Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

90-year-old woman faces €1,500 bill after satellite dish case

Options
2

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    obezyana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭obezyana


    irishgeo wrote: »
    sky dont allow that anymore, it cant go above 1st floor level now. After a few installers fell from roofs. I heard this from a installer himself. Also installer not allowed into the attic either.


    Yeah it is getting silly now with Sky. Next they wont even allow them handle their power drills in case they do damage. They will have to do it all by hand. :D


  • Options
    #33
    Gerry Wicklow
    Registered Users Posts: 4,542 ✭✭✭Gerry Wicklow


    No one is above the law but you can't help but think if only the council inspector had taken the time to talk to the woman and explain things rather than sending a letter probably written in legal mumbo jumbo. As always with situations like this the only winners are the lawyers :(


  • Options
    #34
    irishgeo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,392 ✭✭✭irishgeo


    obezyana wrote: »
    Yeah it is getting silly now with Sky. Next they wont even allow them handle their power drills in case they do damage. They will have to do it all by hand. :D

    the newest thing now is the first thing the installer has to do is drill a hole in your wall so he can secure his ladder to the wall.:D


  • Options
    #35
    obezyana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭obezyana


    irishgeo wrote: »
    the newest thing now is the first thing the installer has to do is drill a hole in your wall so he can secure his ladder to the wall.:D

    Yeah it is the done thing alright. I was actually sorting my brothers dish out last week and the tie off was still in the wall from when the previous owner had Sky installed. Im not so sure id like one of those left sticking out from my wall from when a dish was put up.


  • Options
    #36
    selous
    Registered Users Posts: 1,373 ✭✭✭selous


    muffler wrote: »
    The council can do plenty should they decide to go down the enforcement route.

    Do nothing in my place only "advise your management agent/company" and that's for everything,


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    muffler
    Registered Users Posts: 45,863 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    The Cush wrote: »
    In this case a complaint was made and 3 house in the area received a letter, the family has an FOI request in to find out who made the complaint according to Liveline yesterday.
    Im afraid not. The county manager (or CEO as they are now known) has the right to withhold any and all information he considers that could lead to (paraphrasing here) "a breach of the peace". I know of a few FOI applications like this and all were refused.

    The Cush wrote: »
    The councils, it appears, will only act if a complaint is made.
    In the case of satellite dishes that would be the case generally. It's one type of unauthorized development they don't proactively seek out.


  • Options
    #38
    muffler
    Registered Users Posts: 45,863 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    selous wrote: »
    Do nothing in my place only "advise your management agent/company" and that's for everything,
    I thought we were talking about satellite dishes here?

    If anyone makes a complaint to the enforcement section of the local planning dept that there is an unauthorized dish on a building an inspection is carried out to determine if it requires planning permission or not and if it does the legal owner is identified and then contacted.


  • Options
    #39
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    [Deleted User] wrote: »
    I believe that she thought so too, which was why she ignored the letters. A perfect cast of the Law being an ass.

    So what defines what a council does and does not ignore? If the complaint was made against the home owner who happened to be 30 who ignored the letters, would it be acceptable to seek costs from that person?
    Gerry Wicklow wrote: »
    No one is above the law but you can't help but think if only the council inspector had taken the time to talk to the woman and explain things rather than sending a letter probably written in legal mumbo jumbo. As always with situations like this the only winners are the lawyers :(

    Should councils first do an age check, or even an IQ one, of the owner of every property they intend to send letters to? The one has a good few children.


  • Options
    #40
    Nichard Dixon
    Registered Users Posts: 386 ✭✭Nichard Dixon


    Gerry Wicklow wrote: »
    There are thousands of places in Dublin and elsewhere with dishes on the front. As Agent Smith says above, a good few have several dishes.

    These people may be little bit concerned today, which may have been the point!
    Gerry Wicklow wrote: »
    No one is above the law but you can't help but think if only the council inspector had taken the time to talk to the woman and explain things rather than sending a letter probably written in legal mumbo jumbo. As always with situations like this the only winners are the lawyers

    There is an element of truth to this. You need a "take the fecking thing down, end of story"


  • Options
    #41
    STB.
    Registered Users Posts: 5,380 ✭✭✭STB.


    There is more to this than meets the eye.

    Pursuing someone for not taking down a sky satellite dish is quite severe.

    Was it the county manager himself that was passing this road by every day ? :)

    It would be difficult for an enforcement officer within the council to sell this to their legal department (given the circumstances) when there are very serious and more obvious and flagrant breaches of planning legislation not being pursued every day of the week.

    In this case it moved very swiftly from an enforcement notice in February for a 60cm Sky Dish to the courts.... I wonder why ?

    I am talking of course of those who build something and then apply for retention and get refused and then re-apply for retention and get refused and the..... you get the idea. Meanwhile the enforcement section of a county council does nothing. This is widespread throughout the country.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    In your example I suppose there's some sort of interaction with the council, in this case the letters were ignored until it was too late.

    And by all accounts it was as a neighbour who complained, what can the council do other than follow it up?


  • Options
    #43
    newacc2015
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,379 ✭✭✭newacc2015


    Gerry Wicklow wrote: »
    No one is above the law but you can't help but think if only the council inspector had taken the time to talk to the woman and explain things rather than sending a letter probably written in legal mumbo jumbo. As always with situations like this the only winners are the lawyers :(

    They have extremely limited resources. Most planning enforcement is done at a computer using google maps and google earth. The letter would have clearly stated her planning violation and want to do to solve the solution. I imagine their was a phone number for DCC on it. They can call around to all of their planning complaints, where they probably would endure abuse and deal with a handful of their cases. Or they can deal with all of their efficiently and quickly from an office.

    Would you accept the argument in court from someone not paying their TV license, as they couldnt understand the legal jargon in the letter. Also someone didnt come out to explain the letter for them? No as if you cant understand someone in 2015 pick up the phone and ask someone to clarify your issue


  • Options
    #44
    decor58
    Registered Users Posts: 831 ✭✭✭decor58


    A 90 year person should not have been put through that ordeal, I am not familiar with the details of the case, but as I understand it dishes up to a certain size are exempt. I have seen a number of dishes that are extremely big, they could even be dangerous.


  • Options
    #45
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    decor58 wrote: »
    A 90 year person should not have been put through that ordeal, I am not familiar with the details of the case, but as I understand it dishes up to a certain size are exempt. I have seen a number of dishes that are extremely big, they could even be dangerous.

    Not being smart but you should familiarise yourself with it first.


  • Options
    #46
    obezyana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭obezyana


    decor58 wrote: »
    A 90 year person should not have been put through that ordeal, I am not familiar with the details of the case, but as I understand it dishes up to a certain size are exempt. I have seen a number of dishes that are extremely big, they could even be dangerous.


    Dishes cannot be placed on the front of a house without planning.

    They cannot be higher than the highest point of the roof.

    Planning is needed for any dish bigger than 1 meter in diameter.

    Aerials cannot be any higher than 6 meters from the roof of the house.

    Anymore than one dish needs planning permission.

    I would bet not many installers know any of this. And your right about bigger dishes possibly being dangerous. With that being said it is not enforced all that much so im not surprised most people don't know much about it.


  • Options
    #47
    Grab All Association
    Registered Users Posts: 3,917 ✭✭✭Grab All Association


    So having more than one dish installed needs permission?

    There are a number of households in rural Ireland with both a standard satellite dish and a satellite broadband dish fixed to the building.


  • Options
    #48
    muffler
    Registered Users Posts: 45,863 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    Grab All Association wrote: »
    So having more than one dish installed needs permission?
    Yes.

    There's a handy little leaflet that can be viewed and/or downloaded here on the DoEHLG website. Q12 covers the situation regarding aerials and dishes.

    The actual legal document setting out the planning exemptions can be viewed here. Satellite dishes fall under Class 4


  • Options
    #49
    um7y1h83ge06nx
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,029 ✭✭✭um7y1h83ge06nx


    Grab All Association wrote: »
    So having more than one dish installed needs permission?

    There are a number of households in rural Ireland with both a standard satellite dish and a satellite broadband dish fixed to the building.

    Very true, my house and many others in our area of Limerick (Murroe) have the satellite/MMDS dishes.


  • Options
    #50
    mamax
    Registered Users Posts: 879 ✭✭✭mamax


    obezyana wrote: »
    Dishes cannot be placed on the front of a house without planning.

    They cannot be higher than the highest point of the roof.

    Planning is needed for any dish bigger than 1 meter in diameter.

    Aerials cannot be any higher than 6 meters from the roof of the house.

    Anymore than one dish needs planning permission.

    I would bet not many installers know any of this. And your right about bigger dishes possibly being dangerous. With that being said it is not enforced all that much so im not surprised most people don't know much about it.

    I have 3 x sky dishes and a 1.2m dish, all to the rear of my property and none over 4m high
    I don't have the required planning permission and they can't be seen from public nor can my neighbours see them :)
    Obviously I won't be rushing out today to apply for planning permission !

    But to get back on topic those idiots should have some cop on taking a 90 year old woman to court, Im not suggesting they should have overlooked it but a bit of common sense really would have gone a long way here, it's all a bit Irish aint it :eek:


  • Options
    #51
    irelandrover
    Registered Users Posts: 3,703 ✭✭✭irelandrover


    mamax wrote: »
    I have 3 x sky dishes and a 1.2m dish, all to the rear of my property and none over 4m high
    I don't have the required planning permission and they can't be seen from public nor can my neighbours see them :)
    Obviously I won't be rushing out today to apply for planning permission !

    But to get back on topic those idiots should have some cop on taking a 90 year old woman to court, Im not suggesting they should have overlooked it but a bit of common sense really would have gone a long way here, it's all a bit Irish aint it :eek:

    What common sense actually?

    They send a letter in February, got no response and the dish was removed.
    Sent another letter and and the dish had to be removed by the end of June, gave three weeks extra before proceeding. Finally the dish was removed by the end of July. Looks to me like tey were quite fair in their dealings.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Grab All Association
    Registered Users Posts: 3,917 ✭✭✭Grab All Association


    Protected structure in Thurles.

    That dish is up there at least 20 years so they can't be forced to take it down now (besides the branch has since closed).

    Thurles Urban District Council wouldn't have gave a crap where it was put back then. They even let them cut a hole in the wall and original window frame for an ATM.

    I'd say with new amalgamated council if you installed a dish that size on a protected building like that today you'd be brought to court for it.


  • Options
    #53
    Kristopherus
    Registered Users Posts: 11,907 ✭✭✭✭Kristopherus


    ThisRegard wrote: »
    Being 90 gets you a pass now does it ? She had two letters, why didn't she act on them (her excuse was that she didn't understand them)? If she did, there would have been no costs to the council, i.e. people living within that council paying their charges.

    Someone had complained to the council, they had to act. And it was said somewhere that she wasn't the only one, others were too. But presumably the others acted on the notice given.

    The council could easily dropped the case when the dish was removed in July, and scrapped the costs claim. They certainly have'nt endeared themselves by targeting a 90-yr-old.


  • Options
    #54
    ThisRegard
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,834 ✭✭✭✭ThisRegard


    They didn't target a 90 year old, they targeted a number of residential properties on the foot of a complaint, in which there happened to be a 90 year old living in one.


  • Options
    #55
    Dave..M
    Registered Users Posts: 693 ✭✭✭Dave..M


    I wonder does Magnus Ternsjö live on that street....


  • Options
    #56
    Llamedos
    Registered Users Posts: 30 ✭Llamedos


    obezyana wrote: »
    Dishes cannot be placed on the front of a house without planning.

    They cannot be higher than the highest point of the roof.

    Planning is needed for any dish bigger than 1 meter in diameter.

    Aerials cannot be any higher than 6 meters from the roof of the house.

    Anymore than one dish needs planning permission.

    I would bet not many installers know any of this. And your right about bigger dishes possibly being dangerous. With that being said it is not enforced all that much so im not surprised most people don't know much about it.

    Are n't most dishes used in Dublin of the 60 cm size or does the front of house rule apply to any size of dish?


  • Options
    #57
    selous
    Registered Users Posts: 1,373 ✭✭✭selous


    Then she came out of court done the interview on tv went to the car and it was clamped, ouch!


  • Options
    #58
    Mezcita
    Registered Users Posts: 2,328 ✭✭✭Mezcita


    selous wrote: »
    Then she came out of court done the interview on tv went to the car and it was clamped, ouch!

    Maybe she can't read.....


  • Options
    #59
    obezyana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,498 ✭✭✭obezyana


    Llamedos wrote: »
    Are n't most dishes used in Dublin of the 60 cm size or does the front of house rule apply to any size of dish?

    Any size dish on the front of the house. If a dish bigger than 1 meter is put up that would also need planning permission irregardless of where it is.


  • Options
    #60
    Sam Russell
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 19,420 Mod ✭✭✭✭Sam Russell


    In such a case where the dish has been removed, the judge would ask the council's council why such a case was brought and complain about wasting court time and then dismiss it without order as to costs or award the costs to the defendant.

    The fact the defendant was 90 years of age would have ensured such action.

    At least it would in a Kerry court.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    muffler
    Registered Users Posts: 45,863 ✭✭✭✭muffler


    Sam Russell wrote: »
    At least it would in a Kerry court.
    :D:D


Advertisement