. They used to go around with a cherry picker and remove satellites from balconys etc. Mine and my neighbours were removed. My neighbours called the Gardai when they discovered their satellite had been removed. They didn't have much english so the Gardai came over to me. I explained what had happened but the Gardai said they couldn't/wouldn't be able to do anything as it is a civil matter. The caretaker said "sue me" when the asked about taking the satellites without permission but offered the satellites to be picked back up but said they they would be taken away again if put back up.

In that respect, the Garda was only partly right; the removal of the satellite dish was a civil matter but the original installation (assuming holes were drilled) was technically criminal damage - thankfully that point is not pursued.

athtrasna

Marcusm wrote: »

In that respect, the Garda was only partly right; the removal of the satellite dish was a civil matter but the original installation (assuming holes were drilled) was technically criminal damage - thankfully that point is not pursued.

Our last AGM voted to actively remove dishes and to pursue damage cases where structural damage was done. One owner had to replace patio slabs where the tenant had bolted the satellite to the slabs. UPC were also contacted with a warning that we would pursue criminal damage cases against them if they continued their lazy practice of clipping cables to external walls for multi room set ups.

fasttalkerchat

You have no contract with your neighbour. Tell her where to go.
If the bikes are in a shared area, get permission from anyone directly affected.
You don't need permission for a dish but you do to drill the holes in the wall.

Gatling

athtrasna wrote: »

Our last AGM voted to actively remove dishes and to pursue damage cases where structural damage was done. One owner had to replace patio slabs where the tenant had bolted the satellite to the slabs. UPC were also contacted with a warning that we would pursue criminal damage cases against them if they continued their lazy practice of clipping cables to external walls for multi room set ups.

A bit Ott

athtrasna

Gatling wrote: »

A bit Ott

You might think so but we have had to re-point sections of walls to seal off holes where cables were clipped (not regular cable clips, these seem to have gone well through). The bottom line is if you put a hole in something you don't own, without permission, you can be pursued for damage/vandalism.

fasttalkerchat

athtrasna wrote: »

You might think so but we have had to re-point sections of walls to seal off holes where cables were clipped (not regular cable clips, these seem to have gone well through). The bottom line is if you put a hole in something you don't own, without permission, you can be pursued for damage/vandalism.

I think that's just a technicality. The same way as you technically cant paint or hang pictures in your home unless you own it.
I think in reality you would be expected to fill all holes and repaint back to a neutral colour.

jimmycrackcorm

athtrasna wrote: »

You might think so but we have had to re-point sections of walls to seal off holes where cables were clipped (not regular cable clips, these seem to have gone well through). The bottom line is if you put a hole in something you don't own, without permission, you can be pursued for damage/vandalism.

Strangely enough I think house owners with sky or upc don't Jane this problem

peter_dublin

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Strangely enough I think house owners with sky or upc don't Jane this problem

Yes most likely because they have an interest in maintaining the poperty both physically and visually, tenents tend not to care and a lot of landlords would not be too bothered either, we as an apartment complex spent in excess of a 1000 euro repairing the damage to the complex done in by tenents with satellites over two years, none of which was recoverable, before we implemented proper controls, several owners had been running amock acting as if units were freeholds.

It included:
1. Several Burst Red Bricks. (Cable Entry and Mounting Fixings)
2. Several Broken Air Bricks (Cable entry but no so carefull when leaving)
3. Several sets of Window Hinges to be replaced. (Cable Entry)
4. Removal of old fixings/dishes left on the building.
5. Remove of cables strung accross roof to get satellite from rear dish to sitting room rather than route internally as landlord said no to this :-)
6. Removal of dozens of raw plugs etc for said dishes.
7. Removal of clips left on the building
8.Repointing and restoration of finish.

All of this damage along with the "several" dishes had made the complex look rundown, now we have a large (Hidden) communial dish. The damage won't be done in a week but over the years it adds up and drags a complex down.

Gatling

Still the way I see it and ,my neighbours who are owners say if it doesn't directly affect them it shouldn't affect anybody else ,if a tenant or owner puts a dish with permission and some over zealous owner on a committee usually voted in by an average of 7 people decide ohhh let's see what we can force on people on the basis of keeping up appearances of a complex ,what was there a walk around with clip boars let's see who has a dish and have it removed bases on cost measures for repairs ,
If i put up a dish with ,with my landlords permission on a balcony no caretaker or director would get near the dish as trespass and assault charges would follow rather swiftly

djimi

athtrasna wrote: »

Our last AGM voted to actively remove dishes and to pursue damage cases where structural damage was done. One owner had to replace patio slabs where the tenant had bolted the satellite to the slabs. UPC were also contacted with a warning that we would pursue criminal damage cases against them if they continued their lazy practice of clipping cables to external walls for multi room set ups.

So you have effectively ensured that the only TV service available to residents is Saorview?

fasttalkerchat

If there is concern around the appearance or damage done by dishes surely owners should chip in for a communal dish with cabling run internally through air-vents or hidden in skirting. If this isn't done individual tenants will pay for their own dish and it will be installed in the cheapest and quickest way.
SKY won't throw a cable over a roof because then they have to pay to replace the cable if its damaged so they will run a cable through a house tacking it to walls.

fasttalkerchat

athtrasna wrote: »

Our last AGM voted to actively remove dishes and to pursue damage cases where structural damage was done. One owner had to replace patio slabs where the tenant had bolted the satellite to the slabs. UPC were also contacted with a warning that we would pursue criminal damage cases against them if they continued their lazy practice of clipping cables to external walls for multi room set ups.

The resident could very easily sue the caretaker for removing their dish from their property since there is a cost to put it back up and they pay subscription for the service. That's a very silly move and at best will push away good tenants, causing landlords to stop paying the management company.

athtrasna

djimi wrote: »

So you have effectively ensured that the only TV service available to residents is Saorview?

No, we have UPC in the development. What it means is that if someone wants multi-room the engineer has to put the cables internally rather than take a short cut and go up the exterior of the walls.

athtrasna

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

The resident could very easily sue the caretaker for removing their dish from their property since there is a cost to put it back up and they pay subscription for the service. That's a very silly move and at best will push away good tenants, causing landlords to stop paying the management company.

No - our leases strictly prohibit the erection of dishes, this is what all owners and landlords signed up to (it's also part of our planning permission). The AGM mandated enforcement of lease term, not someone just deciding it would be "better".

peter_dublin

Gatling wrote: »

Still the way I see it and ,my neighbours who are owners say if it doesn't directly affect them it shouldn't affect anybody else ,if a tenant or owner puts a dish with permission and some over zealous owner on a committee usually voted in by an average of 7 people decide ohhh let's see what we can force on people on the basis of keeping up appearances of a complex ,what was there a walk around with clip boars let's see who has a dish and have it removed bases on cost measures for repairs ,
If i put up a dish with ,with my landlords permission on a balcony no caretaker or director would get near the dish as trespass and assault charges would follow rather swiftly

Again your wrong, the leaseholder / tenent of the unit only has exclusive use of the balcony, they do not own it, the management company retains ownership, therefore they have no right to afix anything to it so you cannot do anyone for trespass or assault (unless they actually did assault you) based on them removing a dish which you attached to a balcony you don't own and most likely in breach of the lease.

djimi wrote: »

So you have effectively ensured that the only TV service available to residents is Saorview?

I don't see where they said this at all. The building could have been wired for UPC as our was originally by the builder, at the end of the day it is not possible to give people the option of every provider, UPC cabling, "multi satellite satellite setup because not everyone is irish and only wants sky, Smart IPTv if available. There comes a point where you have to draw a line. We provided a communial system in our case but even now we have issues where satellites we cannot facilitate on the communial system are requested and they want a seperate (1.2m) dish for their tenancy.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

The resident could very easily sue the caretaker for removing their dish from their property since there is a cost to put it back up and they pay subscription for the service. That's a very silly move and at best will push away good tenants, causing landlords to stop paying the management company.

They can try and sue all they want, once the dish is not removed from the complex, damaged and returned when they request it then they don't have a leg to stand on or are you saying I should be allowed to put a dish on my neighbours house and sue them if they remove it. There will be no cost to putting it back up as they wouldn't be putting it back up as they don't "own" the wall and cannot attach something to someone elses property i.e. the management companies. Why is this so hard for people to understand re apartment buildings yet for houses its easy. You don't own it you can't change it.

athtrasna

Gatling wrote: »

Still the way I see it and ,my neighbours who are owners say if it doesn't directly affect them it shouldn't affect anybody else ,if a tenant or owner puts a dish with permission and some over zealous owner on a committee usually voted in by an average of 7 people decide ohhh let's see what we can force on people on the basis of keeping up appearances of a complex ,what was there a walk around with clip boars let's see who has a dish and have it removed bases on cost measures for repairs ,
If i put up a dish with ,with my landlords permission on a balcony no caretaker or director would get near the dish as trespass and assault charges would follow rather swiftly

It depends on what the development rules say. If they say no dishes, your landlord is not entitled to give permission because they have signed legal deeds to comply with the development rules. What you might have in that case is a case against your landlord for failure to provide the service agreed.

The management company would not be trespassing on a balcony, they own them (unit "owners" have exclusive use) so don't be too sure of that. Our dishes are removed, stored and returned to owners provided we get a legal undertaking that they will not be re-erected.

fasttalkerchat

athtrasna wrote: »

No - our leases strictly prohibit the erection of dishes, this is what all owners and landlords signed up to (it's also part of our planning permission). The AGM mandated enforcement of lease term, not someone just deciding it would be "better".

That's not worth the paper its written on. The UPC infrastructure cannot be used to receive international TV, which tenants cannot be stopped from receiving as satellite dishes come under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as it provides required news and information.
You would need to first provide an agreed alternative. I would suggest a place hidden from view where all satellite dishes can be installed then run cables from there to each apartment.
To be honest I can't see everyone sharing your aversion for a satellite dish and will probably want to cut costs by letting tenants sort out their own TV.

peter_dublin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That's not worth the paper its written on. The UPC infrastructure cannot be used to receive international TV, which tenants cannot be stopped from receiving as satellite dishes come under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as it provides required news and information.
You would need to first provide an agreed alternative. I would suggest a place hidden from view where all satellite dishes can be installed then run cables from there to each apartment.
To be honest I can't see everyone sharing your aversion for a satellite dish and will probably want to cut costs by letting tenants sort out their own TV.

Yes you are right they cannot be stopped from "recieving" the signal, a dish stuck to a table inside a window will recieve the signal, but that right does "NOT" overright the property owners rights so your plain and simply wrong just as you couldn't use your "Human Right" to demand neighbours cut down their trees as you can't get a signal due to them. The usual line which is always rolled out. Simply put your rights do NOT ever ride the property owners rights.

Also the fact that you signed a legal lease stating that you only have a leasehold, the fact as a tenent you signed a lease stating you would adhere to the details of the leasehold and should have enquired re dishes prior to moving in mean you wouldn't have a leg to stand on, the managment company is not removing your right as you have a choice to live in a development which allows dishes and you choose to live in the complex.

I'm not bothering to reply to this anymore, this has been hashed out so many times in this forum including legal its just stupid at this stage.
Legal Forums latest discussion: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82480193

Marcusm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That's not worth the paper its written on. The UPC infrastructure cannot be used to receive international TV, which tenants cannot be stopped from receiving as satellite dishes come under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as it provides required news and information.
You would need to first provide an agreed alternative. I would suggest a place hidden from view where all satellite dishes can be installed then run cables from there to each apartment.
To be honest I can't see everyone sharing your aversion for a satellite dish and will probably want to cut costs by letting tenants sort out their own TV.

Rights under ECHR are enforceable against the relevant government not against private individuals. The case taken was to stop a government from precluding the receiving of signals in the air. That does not and, in the Irish constitutional context, interfere with the rights of a property owner (OMC freehold company) from precluding the erection of dishes or damage to its own property. Even the requirement to obtain planning permission for more than 1 dish on a HOUSE is unlikely to be a disproportionate restriction. In the case of a multiple dwelling, there (I believe) is not even a single dish exemption. What OMCs need to do is site dishes to serve all relevant interest groups (prop Astra and Eurobird or so on)in a hidden space and pipe that internally in a secure manner to each unit.

fasttalkerchat

peter_dublin wrote: »

Yes you are right they cannot be stopped from "recieving" the signal, a dish stuck to a table inside a window will recieve the signal, but that right does "NOT" overright the property owners rights so your plain and simply wrong just as you couldn't use your "Human Right" to demand neighbours cut down their trees as you can't get a signal due to them. The usual line which is always rolled out. Simply put your rights do NOT ever ride the property owners rights.

The installer does it in the cheapest way possible. Cutting down trees would be dearer than using a longer cable and moving the dish so that wouldn't happen. And anyway you would need to go to court to have it removed, I'd imagine under right to light.
Does a property owner have a right not to have a neighbour with a satellite dish? I can't see how they could claim that affects them.

djimi

athtrasna wrote: »

No, we have UPC in the development. What it means is that if someone wants multi-room the engineer has to put the cables internally rather than take a short cut and go up the exterior of the walls.

And UPC are happy to continue doing business with you even after you threatened to take legal action against their engineers? Im surprised at that tbh.

Also wouldnt drilling through interior walls not give the management company something else to complain about?

fasttalkerchat

Marcusm wrote: »

What OMCs need to do is site dishes to serve all relevant interest groups (prop Astra and Eurobird or so on)in a hidden space and pipe that internally in a secure manner to each unit.

That's what I suggested a few posts back. However, I can't see all management companies going to that much trouble. If they don't bother I can't see how they can object to tenants doing their own thing.

Marcusm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That's what I suggested a few posts back. However, I can't see all management companies going to that much trouble. If they don't bother I can't see how they can object to tenants doing their own thing.

Because the flatholder signed leases precluding themselves from putting up satellite dishes and if building control departments actually did their joib, they would be issuing enforcement notices. If UPC is already piped int hen the satellite signal can be sent down those cables (provided any exclusivity period has expired). It's not that hard or expensive and I've seen it implemented in Dublin (Gasworks) some years after the development was completed.

peter_dublin

djimi wrote: »

And UPC are happy to continue doing business with you even after you threatened to take legal action against their engineers? Im surprised at that tbh.

In fairness DJIMI we had the same issue with UPC and also informed them they must get the managment companies consent to work, in our case it was due to two bricks being blown out (Drilled from inside out), running a cable over the roof, down a gutter and damaging more bricks and many more such cases, we allow upc and simply agreed a standard installation layout with them so there is one extrernal cable for each unit which is identical in entry point.

The issue is not upc but the shoddy and poor workmanship by their installers, a homeowner would not be happy if upc damaged their property in the way they did our apartment complex and would expect it repaired and i'm sure UPC would not be too happy at installers undertaking poor work on their behalf which could affect their reputation.

After all cables do go bad and require replacement, we just ask you don't wreck the place and hang cables all over it.

Marcusm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Does a property owner have a right not to have a neighbour with a satellite dish? I can't see how they could claim that affects them.

They are not a "property owner", merely holder of a long lease. Most of those leases would have covenants permitting a leaseholder to require the freeholder (OMC or equivalent) to enforce the covenants against neighbours so yes it should be legally feasible.

Gatling

First of all I may have come across a crank ,apologies if I have ,
OK if the committee said OK guys and gals were thinking of getting a communal sky dish rather than 50 dishes all over the place and everybody agreed yeah great idea we want in ,and we will take down the dishes we bought ,I'd be quite happy a communal agreement,
Now I've checked with my landlord who checked his agreement there is no mention of satellite dishes or sky dishes in his paperwork ,
now my landlord is a professional landlord and well respected at that,
If somebody the decides they want to remove a dish or me from a balcony that's part of my rented apartment without landlord written permission and mine then the person who comes on to my balcony is a treat to my family and me there for will be treated as such and sent back where he came minus the help of a ladder or cherry picker ,now if this happened while me and my family were our as in been sneaky I'd have the person and persons involved charged with "larceny" theft is theft despite what any lease or lease hold says , all the above is purely hypothetical ,but it seems people think quoting leasehold leasehold that at people doesn't cut it,

I'll gladly wait for a judge to ask me nicely to move my dish, but no handyman has the legal right to take property that doesn't belong to him on the order of some committee.


Thank god I'm a hassle free tenant and UPC customer who's bill is all up to date and paid ,

peter_dublin

Gatling wrote: »

First of all I may have come across a crank ,apologies if I have ,
OK if the committee said OK guys and gals were thinking of getting a communal sky dish rather than 50 dishes all over the place and everybody agreed yeah great idea we want in ,and we will take down the dishes we bought ,I'd be quite happy a communal agreement,
Now I've checked with my landlord who checked his agreement there is no mention of satellite dishes or sky dishes in his paperwork ,
now my landlord is a professional landlord and well respected at that,
If somebody the decides they want to remove a dish or me from a balcony that's part of my rented apartment without landlord written permission and mine then the person who comes on to my balcony is a treat to my family and me there for will be treated as such and sent back where he came minus the help of a ladder or cherry picker ,now if this happened while me and my family were our as in been sneaky I'd have the person and persons involved charged with "larceny" theft is theft despite what any lease or lease hold says , all the above is purely hypothetical ,but it seems people think quoting leasehold leasehold that at people doesn't cut it,

I'll gladly wait for a judge to ask me nicely to move my dish, but no handyman has the legal right to take property that doesn't belong to him on the order of some committee.


Thank god I'm a hassle free tenant and UPC customer who's bill is all up to date and paid ,

Sorry this is just more of the same, first of all, its not yours or the landlords balcony, its the management companies, nothing will change that.

They don't need your written permission, they only need to notify you, as I know people who are a threat to you or your family generally do not arrive in cherry pickers, ladders or high vis gear and identification or do you challenge all service providers in and around the development.

It's as much thieft as it is you interferring with the management companies properties, they have a right to remove such items once it is promptly returned undamaged and your empty threats of violance against any possible agents of the management company are just that. No judge will side with you on that case.

The fact is this, your "professional" landlord signed a legally binding contract to purchase the leasehold on a apartment where the ownership of the physical building remains with the management company. It is not yours not his to attach items to, modify or in any way alter, by doing so you or he is in breach of the leasehold and the managment company is able to enforce their property ownership rights as any owner should be able to do so especially since the managment company is itself acting in the best interest of "all" owners and they agenda they agreed at the AGMs which your landloard may or may not attend.

This is just turning into a pointless circular argument full of pointless posturing. Thankfully I can go back to my Sky tv and surfing my UPC internet, both fully paid up and provided by the managment company as part of a overall upgrade of the development :-)

fasttalkerchat

Given that the apartment is the landlords for the next 1000 years it can be assumed that by the time it is returned to the management company the holes in the wall will be the least of their worries since the building will no longer be standing.
What they should be concerned about is that these silly rules will drive buyers and tenants away and they won't get their fees.

P_1

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Given that the apartment is the landlords for the next 1000 years it can be assumed that by the time it is returned to the management company the holes in the wall will be the least of their worries since the building will no longer be standing.
What they should be concerned about is that these silly rules will drive buyers and tenants away and they won't get their fees.

The way apartment sales work though is that the MC owns all the external walls and areas and the property owner owns all the internal walls and areas.

By that logic the MC has the right to say what can and can't be done to the external walls and areas.

peter_dublin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Given that the apartment is the landlords for the next 1000 years it can be assumed that by the time it is returned to the management company the holes in the wall will be the least of their worries since the building will no longer be standing.
What they should be concerned about is that these silly rules will drive buyers and tenants away and they won't get their fees.

Your right, you know what, F**K it, I always wanted a pink PVC door, i'm getting one. Do you think your house will be standing in a 1000 years, doubt it, do you treat it like sh**t and not worry about the "holes" in the walls or worry about selling it on and possibly driving buyers away as its the least of your worries. The apartment is not the landlords, the lease is the landlords, the building is and always has been the managment companies. You seem to have some issue with management companies and apartments, no one is forced to purchase an apartment and the fees referance is a non point. They are only silly rules because you don't agree with them, I personally don't want to live in a development that looks like a corpo block of flats with dishes, cabling and landry everywhere.

Marcusm

Gatling wrote: »

First of all I may have come across a crank ,apologies if I have ,
OK if the committee said OK guys and gals were thinking of getting a communal sky dish rather than 50 dishes all over the place and everybody agreed yeah great idea we want in ,and we will take down the dishes we bought ,I'd be quite happy a communal agreement,
Now I've checked with my landlord who checked his agreement there is no mention of satellite dishes or sky dishes in his paperwork ,
now my landlord is a professional landlord and well respected at that,
If somebody the decides they want to remove a dish or me from a balcony that's part of my rented apartment without landlord written permission and mine then the person who comes on to my balcony is a treat to my family and me there for will be treated as such and sent back where he came minus the help of a ladder or cherry picker ,now if this happened while me and my family were our as in been sneaky I'd have the person and persons involved charged with "larceny" theft is theft despite what any lease or lease hold says , all the above is purely hypothetical ,but it seems people think quoting leasehold leasehold that at people doesn't cut it,

I'll gladly wait for a judge to ask me nicely to move my dish, but no handyman has the legal right to take property that doesn't belong to him on the order of some committee.


Thank god I'm a hassle free tenant and UPC customer who's bill is all up to date and paid ,

You're seeing it from your perspective and I can understand your concept of "threat" or fear. However, it's perfectly correct that your landlord won't necessarily see it in his documentation as he has no rights over the outside of the walls of the apartment or duplex or whatever. His rights cease a couple of centimetres into the plasterwork. He/you have no more right to drill holes int he external wall than any Tom, Dick or Harry walking along the street.

With respect to the balcony, if this is truly a balcony stuck on the wall (and not a terrace where the floor is on top of the downstairs apartment), his rights (from which yours derive) are no more than a licence to use it, he doesn't even have a lease over the relevant land. Irrespective, the licence (which may be part of the master lease agreement) will specify that nothing is to be affixed to the balcony or any part of it.

These things are badly thought out in that a lot of developers took NTL/UPC onboard without thinking of long term planning. OMCs will now need to do that and the best way forward is to make it clear how easy and simple it is to solve it for everyone rather than stringing up 50 dishes which will undoubtedly have to be removed in the heel of the hunt. Either because the OMC objects or the building controls people (if they ever do their job) objects, or the rubbish installation causes water ingression and damage to the fabric of the building.

fasttalkerchat

peter_dublin wrote: »

Your right, you know what, F**K it, I always wanted a pink PVC door, i'm getting one.

As long as you replace it with a neutral one when you sell the house or return it to the LL to be let again I don't see the problem.
In Ireland we have a serious problem of creating boring housing estates that all look the same and people don't give a **** about where they live because every house is the same.
Which house from the two below would attract model neighbours:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9zwRLcbbXJ0/UATXQow4aCI/AAAAAAAAP4Y/Edp03cQZrs4/s1600/contemporary-home.jpg
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51191000/jpg/_51191407_north_kest_homes226.jpg

Marcusm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Given that the apartment is the landlords for the next 1000 years it can be assumed that by the time it is returned to the management company the holes in the wall will be the least of their worries since the building will no longer be standing.
What they should be concerned about is that these silly rules will drive buyers and tenants away and they won't get their fees.

Crap holes in the wall drilled by people who won't be around to fix them leads to water ingression which freezes and expands and ultimately creates bigger holes, leaks through the building and much bigger bills than agitating to have the satellite dish sorted properly for the whole block. I've had to deal with this and, as a leaseholder, pick up part of the bill. Ultimately, if it can be traced back to one leaseholder (or anyone who buys from them), they will have to pick up the whole bill as it arises from their negligence.

It's actually easier and cheaper for it all to be done centrally (esp if UPC type cables are already in place).

Marcusm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

As long as you replace it with a neutral one when you sell the house or return it to the LL to be let again I don't see the problem.
In Ireland we have a serious problem of creating boring housing estates that all look the same and people don't give a **** about where they live because every house is the same.
Which house from the two below would attract model neighbours:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9zwRLcbbXJ0/UATXQow4aCI/AAAAAAAAP4Y/Edp03cQZrs4/s1600/contemporary-home.jpg
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51191000/jpg/_51191407_north_kest_homes226.jpg

But that's not an equal comparison. Peter suggested one person in a block changing their colour which will make it look gick in the midst of what is otherwise supposed to have been designed and thus more like the first example, which I suspect is the one you prefer. People who buy apartments or duplexes need to realise that they buy the inside not the outside. If they want individual expression then buy somewhere without some requirement for uniformity.

peter_dublin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

As long as you replace it with a neutral one when you sell the house or return it to the LL to be let again I don't see the problem.
In Ireland we have a serious problem of creating boring housing estates that all look the same and people don't give a **** about where they live because every house is the same.
Which house from the two below would attract model neighbours:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9zwRLcbbXJ0/UATXQow4aCI/AAAAAAAAP4Y/Edp03cQZrs4/s1600/contemporary-home.jpg
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51191000/jpg/_51191407_north_kest_homes226.jpg

Really, thats your argument, one off housing attracts a better quality of person, aside for the fact that the first looks like it was built from what ever was on special that day in the builders providers there is so many materials used never mind the Swift. The second is a english housing estate or somewhere in the UK generally so unless I'm moving to India or the UK it's a mute point. I travel a lot to eastern europe and I call tell you that one off housing does not equal quality, social status or taste in a person.

I've choosen to ignore the fact you also seem to think it is acceptable to do around replacing front doors as well once they are returned. Getting off track now, point is you cannot replace what is not yours, door included.

fasttalkerchat

My point was that stifling individuality will make everything look like one of the concrete jungle blocks over in the UK or Russia.
There should be limits, especially when you're in a city centre but I can't see a problem with a different colour PVC door, provided that it is back to normal for the next person so that the resale/rental value isn't affected.

To bring this back to the original problem...
Having satellite TV is a perfectly reasonable expectation for anyone in Ireland and if a third party has an issue they need to provide another solution. The shared dish and pre-installed cabling is a great way to go about it. If that doesn't happen and tenants are going to be prosecuted or have dishes removed people will move out and the block will be half empty or filled with anyone who will tolerate it. That can't be good for anyone.