Estate House Rules legality

fromdublin

Dear legal helpers,

Mine is a question about the legal validity of 'House Rules' versus personal freedom as described in the law. Living in my house that I own, but which is part of an estate of multiple houses, the Management Company is about to issue a list of House Rules that is to be voted in by majority of households on the estate. The residents all own their own houses and the management company is only there to manage upkeep of rubbish, road surface, street lights and then landscaping of common areas.

Some of the proposed rules fly straight in the face of private property law and personal freedom of movement and expression. So I wonder whether they hold any water whatsoever and whether they are simply an expression of social agreement rather than rules to be adhered to under threat of penalty of some sort. Such proposed rules include:

- Children cannot play outside in the common areas or on the street (with or without supervision).
* The council has stated that these areas are actually public and that local bye laws apply to the use of these areas.

- Residents are not allowed to have pets.
* The council has stated that the only local bye law that applies is that dogs must come to heel when called.

- Residents are not allowed to have parties or make loud noises, unless the Management Company has been notified and has approved the party / noise making.
* Beyond anything, this is utterly childish and ridiculous for grown up people to tell each other as neighbours. But anyway.

- All front gardens must be uniform according to one strict design.

- No party lights (fairy lights) can be hung on the outside of the house.

- No posters or non-uniform designs can be hung in the windows.

What do you think the validity of House Rules is for our estate versus what I am actually allowed to do on my own property without interference from neighbours? Would it constitute as harassment if my neighbours would reprimand me over the breaking of any of these House Rules and tell me what I can and cannot do on my own property and in public space?

Thank you in advance for any thoughts and facts you can share!

seamus

It really depends on whether your ownership of the property is freehold or leasehold.

If the property is leasehold, then ownership of the property is subject to the terms of the leasehold agreement, of which the house rules form a part.

If the property is freehold, then the applicability of any house rules end at the boundary of your property.

Typically apartments/duplexes are leasehold and houses are freehold, but it's not always the case.

As such, any rules requiring "approval" for parties, prohibiting pets or dictating what you can and cannot hang in or on your property, are not applicable to freehold property owners. Because these are matters of personal freedom, you as an individual cannot be bound by house rules that other people have agreed to. The management company would have to obtain your explicit agreement, in writing, to be bound by the house rules, before they could levy any fines on you for breaching them.

Stuff like kids playing outside is probably trickier. The management company can say this is prohibited. And make noise about it. But again, unless you have explicitly agreed to it, then their only recourse is to try and bring a private prosecution against your kids for trespass. Which naturally would be laughed out of the solicitor's office.

drunkmonkey

What penalty can they give you, the cards are in your hand your paying the management fee. Tell them to get stuffed your doing nothing illegal.

Caranica

Did you sign a document or contract that has a clause that you will comply? If so it's a bit late to ask these questions now.

seamus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What penalty can they give you, the cards are in your hand your paying the management fee. Tell them to get stuffed your doing nothing illegal.

Penalties usually take the form of a fine which is added to your management fee.

Cheshire Cat

Talk to the other owners and persuade them to attend the AGM and vote No.
If they don't get a majority nothing changes. I bet a lot of your neighbours don't even realise what is being proposed.

fromdublin

Thank you, this is brilliant. As we are freeholders and as we never signed an agreement to be bound by their House Rules, the Management Company has absolutely no way of forcing their particular rules upon us. Happy days!

crkcvnirl

fromdublin wrote: »

Dear legal helpers,

Mine is a question about the legal validity of 'House Rules' versus personal freedom as described in the law. Living in my house that I own, but which is part of an estate of multiple houses, the Management Company is about to issue a list of House Rules that is to be voted in by majority of households on the estate. The residents all own their own houses and the management company is only there to manage upkeep of rubbish, road surface, street lights and then landscaping of common areas.

Some of the proposed rules fly straight in the face of private property law and personal freedom of movement and expression. So I wonder whether they hold any water whatsoever and whether they are simply an expression of social agreement rather than rules to be adhered to under threat of penalty of some sort. Such proposed rules include:

- Children cannot play outside in the common areas or on the street (with or without supervision).
* The council has stated that these areas are actually public and that local bye laws apply to the use of these areas.

- Residents are not allowed to have pets.
* The council has stated that the only local bye law that applies is that dogs must come to heel when called.

- Residents are not allowed to have parties or make loud noises, unless the Management Company has been notified and has approved the party / noise making.
* Beyond anything, this is utterly childish and ridiculous for grown up people to tell each other as neighbours. But anyway.

- All front gardens must be uniform according to one strict design.

- No party lights (fairy lights) can be hung on the outside of the house.

- No posters or non-uniform designs can be hung in the windows.

What do you think the validity of House Rules is for our estate versus what I am actually allowed to do on my own property without interference from neighbours? Would it constitute as harassment if my neighbours would reprimand me over the breaking of any of these House Rules and tell me what I can and cannot do on my own property and in public space?

Thank you in advance for any thoughts and facts you can share!

If it's an estate of privately owned houses, I'd imagine that it's just a residents association type of arrangement. They volunteer and collect moneys to cut grass etc. As for passing a motion to ban parties etc that really hasn't got a legal standing. There's probably some sour person that's driving all of the loony rules.


That all being said have you a copy of your deed of sale/purchase? Before you go to the next residents meeting have a read for anything releveant that might be in or not in the documented.



Some people just love being a pain for pains sake!


Best of luck.

setanta1000

Where is this estate?

I'd like to know so I can make sure I never buy a house there!!!

What a ridiculous set of "rules".

Mod
Pls do not identify the estate

cruizer101

fromdublin wrote: »

- Children cannot play outside in the common areas or on the street (with or without supervision).
* The council has stated that these areas are actually public and that local bye laws apply to the use of these areas.

Isn't the main purpose of common areas like greens to be a space where kids can play??

Have you talked to you neighbours about this, are many in agreement.
Seems like a crazy set of rules.
I'd be amazed if many were in support of them.

seamus

crkcvnirl wrote: »

If it's an estate of privately owned houses, I'd imagine that it's just a residents association type of arrangement. They volunteer and collect moneys to cut grass etc. As for passing a montion to ban parties etc that really hasn't got a legal standing. There's probably some sour person that's driving all of the loony rules.

Not necessarily.

(Most) Newer estates are obliged by law to set up management companies to take care of the common areas. This law allows (in fact, obliges) the company to levy management fees on all unit owners to pay towards that upkeep.

They do have the power to take legal action against unit owners for non-payment.

Implementation of house rules and the levying of fines is a separate thing though. An individual cannot be bound by any set of rules that they haven't personally agreed to - either directly, or indirectly through a leasehold agreement or contract.

fromdublin

Indeed, it is one or two houses of sour grapes that are trying to tell the whole street how they should be living. Not surprisingly, these people don't have children themselves, nor pets and they never have parties. We talk a lot about this among the (other) residents but because there has not been a clear picture about whether or not we are or would be legally bound to these rules - up until now - most have simply accepted the idea that these rules were going to be binding.

The contract we signed at the purchase of the house does not regulate the relationship between members and the management company. The residents' meeting would have been the moment and the place the House Rules would have been explicitly accepted as being binding - a very sneaky way of this one particular person to try and impose his will upon the whole street.

It is also a matter of people not wishing to speak up or be singled out as trouble makers - not me, I stand up a speak up but most say: "Ah, it won't come to any fines or legal action". That is how a lot of oppression happens in society, ultimately.

Thanks again for the advice. Knowledge is power eh.

gctest50

Someone is getting notions from Home Owners Associations in de America


https://www.google.com/search?&q=hoa+horror+stories

Gatling

Pretty standard house rules for developments with management companies for the most part

doolox

This is how prohibition came in the US.Most moderately sensible people thought it would not apply to beers and wines and were shocked when the severity of the actual laws were eventually revealed.

These silly rules rules need to be stamped out immediately or you will have an entity imposing charges on you at the the drop of a hat.

Its bad enough having councils, cities and nations trying to rob ordinary people at every little excuse without having little dictators hounding you out for extra money to enrich themselves and their cronies at your expense.

Fight this with all your might.

Better still if there is a solicitor in the estate who can handle the technical side of things.

I would also get the local councillors involved at an early stage.

BronsonTB

Could do with enforcement of a few 'House Rules' where I live.

American format is OTT but a few common sense rules being actually applied would be better for everyone.

wonski

What if one of the residents already have a dog?

Is the management company going to request the owner to put it down or what?

fromdublin

fromdublin wrote: »

Indeed, it is one or two houses of sour grapes that are trying to tell the whole street how they should be living. Not surprisingly, these people don't have children themselves, nor pets and they never have parties. We talk a lot about this among the (other) residents but because there has not been a clear picture about whether or not we are or would be legally bound to these rules - up until now - most have simply accepted the idea that these rules were going to be binding.

The contract we signed at the purchase of the house does not regulate the relationship between members and the management company. The residents' meeting would have been the moment and the place the House Rules would have been explicitly accepted as being binding - a very sneaky way of this one particular person to try and impose his will upon the whole street.

It is also a matter of people not wishing to speak up or be singled out as trouble makers - not me, I stand up a speak up but most say: "Ah, it won't come to any fines or legal action". That is how a lot of oppression happens in society, ultimately.

Thanks again for the advice. Knowledge is power eh.

Horrible neighbours.

I suggest you educate your other neighbours and ensure they know not to agree to such rules and then arrange with your decent neighbours celebrate your continued liberties by holding a street party on the green, with a bouncy castle, petting zoo and upbeat dance music. Make it an annual event.

I’m 100% serious.

People like that get notions because they grew up living in a house on a street as opposed to a truly supportive neighbourhood. They know no better, so time to give them a friendly lesson in how to be neighbourly.

Purple Sheep

seamus wrote: »

It really depends on whether your ownership of the property is freehold or leasehold.

If the property is leasehold, then ownership of the property is subject to the terms of the leasehold agreement, of which the house rules form a part.

If the property is freehold, then the applicability of any house rules end at the boundary of your property.

That's interesting. I went back through the documents I got when buying the (freehold) house in an estate and the folio document has something in it, "The property is subject to rights, covenants and conditions relating to the use and enjoyment of the property." that I always assumed relate to there being a management company and a set of house rules (which I did read before signing and are no way as stringent as OP's!). So in this case, freehold or not, even within boundaries I would think the rules are expected to apply?

seamus

Purple Sheep wrote: »

That's interesting. I went back through the documents I got when buying the (freehold) house in an estate and the folio document has something in it, "The property is subject to rights, covenants and conditions relating to the use and enjoyment of the property." that I always assumed relate to there being a management company and a set of house rules (which I did read before signing and are no way as stringent as OP's!). So in this case, freehold or not, even within boundaries I would think the rules are expected to apply?

Specifically in your case, I don't know. That clause sounds too generic - any conditions & covenants would need to be otherwise specified, it couldn't just be assumed that the house rules form part of the conditions. Generally, yes it's possible that a freeholder could be bound to house rules of a management company in this way, but it would need to be called out more specifically in the folio document.

When I bought an apartment I do recall specifically the leasehold agreement including something relating to the leaseholder's obligation to adhere to conditions that may be set out by the management company.

jimmycrackcorm

Gatling wrote:

Pretty standard house rules for developments with management companies for the most part

Only when signing up. I remember reading a previous case where someone was in the same position and couldn't be forced to be bound to the MC introducing retrospective rules.

Carawaystick

seamus wrote: »

Generally, yes it's possible that a freeholder could be bound to house rules of a management company in this way, but it would need to be called out more specifically in the folio document.

How would the children of freeholders be bound to rules a freeholder may have agreed to ?

seamus

Carawaystick wrote: »

How would the children of freeholders be bound to rules a freeholder may have agreed to ?

The freeholder could be sanctioned for permitting their children to act contrary to the rules.

Peregrinus

seamus wrote: »

The freeholder could be sanctioned for permitting their children to act contrary to the rules.

Well, that depends. Suppose the rule is "no children to play on the green".

The freeholder's right may be limited by covenants, etc, regarding how he can use his property, but the green isn't his property. "No children to play on the green" is not a covenant affecting the use or enjoyment of the freeholder's property.

And what if children who are not the children , guests, etc of a freeholder are playing on the green? Against whom can you enforce the "no children to play on the green" rule?

fromdublin

With Management Companies and their House Rules becoming a standard in new builds, this sort of issue will become more and more commonplace. In the end, law is there to be interpreted and applied with common sense - fining and suing parents of children for the children playing on a green is a gross waste of resources of police and courts and I should think any judge would want to see proof of reasonable attempts at common sense resolution of the conflict before spending time of such a case. If anything, I should think street law will be applied before any actual legal action is taken, leading to quite a nasty, aggressive atmosphere.

Ghekko

Don't sign a thing. These type of people are to be ignored, trying to control the estate. The nerve of them. I know in our estate we have a mgmt company and residents association. The only 'rule' we have is to give money for grass cutting, which we all comply with as none of us want to mow it. Other than that I'd be telling anyone where to shove their rules. I'd go as far as getting a cat!

stinkbomb

Gatling wrote: »

Pretty standard house rules for developments with management companies for the most part

On what planet? MA has zero jurisdiction and should be told to shove their rules up their collective asses. If I lived there I would go out and get a pet, make my children play outside all day long, and have many many parties. Just in spite!


They have no legal right to set any of these rules.

StupidLikeAFox

Ignore the lot, how are they planning on enforcing this if they do bring it in?

"Hello garda, I don't want to alarm you but there is a child currently playing on the green and the man two doors up had a dog in his garden send help at once!"

Peregrinus

fromdublin wrote: »

With Management Companies and their House Rules becoming a standard in new builds, this sort of issue will become more and more commonplace. In the end, law is there to be interpreted and applied with common sense - fining and suing parents of children for the children playing on a green is a gross waste of resources of police and courts and I should think any judge would want to see proof of reasonable attempts at common sense resolution of the conflict before spending time of such a case. If anything, I should think street law will be applied before any actual legal action is taken, leading to quite a nasty, aggressive atmosphere.

The fact that estate rules may be binding doesn't mean that the guards will enforce them. This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. It's up to the management company to enforce them, ultimately through court action.

GM228

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact that estate rules may be binding doesn't mean that the guards will enforce them. This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. It's up to the management company to enforce them, ultimately through court action.

But, even via civil channels how do you enforce this in relation to the actions of children?

Parents are not ordinarily vicariously liable for the actions of their children save in very rare circumstances such as tortious acts when directed, authorised or ratified by the parent or there is an employer/employee type of control relationship.

Peregrinus

I agree. I think a "no kids playing on the green" rule is all but unenforceable, in practical terms.

stinkbomb

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact that estate rules may be binding doesn't mean that the guards will enforce them. This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. It's up to the management company to enforce them, ultimately through court action.

No court is going to rule that children can't play outside in front of their own houses, even if a management company was stupid enough to spend money trying to sue their own membership for letting their children play outside!

fromdublin

OK, so after having received all of your very helpful assistance I have compiled a flyer to be distributed to my neighbours, the residents of the estate. It would be great if you could have a look and let me know whether you think any part of it is incorrect, not according to how the law works or a misinterpretation of what you have communicated to me regarding Management Company Rules versus law and bye-law. Thank you!

---

FELLOW RESIDENTS OF XXXX: With the upcoming Residents Meeting and a voting on House Rules, it is of the utmost importance to the integrity of your rights and freedoms that you be informed correctly on the legal validity and power of Estate Management Company House Rules.

House Rules only apply to common areas managed by the Management Company. They do not apply to your private property – unless you sign an explicit written agreement for them to do so. Management companies may need rules by law but the only rule really needed is that residents should pay their management company fees. Any other rules are infringement on personal freedom and your choice of lifestyle. Unless you wish to be bound by other people's ideas of how you should love your life, do not sign any rules documents or bind yourself to them in writing.

Our houses are freeholds. As such the applicability of any house rules ends at the boundary of our properties. This is an important point to be aware of. Especially since the contract we signed at the purchase of the house does not regulate the relationship between members and the management company. Be aware that you cannot be forced to be bound to the Management Company introducing retrospective rules.
The Management Company would have to obtain our explicit agreement, in writing, for us to be bound by the house rules, before they could levy any fines on us for breaching them. Your driveway, front and back yard, house facade and inside of your house are private property and therefore no rules of the Management Company can apply to them, nor is it a "public place" as interpreted in legislation, unless you have signed away your rights. Even if a set of House Rules was part of the original contract you signed upon purchasing the house, no additional rules can be imposed on you unless explicitly agreed to by yourself.

No permission need be obtained for any activities other than activities defined by national or local law requiring permission - which should be sought with the council in any case, never with the Management Company.

If you do end up agreeing to any new House Rules pertaining to limitations of personal freedom, national laws and local bye-laws outweigh any rules set by individuals or corporations regardless.

With regards to dogs needing to be on leads or not, our Council has made it clear that while XXXX is a private estate, under legislation it is a public place. As such the Control Dog Act 1986 applies: All dogs must be under effectual control while in a public place. Anyone walking a dog in a public place must ensure that the dog is under control at all times. This doesn't necessarily mean that the dog has to be on a lead, but it must, for example, come to "heel" when called. However, there are some areas within the county where dogs must be on leads, i.e. parks, beaches. A dog doesn't have to be on a lead when it is on private property.

With regards to children playing on the street in relation to House Rules, again the laws and bye-laws governing public spaces apply. So unless we have explicitly agreed to these rules, the only recourse the Management Company will have to enforce such rules is to try and bring a private prosecution against our children for trespass. This would naturally be laughed out of the solicitor's office. Even if a solicitor is found willing to undertake such a case – at great legal expense, Gardai and courts will deem such action a gross waste of the Police’s and the Courts’ time and expenses.

The residents' meeting with a documented vote on the implementation of House Rules might be interpretable as being the moment and the place the House Rules are, in legal terms, explicitly accepted as being binding to you personally. If you are in no way interested in signing up to House Rules or being bound by them, simply do not agree to being bound by them in any way at any time and reject the notion of new and binding House Rules outright.

Signed on behalf of our shared Private Rights and Personal Freedom,
XXXXX

Eric Cartman

this sounds like you have one fascist who clearly doesn't like dogs or children or any fun whatsoever living in the estate.

Wildly Boaring

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact that estate rules may be binding doesn't mean that the guards will enforce them. This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. It's up to the management company to enforce them, ultimately through court action.

Or could they try a fine?

I believe this is all ridiculous.

But say they fined you and you had one or more fines against you from the management company it may impact you selling at a later date.

Glad I live in the sticks.

Thoie

Non-legal opinion, but as a resident/owner, I'd bin that thinking you were another crackpot. I've edited below (and open to corrections).

fromdublin wrote: »

OK, so after having received all of your very helpful assistance I have compiled a flyer to be distributed to my neighbours, the residents of the estate. It would be great if you could have a look and let me know whether you think any part of it is incorrect, not according to how the law works or a misinterpretation of what you have communicated to me regarding Management Company Rules versus law and bye-law. Thank you!

---

Dear Neighbours: With the upcoming Residents Meeting and a vote on House Rules, I've done some research into the validity and power of Estate Management Company House Rules.

House Rules only apply to common areas managed by the Management Company. They do not apply to your private property – unless you sign an explicit written agreement for them to do so. If you disagree with the proposed rules (such as keeping pets, or requesting advance permission for a party), don't sign anything agreeing to them.

The contract you signed at the (freehold) purchase of the house does not regulate the relationship between members and the management company.
The Management Company would have to obtain your explicit agreement, in writing, for you to be bound by the new proposed house rules before they could levy any fines on us for breaching them.

If you do end up agreeing to any new House Rules (which in my opinion limit personal freedoms), national laws and local bye-laws outweigh any rules set by individuals or corporations regardless. These cover items such as control of dogs in a public place.

The vote on the new rules, which are largely unenforceable, is taking place at <location, date, time>. All owners present will be asked to vote, so if you disagree with the new rules, please ensure you turn up and vote no.



Signed
XXXXX

Graham

Thoie wrote: »

Non-legal opinion, but as a resident/owner, I'd bin that thinking you were another crackpot.

+1

Unsolicited legal opinion/advice dropped through the letterbox would be on a fast-track to the recycling.

OP, I can't help but think you'd be better off completely ignoring your interpretation of the legal elements. If you're going to campaign, do it on the basis; these are the proposed changes, this is how it may affect residents, this is what you can do to stop it.

fromdublin

Thoie wrote: »

Non-legal opinion, but as a resident/owner, I'd bin that thinking you were another crackpot. I've edited below (and open to corrections).

Thank you, that is brilliant. An infinitely better and more consider read!

fromdublin

Graham wrote: »

+1

Unsolicited legal opinion/advice dropped through the letterbox would be on a fast-track to the recycling.

OP, I can't help but think you'd be better off completely ignoring your interpretation of the legal elements. If you're going to campaign, do it on the basis; these are the proposed changes, this is how it may affect residents, this is what you can do to stop it.

I do wonder, though: is it better to vote and vote 'No' and/or to state at the vote: "This vote is irrelevant because such additional rules are non-binding and I do not sign up for them as being binding"? Will voting on rules not constitute as giving them power?

Thoie

The approach I'd take at the meeting is to forget about laws and legal stuff (you're not a solicitor, neither am I), don't start spouting off about personal liberties. I'd request that each rule be discussed and voted on individually. They may complain that will take too long, but stick to your guns.

For example, the "uniform design of front gardens" isn't a terrible one in my mind. It stops someone building a 6ft breeze block wall where everyone else has a knee high fence. Yes, technically (with proper planning permission or whatever) someone is entitled to build a giant wall in front of their house, but it would make the estate look odd. I'd open a discussion on what they're trying to prevent with that rule - is it to stop people doing something weird, or are they of the opinion that everyone must have precisely 3 lavender plants, that are exactly 30cm in diameter?

Similarly with kids playing on the green. Maybe the intention is to stop the green area becoming a football pitch for 20 teenagers from 5 streets over, to the exclusion of the local toddlers. Perhaps the "parties" rule is because of that one house who have orgies with loud music and flood lights in the back garden every Tuesday and Thursday until 5am.

You can also raise the question of how these rules will be enforced if the vote passes - will it be a fine added to your management fee, or will a bunch of people in balaclavas turn up at your door and warn you that your children have been seen... playing in public (dun dun duh).

If the neighbourhood as a whole vote against people having floodlit orgies, then the polite thing to do would be not to host any. "This is my house, and I'll do whatever I want, and f___ the rest of you" is never a good way to build relationships.

martingriff

fromdublin wrote: »

OK, so after having received all of your very helpful assistance I have compiled a flyer to be distributed to my neighbours, the residents of the estate. It would be great if you could have a look and let me know whether you think any part of it is incorrect, not according to how the law works or a misinterpretation of what you have communicated to me regarding Management Company Rules versus law and bye-law. Thank you!

---

FELLOW RESIDENTS OF XXXX: With the upcoming Residents Meeting and a voting on House Rules, it is of the utmost importance to the integrity of your rights and freedoms that you be informed correctly on the legal validity and power of Estate Management Company House Rules.

House Rules only apply to common areas managed by the Management Company. They do not apply to your private property – unless you sign an explicit written agreement for them to do so. Management companies may need rules by law but the only rule really needed is that residents should pay their management company fees. Any other rules are infringement on personal freedom and your choice of lifestyle. Unless you wish to be bound by other people's ideas of how you should love your life, do not sign any rules documents or bind yourself to them in writing.

Our houses are freeholds. As such the applicability of any house rules ends at the boundary of our properties. This is an important point to be aware of. Especially since the contract we signed at the purchase of the house does not regulate the relationship between members and the management company. Be aware that you cannot be forced to be bound to the Management Company introducing retrospective rules.
The Management Company would have to obtain our explicit agreement, in writing, for us to be bound by the house rules, before they could levy any fines on us for breaching them. Your driveway, front and back yard, house facade and inside of your house are private property and therefore no rules of the Management Company can apply to them, nor is it a "public place" as interpreted in legislation, unless you have signed away your rights. Even if a set of House Rules was part of the original contract you signed upon purchasing the house, no additional rules can be imposed on you unless explicitly agreed to by yourself.

No permission need be obtained for any activities other than activities defined by national or local law requiring permission - which should be sought with the council in any case, never with the Management Company.

If you do end up agreeing to any new House Rules pertaining to limitations of personal freedom, national laws and local bye-laws outweigh any rules set by individuals or corporations regardless.

With regards to dogs needing to be on leads or not, our Council has made it clear that while XXXX is a private estate, under legislation it is a public place. As such the Control Dog Act 1986 applies: All dogs must be under effectual control while in a public place. Anyone walking a dog in a public place must ensure that the dog is under control at all times. This doesn't necessarily mean that the dog has to be on a lead, but it must, for example, come to "heel" when called. However, there are some areas within the county where dogs must be on leads, i.e. parks, beaches. A dog doesn't have to be on a lead when it is on private property.

With regards to children playing on the street in relation to House Rules, again the laws and bye-laws governing public spaces apply. So unless we have explicitly agreed to these rules, the only recourse the Management Company will have to enforce such rules is to try and bring a private prosecution against our children for trespass. This would naturally be laughed out of the solicitor's office. Even if a solicitor is found willing to undertake such a case – at great legal expense, Gardai and courts will deem such action a gross waste of the Police’s and the Courts’ time and expenses.

The residents' meeting with a documented vote on the implementation of House Rules might be interpretable as being the moment and the place the House Rules are, in legal terms, explicitly accepted as being binding to you personally. If you are in no way interested in signing up to House Rules or being bound by them, simply do not agree to being bound by them in any way at any time and reject the notion of new and binding House Rules outright.

Signed on behalf of our shared Private Rights and Personal Freedom,
XXXXX

You lost me and I would say everyone else 3 lines in make it short and sweet why people should vote no. Leave out legalise stuff. Also the way you signed it off sounds like a sicalis/Freeman thing so take away. You want people to come and vote or vote in absinthe if they cant make it not believe you are a bit out there. Be short point no fingers and urge people to come vote and air what they think

Wildly Boaring

Write it
Half it
Read it
Half it
Read it

Wait (overnight)

Read it

Then bin or send it.

When halving try to leave out anything that could be picked to be argued with.


Keep It Simple Stupid
Just state facts not opinion

longgonesilver

Is this management company a business with employees or is it a group of voluntary local residents?

Will there be elections at the AGM?

Jennifer Eccles

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/108634894#Comment_108634894

I know this issue is probably in the past tense at this stage, however I want to raise an issue, given that people - like me - sometimes review old posts on Boards while seeking information and advice. That said, the idea, given above, that by holding leasehold deeds you are immune from having to comply with the house rules, is far from a given. I know two particular owners management companies comprising of standalone houses, and freehold ownerships, which have, as part of their lease document, obligatory membership of the OMC. With that comes, by necessity, compliance with the House Rules. The MUD Act is the main statutory reference. Always. So, again, I'd say to anyone objecting to the terms implied and rules comprised in the House Rules of your OMC, get in there, join the Board, and change everything from within.