satellite letter

Liam81

hi has anyone else received a letter from cpm re satellite dishes? To remove within 10 days or else?? Anyone any plan of action. In the Park and don't want to remove as have had big falling out with NTL and really don't want to go back to them.

mmalaka

I got this letter today...

Can we do anything to this??

FirstIn

We got a few of these letters in the Wood but nothing ever came of it, I mean if they remove the sat dishes will they also try and get at my Irish Broadband antenna? And how on earth are they going to get at the back of the houses where people with southfacing back gardens have their dishes?

I would think that they need to remove every dish or none at all and I can't see how they can get at every single dish/antenna.

If you see some bloke putting a ladder up on your roof could you call the cops and tell them there is a burglar? Also I would have thought your driveway is your property so you can decide who should be on it?

mmalaka

Is cpm the managment company of the wood and the park??

matt-dublin

the same is being done in the crescent, unfortunatly, you have signed and agreed to the rules by buying your house.
In those rules there would have been stipulations for satellite dishes.

The management have the power to remove the dishes without your concent and the cost of removal will be applied to you fees next year.

mmalaka

Yes it seems they have the power to do this; but when you look in CharlesLand; u can c a lot of people having this; and it seems they r having this for long time and also I think new dishes is being added from time to time; people is moving to sky Dishes instead of NTL

Did any management company remove the dishes before??

matt-dublin

no but dishes are being removed from the crescent in the next week or two...

I think the residents committee in the different areas of charlesland are trying to decide on dishes etc etc.

mmalaka

matt-dublin wrote:

no but dishes are being removed from the crescent in the next week or two...

Did the people in crescent receive a letter also??

I think if they want to remove the dishes they should remove it from all CharelsLand Area, I red here that this issue is being discussed in the residential meetings before; and I think I red somewhere here that the management companies is not forcing this rule, i.e. it is a rule but it is not fare to be applied only in crecent or park only...

matt-dublin

each section has its own management company. so the crescent is completly segregated from the rest of charlesland management wise.

Letters were sent out from the management companies asking for the dishes to be removed. No action has been taken by the residents.

Next step is solicitors letters are being sent out next notifyin the offenders that all legal and labour charges involved in removing the dish will be added to their balance next year.

Once the letter is recieved the dishes are being removed.

Eoin

mmalaka wrote:

I think if they want to remove the dishes they should remove it from all CharelsLand Area, I red here that this issue is being discussed in the residential meetings before; and I think I red somewhere here that the management companies is not forcing this rule, i.e. it is a rule but it is not fare to be applied only in crecent or park only...

As Matt said, the Charlesland estate's have either their own management company, or have a combined one with another estate. Each one can make decisions independently of each other, but I don't know to what extent as I believe there is a cental company as well.

mmalaka, last I read, you were renting and didn't have permission from the owner to put up a satellite dish. If this hasn't changed, I'd be more worried about what the owner will think of this, rather than the management company.

MuffinsDa

matt-dublin wrote:

each section has its own management company. so the crescent is completly segregated from the rest of charlesland management wise.

Letters were sent out from the management companies asking for the dishes to be removed. No action has been taken by the residents.

Next step is solicitors letters are being sent out next notifyin the offenders that all legal and labour charges involved in removing the dish will be added to their balance next year.

Once the letter is recieved the dishes are being removed.

What a good use of residents money (they are the ones paying for management company and solicitors). I couldn't have thought of anything better to be done with my money than paying solicitors to annoy my neighbours!

Oh well there's one better thing: paying a fortune to landscaping company to cut the grass twice week in December and January, just in case it grows. And dig up trees and replant them. But that's off-topic so I shut up before Mike shuts me up !

mmalaka

eoin_s wrote:

mmalaka, last I read, you were renting and didn't have permission from the owner to put up a satellite dish. If this hasn't changed, I'd be more worried about what the owner will think of this, rather than the management company.

I got the owner agent approval before I did anything; and I called him today to tell him about this; the agent will discuess this with the mangment company and return back to me; the agent is wyse I think they r a mangment company also

Eoin

MuffinsDa wrote:

What a good use of residents money (they are the ones paying for management company and solicitors). I couldn't have thought of anything better to be done with my money than paying solicitors to annoy my neighbours!

Does anyone not realise that there could be residents in Charlesland who are pissed off with people openly breaking the rules - that they all signed up to - by putting dishes and / or antennas up? They would have much more of a right to complain about these rules not being enforced, then people with dishes complaining about them being enforced.

If enough people contacted their management committee about this, then maybe that clause can be struck out from the lease. I brought this up at the Grove / Park (?) AGM, and the representative from Cuala didn't seem to say that it was a rule that could not be changed.

MuffinsDa

eoin_s wrote:

Does anyone not realise that there could be residents in Charlesland who are pissed off with people openly breaking the rules - that they all signed up to - by putting dishes and / or antennas up? They would have much more of a right to complain about these rules not being enforced, then people with dishes complaining about them being enforced.

If enough people contacted their management committee about this, then maybe that clause can be struck out from the lease. I brought this up at the Grove / Park (?) AGM, and the representative from Cuala didn't seem to say that it was a rule that could not be changed.

It's not the law of the land -planning permission regulations cover this issue - it's a rule that was enforced on owners without them having any choice in the last minute of their purchase. Do you think anyone would not sign their house after waiting for a couple of years when they were presented with that lease document? So we were bullied to sign that, and it's legislation without representation. Show me the results of votes for/against satellite dishes and if it says majority don't like it then I agree with your point.

Also, why would residents be pissed off with them? They look bad? mmm... I'm pissed off with people driving Nissan Almera 01s, they are an eye-sore, lets ban them! I think most people agree with me on that (same logic as yours, in the absence of any democratic voting on issues anyone can claim anything)

I honestly think in this day and age with the decrease in size of satellite dishes and the popularity of them it's some strange mindset that makes people hate dishes. Quite similar to traditional hate of TREES and regarding them as filthy in some older estates. Let's ban them too!

PS: I neither have a satellite dish not a Nissan Almera but I support the right of people to have them as long as they are within the country's regulations (and not made-up management company's)

mmalaka

yes you r right; but I think that everyone have the rights to select what channels they want to watch; it is not fare that they force us to stay with one provider NTL; If I am not affecting my neighbors by putting the dishes in front of their houses or something like that; then it is my rights to have the dish/Antenna

What were the Cuala representative comments when u talked with him about this?? Cuala is the company who sent the letters yesterday

MuffinsDa

mmalaka wrote:

yes you r right; but I think that everyone have the rights to select what channels they want to watch; it is not fare that they force us to stay with one provider NTL; If I am not affecting my neighbors by putting the dishes in front of their houses or something like that; then it is my rights to have the dish/Antenna

Yes, also in addition to that for people like you or someone from Poland Satellite dishes are THE ONLY WAY they can get television in the language they (or their kids) are used to, thus this management company rule is against their human right of free access to information. (I'm talking about the bit of it that goes further than planning regulations). This has been subject of quite a bit of debate and I think (not sure) some people have won cases event against planning regulations on this basis.

Eoin

MuffinsDa wrote:

It's not the law of the land -planning permission regulations cover this issue - it's a rule that was enforced on owners without them having any choice in the last minute of their purchase. Do you think anyone would not sign their house after waiting for a couple of years when they were presented with that lease document? So we were bullied to sign that, and it's legislation without representation. Show me the results of votes for/against satellite dishes and if it says majority don't like it then I agree with your point.

Also, why would residents be pissed off with them? They look bad? mmm... I'm pissed off with people driving Nissan Almera 01s, they are an eye-sore, lets ban them! I think most people agree with me on that (same logic as yours, in the absence of any democratic voting on issues anyone can claim anything)

I honestly think in this day and age with the decrease in size of satellite dishes and the popularity of them it's some strange mindset that makes people hate dishes. Quite similar to traditional hate of TREES and regarding them as filthy in some older estates. Let's ban them too!

PS: I neither have a satellite dish not a Nissan Almera but I support the right of people to have them as long as they are within the country's regulations (and not made-up management company's)

Personally, I am for them - this is why I brought it up at the AGM. I have also made the same point on this forum about the decreasing size of modern dishes, and that a dish can serve two houses. The rep at the AGM agreed that this was a standard clause, and dated back to when most dishes looked like something you'd find on a control tower in Dublin airport. I also think that most people would be in favour of them, especially given the piss poor reception from NTL digital.

All that said though, when you buy a propertly (or more correctly, lease it for a long time) in an estate such as Charlesland, you should have an idea of what you're getting into. Rules such as these are the norm for leasehold properties. However, there is even the possibility of having this rule changed - if the residents go through the correct channels. Until then, I don't see how people can make a big fuss about the management company enforcing the rules that we signed up to.

Maybe one of the management committee members (I think there are a couple active on this forum) can let us know if they have received any requests from residents regarding having this clause removed from the lease?

@mmalaka - I think the lady's name is Bernie.

matt-dublin

MuffinsDa wrote:

What a good use of residents money (they are the ones paying for management company and solicitors). I couldn't have thought of anything better to be done with my money than paying solicitors to annoy my neighbours!

Me thinkies you need to read that again, The residents who have the dishes up will have to pay.

muffinsda wrote:

It's not the law of the land -planning permission regulations cover this issue

Un fortunatly, they don't.
Planning permission for charlesland was granted only on the grounds that a management company would take care of the whole estate. With management companies comes rules.
Such as...
Washing on your balcony,
Pets
Satellite dishes
Acceptable Noise Levels

Most people abide by the rules. Its not our fault for the few black sheep that like to break them, or just didn't read them which is more likely.

muffinsda wrote:

Oh well there's one better thing: paying a fortune to landscaping company to cut the grass twice week in December and January, just in case it grows. And dig up trees and replant them.

Contact your residents committee and see what they say. There might be more than just your complaints but im going to guess that the landscaping company have a set rate per quater and don't charge for every time they cut the grass. Its more likely a service level they are providing.
So if im right, if they didn't come out so much to cut the grass they would still charge the same amount.

mmalaka wrote:

yes you r right; but I think that everyone have the rights to select what channels they want to watch; it is not fare that they force us to stay with one provider NTL; If I am not affecting my neighbors by putting the dishes in front of their houses or something like that; then it is my rights to have the dish/Antenna

I agree, but satellite dishes look terrible and messy. If you can hide them grand but unfortunatly its house rules and would require a majority vote from all residents in the corrosponding estate.

mmalaka

This is exactly my problem.....

The only way to receive the channels of my language is using Dishes

Perhaps we can arrange something like sending email to the management company about this issue

and what a good timing to send the letters; is this a Xmas gift??

matt-dublin

You need your your landlord to contact your area residents committee about the issue

MuffinsDa

matt-dublin wrote:

Me thinkies you need to read that again, The residents who have the dishes up will have to pay.

So are they passing on the solicitors fees to people that recieve letters? I doubt it.

matt-dublin wrote:

Un fortunatly, they don't.
Planning permission for charlesland was granted only on the grounds that a management company would take care of the whole estate. With management companies comes rules.
Such as...
Washing on your balcony,
Pets
Satellite dishes
Acceptable Noise Levels

Fortunately, they do! If a management company's rule is in contradiction to the rights given to you by law of the land that rule will not be upheld in any court. Especially if it is in contradiction to human rights. That's why we have planning permission laws, I do not accept management companies being more draconian and dealing with people's back gardens as well.

matt-dublin wrote:

Most people abide by the rules. Its not our fault for the few black sheep that like to break them, or just didn't read them which is more likely.

As I said I don't have a satellite dish but I think those who have -especially in the back of their house- have every right to do so (for the reason above).

matt-dublin wrote:

Contact your residents committee and see what they say. There might be more than just your complaints but im going to guess that the landscaping company have a set rate per quater and don't charge for every time they cut the grass. Its more likely a service level they are providing.
So if im right, if they didn't come out so much to cut the grass they would still charge the same amount.

Call me cynical but to me it's more like them trying to look busy. Management company's selection of landscaping company is not transparent at all.
As for service level agreement, listen to this one. Last week they were digging out whole trees around our house. When the wife went up and asked them why are they doing so she was told "because they are dieing!". When she asked is it not because it's winter!? they said "some of them yes, but some of them are dieing so we're replacing them!". That's fine but I wonder whether we are going to be charged for that, where it's their fault not to plant them properly the first time. Cases like this make you think...

matt-dublin wrote:

I agree, but satellite dishes look terrible and messy.

I disagree, I don't think the new ones are messy at all. Not more terrible that a lot of other things: old bangers, vans, snow-globes, chimneys, etc etc! it's your opinion that they look terrible, do you have any figures to prove that majority think the same way?

matt-dublin wrote:

unfortunatly its house rules and would require a majority vote from all residents in the corrosponding estate.

The rule did not came to power with a majority vote to begin with. I don't remember anyone voting for this. So how do you know majority think that way? And if we don't know why not do it this way: allow them to do that unless majority complain and say NO, we don't want them! That makes more sense to me!

matt-dublin

muffinsda wrote:

The rule did not came to power with a majority vote to begin with. I don't remember anyone voting for this. So how do you know majority think that way? And if we don't know why not do it this way: allow them to do that unless majority complain and say NO, we don't want them! That makes more sense to me!

True, the rules would have been appointed for the first year by the original directors of the management company, which would have been zapi and would have been subject to change at the agm a few weeks ago.

Everyone who bought houses in charlesland saw the management rules before closing and your solicitor should have gone through them. If you live there either you or your landlord signed and agreed to the terms. Its contractual so it will hold up in a court of law. "Its not fair" won't stand up

MuffinsDa

matt-dublin wrote:

True, the rules would have been appointed for the first year by the original directors of the management company, which would have been zapi and would have been subject to change at the agm a few weeks ago.

Everyone who bought houses in charlesland saw the management rules before closing and your solicitor should have gone through them. If you live there either you or your landlord signed and agreed to the terms. Its contractual so it will hold up in a court of law. "Its not fair" won't stand up

Yep it is indeed in the contract and I saw it. But nobody at that stage would not sign the contract and lose their depoist/time just because of that clause, that's what I meant by us being forced to it.
As for your second point, that is wrong. There's an issue of what takes precedence when a contract is in contradiction with your rights as a citizen or a human. Even if you signed for certain things it won't hold in courts in if it deemed unconstitutional. I'm no legal expert though, but as far as I know the law of the land takes precendce. i.e. if I have a contract with you saying that you may decide what I can say or what I can't about cars and that you have the right to silence me if say anything it won't be valid and you can't sue me for saying Almeras are ugly! As it will be in contradiction of my human rights. Free and fair access to information falls into that category and preventing someone from that on the pure basis of (in my view twisted) aesthetics doesn't sound like a valid argument to me.

matt-dublin

if you signed a contract agreeing you won't put a satellite dish up, and then put a satellite dish up you are in breech of contract.

the only way you could break the contract if there was no service at all available. and even then i don't think you can break it as television is not a necessity, its a luxury.

We revert to the "its not fair" syndrome again.

Active8

MuffinsDa wrote:

Yep it is indeed in the contract and I saw it. But nobody at that stage would not sign the contract and lose their depoist/time just because of that clause, that's what I meant by us being forced to it.

I was certainly not forced or bullied into signing any contract. As Matt said, if your Solicitor was any good they would have pointed out the sitpualtions the Management Company had before you signed the contract. If you did not agree with these terms you had every right to pull out without any monetary loss to you.

I did not realise that not allowing satellite dishes contravened the Geneva Humand Rights Bill.

MuffinsDa

matt-dublin wrote:

if you signed a contract agreeing you won't put a satellite dish up, and then put a satellite dish up you are in breech of contract.

the only way you could break the contract if there was no service at all available. and even then i don't think you can break it as television is not a necessity, its a luxury.

We revert to the "its not fair" syndrome again.

Nope, "it's not fair" argument is Auxillary.
Let's take the case of mmalaka. The information he and his family need is not available via terresterial TV and he needs to get a satellite dish in order to gain access to that. As long as he is not in breach of national and local planning regulation no one can stop him from that basic right. It's the same as the example I have above.

The "it's not fair" argument comes from the fact that the rule is set without your involvement. In any democracy legislation without representation is not accepted and hence I had neither me nor any other resident had a say in that then the management company (which is my and other residents AGENT) should not apply that. IMHO and As I said before, the most sensible way is letting people do it (as long as they are in accordance with regulations) unless there's objection to it.

MuffinsDa

Active8 wrote:

I was certainly not forced or bullied into signing any contract. As Matt said, if your Solicitor was any good they would have pointed out the sitpualtions the Management Company had before you signed the contract. If you did not agree with these terms you had every right to pull out without any monetary loss to you.

True. But at the end of the day it is not such important issue to cancel a house deal on, and lose a year of waiting. To me it looks like a matter between residents and can be solved democratically later and that's why we signed. And that's why we are debating it now. The bullying-forcing is in relation to the fact that you did not have any other option that losing the whole thing and that's a defacto enforcement!

Active8 wrote:

I did not realise that not allowing satellite dishes contravened the Geneva Humand Rights Bill.

I did not realise that either Did you discover that yourself? Well done!

What I was talking about was the right to freely access information you need which is a basic human right in any democratic society. I appreciate your sense of humour though!

matt-dublin

that is why with a majority vote from the residents committee the rule can be changed.

otherwise the rule is still there, i do know that there is talk of changing the rule but im not sure what exactly they're going to do with it.

And again, tv is a luxury. its not a necessity. Recieving a foreign television in ireland again is a luxury. Even the basic analogue free to air signal is a luxury. If it wasn't the case, by your arguement, ntl would have to provide analogue tuning capabilities which would cost a ridiculious sum of money.

Eoin

MuffinsDa wrote:

Nope, "it's not fair" argument is Auxillary.
Let's take the case of mmalaka. The information he and his family need is not available via terresterial TV and he needs to get a satellite dish in order to gain access to that. As long as he is not in breach of national and local planning regulation no one can stop him from that basic right. It's the same as the example I have above.

The "it's not fair" argument comes from the fact that the rule is set without your involvement. In any democracy legislation without representation is not accepted and hence I had neither me nor any other resident had a say in that then the management company (which is my and other residents AGENT) should not apply that. IMHO and As I said before, the most sensible way is letting people do it (as long as they are in accordance with regulations) unless there's objection to it.

Unfortunately, mmalaka (sorry to refer to you in the 3rd person) probably has slightly less grounds to complain as he is a tenant, rather than an owner. Although, technically I think we are all just tenants.

As I have said before, there does seem to be a possibility to get satellites allowed under the lease, but you have to go through the right channels (no pun intended). Until you even make an effort to do so, you have little grounds to complain. You can contact the Grove and Park (I think) committee on Charlesland@Gmail.com. Unfortunately, to the best of my knowledge, none of the other committees have posted contact details here despite several requests.

The specific legality of this has come up time and time before here, and as yet there does not seem to be a definite answer on whether management companies can legally enforce this rule or not. I can PM the mod of the "Legal Issues" forum and ask if I can send this thread, or part of it, there. Hopefully someone there will have a better idea. Otherwise, this argument is just going to go around in circles.

MuffinsDa

Good point Eoin. You're absolutely right. I think this is not going to come to a definitive answer even in legal forum, but it can certainly be discussed in further details there rather than here. It's not a charlesland specific issue, it's a rather general one.

mmalaka

ok, what about trying to send a msg to the committee through this forum about this; It seems to me that most of us is against this rule; so let show this to the comittee let us make a survey and send the result to the committee...

eoin_s perhaps u as a Moderator can start up such survey??

What do u think??