Dublin City Council B#*turds

foggy_lad

These useless bastards have hit a new low!

they have brought a 90 year old through the courts because the poor auld dear had a satellite dish in the wrong place! Her family explained that she didn't understand fully about the warnings and letters she got but DCC were out for Blood! They wanted their pound of flesh! The poor woman had been given the satellite system for her 90th birthday! hope those pricks in the council sleep well tonight!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0929/731102-satellite-dish/

Owryan

Why should age be a defence against being prosecuted

fleet_admiral

Will she be watching them nudey films?

The Backwards Man

I blame the useless so and so that put it up there. Nothing worse than a dish on the front of a house, usually accompanied with the cable running loose down the wall and in through a window

Uncle Ben

foggy_lad wrote: »

These useless bastards have hit a new low!

they have brought a 90 year old through the courts because the poor auld dear had a satellite dish in the wrong place! Her family explained that she didn't understand fully about the warnings and letters she got but DCC were out for Blood! They wanted their pound of flesh! The poor woman had been given the satellite system for her 90th birthday! hope those pricks in the council sleep well tonight!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0929/731102-satellite-dish/

I blame the person who made the initial complaint myself. I'm sure DCC have far better things to do than hitting on people with satellite dishes. Once the complaint was made however they were obliged to act. If the alleged offender refused to comply they are bound to follow it through.

Moved to Dublin City forum. Please read their charter before posting.

jimmii

Seems perfectly fair why should one person be allowed to have their dish there and others not? I don't see how this is them getting their piece of flesh that €1,500 (and then some) is all gone on court costs etc.

Muahahaha

Dumb move by Dublin City Council and the Irish courts for their ruling. This issue had already been ruled on in the European Courts in Strasbourg who ruled that having a satellite dish is a human right. Their ruling covered tenants in rented accommodation, whether it was public housing or private landlords.

Two tenants in Sweden took their government to court after they were evicted by their landlord in a dispute over a dish.
The couple installed one of the dishes on their rented property but the landlord ordered them to take it down. They refused and were later thrown out of the property.
But European judges ruled that the Swedish government had failed in its obligation to protect the couple’s right to receive information. It found that satellite dishes come under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
In its guidance, Britain’s equalities watchdog suggested that a disabled tenant who received transmissions of religious services held overseas would have their rights to freedom of religion breached if their landlord banned satellite dishes.
The European Commission’s Internal Market Commissioner Frits Bolkestein said: ‘The right to use a satellite dish [is] one of the many concrete benefits for European consumers of the free movement of goods and services within the internal market.
‘Satellite dishes are an increasingly popular tool for receiving multiple services via satellite: they facilitate mutual exchanges between our various cultures by overcoming national borders, and familiarise the general public with the new remote communications technologies. Their use must therefore be free from any unjustified obstacle.’

If the 90 year old woman wants she can appeal this all the way to Europe. Where I can only guess that she will win as EU law trumps Irish law and a precedent has already been set in Sweden.

As to why the womans solicitors and DCC didn't know about this EU court ruling I don't know. But it's there for all to see.

zl1whqvjs75cdy

That'll set her back a lot more than 1500 quid.

Paulzx

Muahahaha wrote: »

Dumb move by Dublin City Council and the Irish courts for their ruling. This issue had already been ruled on in the European Courts in Strasbourg who ruled that having a satellite dish is a human right. Their ruling covered tenants in rented accommodation, whether it was public housing or private landlords.



If the 90 year old woman wants she can appeal this all the way to Europe. Where I can only guess that she will win as EU law trumps Irish law and a precedent has already been set in Sweden.

As to why the womans solicitors and DCC didn't know about this EU court ruling I don't know. But it's there for all to see.

Because DCC haven't stopped her having a satellite dish. They've stopped her having one that is in a position that is in contravention of planning laws. There is nothing stopping her putting one in a position on her property that is within the planning laws.


And I've heard it all now. A satellite dish is a "human right"?

RHJ

This post has been deleted.

L1011

Muahahaha wrote: »

As to why the womans solicitors and DCC didn't know about this EU court ruling I don't know. But it's there for all to see.

I'm pretty sure they both knew, and knew it better than you at that.

She is not being prevented from having a satellite dish - she is being prevented from having it in a location that breaks planning law. It is extremely unlikely that she is unable to have a dish elsewhere that does not break planning law and if she does, she can apply for planning permission for it - I have dishes in work that require, and have, planning from DCC.

Sky and their contractors need to be held responsible for their constant contravention of the law to save time and money. Many of my neighbours have illegal chimney or front wall mounted dishes due to the direction of the houses and the fact that the correct brackets and cabling to same would cost extra. My dish is installed legally to the rear.

You've a "human right" to housing but that doesn't allow you to build a house wherever you want.

strandroad

Her family got the dish for her, in their 50s judging by the photo, so this whole 90 year old aspect is just to make it sound worse. They installed it wrong and did not react to correspondence what was the court supposed to do?

Paulzx

L1011 wrote: »

Sky and their contractors need to be held responsible for their constant contravention of the law to save time and money. .

This is the bit that bugs the S**t out of me. The installers know well that they are placing the dishes in contravention of planning laws but they don't give a damn. If the contractors were forced to place them legally it would solve a lot of hassle later on

Paulzx

RHJ wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Then apply for planning permission.

deandean

Well done DCC for enforcing the planning laws.

Uncle Ben

Paulzx wrote: »

This is the bit that bugs the S**t out of me. The installers know well that they are placing the dishes in contravention of planning laws but they don't give a damn. If the contractors were forced to place them legally it would solve a lot of hassle later on

I'm sure the daughter said today on Joe that the family put up the fta dish.

delahuntv

Family bought a cheapy dish.

Mother got numerous letters, 2 visits and enforcement notice.

Family members claim they didn't know about the letters, visits and enforcement notice.

Utter bull. - And the judge knows it, hence he "advised" them to come to agreement.


If there was even a slightest issue about hiw dcc went about this it would have been thrown out. DCC did everything correctly and even gave ectra time and extra visit

Family just couldn't be arsed paying professional installer in first place. Shame on the family for making their mother go through this.

uck51js9zml2yt

My dish is on the wall at the back of my garden and the cable does over the roof to where the tv is.

I need er knew about the planning laws just thought it looked naff on the front wall

Arbiter of Good Taste

I don't think this thread is going the way the OP intended

overshoot

there is a thread on this in the satellite forum. Daughter was on Joe Duffy and someone complained to the council. This is one area of enforcement they dont tend to actively peruse, but once it is raised by a third party DCC didnt really have a choice.
I think its safe to assume the dish was recently erected too, as after 7 years (+holidays) DCC cannot make her take it down. For the record, this does not mean its is planning compliant after 7 years!

Daughter said they have freedom of information request in as to who complained, but I imagine this wont be released in the interests of 'keeping the peace'

L1011

There is no legitimate reason for them to know who complained.

markpb

overshoot wrote: »

Daughter said they have freedom of information request in as to who complained, but I imagine this wont be released in the interests of 'keeping the peace'

L1011 wrote: »

There is no legitimate reason for them to know who complained.

And even if they did, what good would it do them?

Muahahaha

Paulzx wrote: »

And I've heard it all now. A satellite dish is a "human right"?

Thats what the EU courts ruled in Strasbourg in 2011. The ruling was to do with two immigrants to Sweden who wanted to receive religious services in their own language. The human right aspect refers to being able to receive religious services, the satellite is merely the conduit to do that.

Gumbo

foggy_lad wrote: »

These useless bastards have hit a new low!

they have brought a 90 year old through the courts because the poor auld dear had a satellite dish in the wrong place! Her family explained that she didn't understand fully about the warnings and letters she got but DCC were out for Blood! They wanted their pound of flesh! The poor woman had been given the satellite system for her 90th birthday! hope those pricks in the council sleep well tonight!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0929/731102-satellite-dish/

Somebody made a complaint to DCC about the dish, hers and a few more on the same street.

• She got a letter in February outlining that there was a breach.
• She ignored that.
• She got a visit from an Inspector who explained what happens when these are ignored.
• She got a further letter outlining that it has to be moved, and explained legal proceedings can be made.
• The Inspector sat with her for 30 minutes and explained exactly what she needed to do to avoid further letters and to comply.
• She ignored those again.
  
• Once a certain time frame passes, DCC have to pass it onto the legal team. Its law and it has to be enacted. (if you want that changed, lobby the government).
  
• Once it went to the Private Sector legal team, there was no possible way to reverse the proceedings.
  
• DCC waived their costs and the €1500 just about covers the Legal team.

She wanted to fight it, she wanted her day in court. DCC asked to come to an agreement with her before court but she refused, she took the risk and lost, that's the way it goes.

Her son in law installed the dish, so we cannot blame SKY etc here

overshoot wrote: »

Daughter said they have freedom of information request in as to who complained, but I imagine this wont be released in the interests of 'keeping the peace'

DCC will not release the info. Its not the first time somebody has lodged a FOI for the complainant details to be released and DCC have always kept them confidential, and all judges seem to agree.

Teyla Emmagan

Am delighted to see the planning laws enforced, it seems to happen rarely enough!!

This woman and her family were very stupid, and I have no sympathy for them.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

Am delighted to see the planning laws enforced, it seems to happen rarely enough!!

This woman and her family were very stupid, and I have no sympathy for them.

Less stupid, and more like they were cocky. Thought the laws didn't apply to them.

Uncle Ben

kceire wrote: »

Somebody made a complaint to DCC about the dish, hers and a few more on the same street.

• She got a letter in February outlining that there was a breach.
• She ignored that.
• She got a visit from an Inspector who explained what happens when these are ignored.
• She got a further letter outlining that it has to be moved, and explained legal proceedings can be made.
• The Inspector sat with her for 30 minutes and explained exactly what she needed to do to avoid further letters and to comply.
• She ignored those again.
  
• Once a certain time frame passes, DCC have to pass it onto the legal team. Its law and it has to be enacted. (if you want that changed, lobby the government).
  
• Once it went to the Private Sector legal team, there was no possible way to reverse the proceedings.
  
• DCC waived their costs and the €1500 just about covers the Legal team.

She wanted to fight it, she wanted her day in court. DCC asked to come to an agreement with her before court but she refused, she took the risk and lost, that's the way it goes.

Her son in law installed the dish, so we cannot blame SKY etc here



DCC will not release the info. Its not the first time somebody has lodged a FOI for the complainant details to be released and DCC have always kept them confidential, and all judges seem to agree.

If the complainant requests anonymity they are obliged to respect it.

GerardKeating

deandean wrote: »

Well done DCC for enforcing the planning laws.

And one report today, said when she got back to her car, it was clamped...

GerardKeating

Uncle Ben wrote: »

I blame the person who made the initial complaint myself. I'm sure DCC have far better things to do than hitting on people with satellite dishes. Once the complaint was made however they were obliged to act. If the alleged offender refused to comply they are bound to follow it through.

So if someone had a party next door to you, blaring out music at 3am, you would NOT complain?

Some saw someone break the law, and reported them, what's wrong with that?

BowWow

kceire wrote: »

Somebody made a complaint to DCC about the dish, hers and a few more on the same street.

• She got a letter in February outlining that there was a breach.
• She ignored that.
• She got a visit from an Inspector who explained what happens when these are ignored.
• She got a further letter outlining that it has to be moved, and explained legal proceedings can be made.
• The Inspector sat with her for 30 minutes and explained exactly what she needed to do to avoid further letters and to comply.
• She ignored those again.
  
• Once a certain time frame passes, DCC have to pass it onto the legal team. Its law and it has to be enacted. (if you want that changed, lobby the government).
  
• Once it went to the Private Sector legal team, there was no possible way to reverse the proceedings.
  
• DCC waived their costs and the €1500 just about covers the Legal team.

She wanted to fight it, she wanted her day in court. DCC asked to come to an agreement with her before court but she refused, she took the risk and lost, that's the way it goes.

Her son in law installed the dish, so we cannot blame SKY etc here



DCC will not release the info. Its not the first time somebody has lodged a FOI for the complainant details to be released and DCC have always kept them confidential, and all judges seem to agree.

Good post - I also heard the daughter on the first Liveline program state that they told the Council they would take it down, but did not get around to it in time...

Gumbo

Uncle Ben wrote: »

If the complainant requests anonymity they are obliged to respect it.

Nothing to do with the complainant. Their details will always be withheld by DCC even if they don't ask to be kept secret.

GerardKeating wrote: »

And one report today, said when she got back to her car, it was clamped...

This is also true. It was the daughters car reportedly.

BowWow wrote: »

Good post - I also heard the daughter on the first Liveline program state that they told the Council they would take it down, but did not get around to it in time...

They had ample time to do it. These cases happen every second Tuesday, for some reason this one has blown out for water. The woman knew what she was doing. She contacted RTE before the court date and arranged for interviews to be held before the court case happened.

FloatingVoter

GerardKeating wrote: »

So if someone had a party next door to you, blaring out music at 3am, you would NOT complain?

Some saw someone break the law, and reported them, what's wrong with that?

What has a noisy party got to do with an inanimate satellite dish ?

You're in the wrong thread.

Uncle Ben

GerardKeating wrote: »

So if someone had a party next door to you, blaring out music at 3am, you would NOT complain?

Some saw someone break the law, and reported them, what's wrong with that?

I'm not condoning the action. I'm making the case which is that the council needed a complaint to act.
I actually support the council's stance. They investigated a complaint, notices were served on 6 or 7 persons who were in breach, 6 people complied,one didn't goes on Joe looking for sympathy, gets hit with legal fees and then OP starts thread here and blames DCC!

bucketybuck

foggy_lad wrote: »

These useless bastards have hit a new low!

they have brought a 90 year old through the courts because the poor auld dear had a satellite dish in the wrong place! Her family explained that she didn't understand fully about the warnings and letters she got but DCC were out for Blood! They wanted their pound of flesh! The poor woman had been given the satellite system for her 90th birthday! hope those pricks in the council sleep well tonight!

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0929/731102-satellite-dish/

Frothing outrage from the easily offended has hit a new low if you ask me, who cares about the actual facts when you are moaning about "the man".

CruelCoin

Muahahaha wrote: »

Dumb move by Dublin City Council and the Irish courts for their ruling. This issue had already been ruled on in the European Courts in Strasbourg who ruled that having a satellite dish is a human right. Their ruling covered tenants in rented accommodation, whether it was public housing or private landlords.



If the 90 year old woman wants she can appeal this all the way to Europe. Where I can only guess that she will win as EU law trumps Irish law and a precedent has already been set in Sweden.

As to why the womans solicitors and DCC didn't know about this EU court ruling I don't know. But it's there for all to see.

No precendent has been set at all.

The example you gave us was a dispute over the existence of a dish, as opposed to the location of a dish as in the OP's example.

fleet_admiral

I live right facing her, the latest thing we have now is warning letters from the council about our bins being left out after they have been emptied. We have all been threatened with a €3000 fine if we dont take them in straight after the truck empties them.

markpb

fleet_admiral wrote: »

I live right facing her, the latest thing we have now is warning letters from the council about our bins being left out after they have been emptied. We have all been threatened with a €3000 fine if we dont take them in straight after the truck empties them.

Can you post a photo of the letter?

GerardKeating

FloatingVoter wrote: »

What has a noisy party got to do with an inanimate satellite dish ?

You're in the wrong thread.

No, It's same basic principle, some one does something wrong (Dish in wrong place, Noisy Party, Litters) and someone reports it.

Mesrine65

fleet_admiral wrote: »

I live right facing her, the latest thing we have now is warning letters from the council about our bins being left out after they have been emptied. We have all been threatened with a €3000 fine if we dont take them in straight after the truck empties them.

Ridiculous...

What if the members of the household are all at work when the bins are emptied?

Gumbo

Mesrine65 wrote: »

Ridiculous...

What if the members of the household are all at work when the bins are emptied?

You think it's true?

delahuntv

fleet_admiral wrote: »

I live right facing her, the latest thing we have now is warning letters from the council about our bins being left out after they have been emptied. We have all been threatened with a €3000 fine if we dont take them in straight after the truck empties them.

Total and utter rubbish in the way you have written - however if you leave them out all the time and thus causing obstruction, it can be enforced and you can be fined under the litter act.

Once they are taken back in on the day they are collected there would be no issue. (i used to live in ashgrove)

Arbiter of Good Taste

kceire wrote: »

You think it's true?

Nope. I call BS on it