Satellite dishes

axer

Hi,

I know it has been done to death but I have some specific questions.

I have/had a free standing dish on my balcony (well out of view) and it has been removed by the management company.

I am only renting but do they have rights to enter onto the balcony and remove the satellite dish and stand? The dish was not attached to the wall. Does it depend on the contract my landlord signed?

Has anyone ever contacted the Gardai over them being removed? (I hate to waste their time but you cannot legally confiscate people's property as that is stealing which is a criminal offence I would think).

Thanks.

Cathmandooo

Your landlord probably signed an agreement that any dishes put up would be removed without notice.

Contact your Landlord about it.

Paulw

The management agent would have the right of entry/access to the balcony. You would only have exclusive use of it, while the management company own it.

The owner's Lease Contract rules would have a stronger legal position than your tenancy, and the rules there would also apply to you. If the clause says no satellite dishes (depending on the wording), then they are well within their rights to remove it.

You will get it back (subject to any additional removal charge being paid by your landlord), but you still can't put it back up, or they would remove it again.

You could call the Gardai, but in general, they will say it's a civil matter and won't get involved.

Mike 1972

OP stuff like this regularly comes up over on this forum. In some circumstances it is possible to argue that EU law overrides management company powers but its not always easy to prove

athtrasna

The EU law means a government can't stop people from receiving tv from their own countries. It does not mean that you have the right to put up a dish wherever you want. It's up to anyone who wants to put up a dish to rent/buy in a development/area where this is permitted.

Our MC take down dishes, including from balconies as leases explicitly prohibit the erection of dishes. We have had one tenant call the gardai and report theft...they were asked not to waste Garda time!

Mike 1972

Paulw wrote: »

The owner's Lease Contract rules would have a stronger legal position than your tenancy, and the rules there would also apply to you.

Is a landlord not then obliged to inform prospective tenants about such restrictions prior to any lease agreement being signed and indeed shouldnt such a lease agreement include a clause on compliance with such lease contract rules ?

By not doing so is the landlord not leaving themselves open to an action by the tenant, the management company or both ?

athtrasna wrote: »

Our MC take down dishes, including from balconies as leases explicitly prohibit the erection of dishes. We have had one tenant call the gardai and report theft...they were asked not to waste Garda time!

So If someone parks their car on my property without my permission am I free to just break in and drive off ?

athtrasna

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So If someone parks their car on my property without my permission am I free to just break in and drive off ?

The tenant had had multiple letters asking them to take the dish down and stating that if it was not removed by a particular date then it would be removed by a contractor, as it was.

Paulw

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Is a landlord not then obliged to inform prospective tenants about such restrictions prior to any lease agreement being signed and indeed shouldnt such a lease agreement include a clause on compliance with such lease contract rules ?

By not doing so is the landlord not leaving themselves open to an action by the tenant, the management company or both ?

So If someone parks their car on my property without my permission am I free to just break in and drive off ?

The landlord should inform the tenant. But, the tenant should also be aware that living within a multi-unit development, there are bound to be rules/regulations.

What sort of action? For what?

No one is breaking in at all. The management company have the right of access. The dish isn't stolen. It is being removed and stored by the management company and would be returned upon payment of a fee. But still, the tenant would not be permitted to place the dish up again.

axer

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Is a landlord not then obliged to inform prospective tenants about such restrictions prior to any lease agreement being signed and indeed shouldnt such a lease agreement include a clause on compliance with such lease contract rules ?

By not doing so is the landlord not leaving themselves open to an action by the tenant, the management company or both ?

In my case there was nothing in my rental contract about not being allowed to put up a satellite dish. I though it was allowed in the complex because there were multiple dishes up when I looked at the place.

athtrasna wrote: »

The tenant had had multiple letters asking them to take the dish down and stating that if it was not removed by a particular date then it would be removed by a contractor, as it was.

I have lived in the complex since March of this year and have received no warnings but yet they came with a cherry picker and removed the satellite dish.

Paulw wrote: »

The landlord should inform the tenant. But, the tenant should also be aware that living within a multi-unit development, there are bound to be rules/regulations.

I don't think that is a given. I had no reason to believe that Satellites were not allowed to be put up when there was no mention in my contract about it and there were satellites up either side of the apartment and there was a satellite bracket in the wall of the balcony.

Paulw wrote: »

No one is breaking in at all. The management company have the right of access. The dish isn't stolen. It is being removed and stored by the management company and would be returned upon payment of a fee. But still, the tenant would not be permitted to place the dish up again.

There doesnt seem to be a fee in the development I live in.

Does anyone know would this be grounds to break my rental lease? It is only a six month lease expiring in August and the bank is bringing the landlord to court in September to repossess the apartment anyway. Its just my gf is German and the German channels are the only channels we want (plus they are free).

Thanks for all the responses so far.

Paulw

axer wrote: »

I don't think that is a given. I had no reason to believe that Satellites were not allowed to be put up when there was no mention in my contract about it and there were satellites up either side of the apartment and there was a satellite bracket in the wall of the balcony.

There doesnt seem to be a fee in the development I live in.

Does anyone know would this be grounds to break my rental lease?

Did you specifically ask if satellite dishes were permitted?

The fee would be levied directly on the unit owner. So, in your case, the landlord would get this fee, and may (or may not) pass it on to you.

Nope, this wouldn't give you grounds to break your lease.

axer

Paulw wrote: »

Did you specifically ask if satellite dishes were permitted?

Nope, I suppose then it would not be central to the contract then thus I wouldn't really have grounds to terminate the contract.

I honestly dont see what management companies don't just have strict rules about how a dish to put up rather than a blanket ban. When dishes are put up discreetly and properly I cannot see how they would devalue a property or development.

Paulw

Dishes everywhere look terrible. In our development, we got in Sky (the shared dish system). We now have 3 dishes for the whole development (112 units). Before, there were almost 20 dishes all over the place. Since we got in the Sky system, we have only had 2 dishes put up (and removed). Aside from that, the vast majority of units have UPC (NTL), so never wanted/needed Sky nor a satellite dish.

Mike 1972

Paulw wrote: »

Did you specifically ask if satellite dishes were permitted?

The fee would be levied directly on the unit owner. So, in your case, the landlord would get this fee, and may (or may not) pass it on to you.

Nope, this wouldn't give you grounds to break your lease.

Im sorry but this is a complete crock !

So by you are saying that by signing a lease a person can be bound by additional terms contained within a contract he/she has never seen and was never a party to ?

One could as you suggest ask a landlord but there's hardly much point. A landlord could lie through his/her teeth and as there is nothing in writing it one persons word against anothers in any case a tenant is entitled to make the reasonable assumption that the only terms and conditions applicable to his residency are those specified in the lease.

Paulw

Mike 1972 wrote: »

So by you are saying that by signing a lease a person can be bound by additional terms contained within a contract he/she has never seen and was never a party to ?

Yes, that is the case. The unit (apartment) is bound by the clauses of the Lease Contract and the management company rules. Any sub-lease of the property (landlord/tenant) is then bound by those rules, combined with any new clauses under the tenancy.

Check with Threshold or the PRTB if you doubt me.

Mike 1972

Paulw wrote: »

Yes, that is the case. The unit (apartment) is bound by the clauses of the Lease Contract and the management company rules. Any sub-lease of the property (landlord/tenant) is then bound by those rules, combined with any new clauses under the tenancy.

Yes but surely if a landlord has neglected to include a clause in his lease with the tenant stating that the tenant is bound by the management company rules (and setting these out) then the lease (between landlord and tenant) is null and void and the landlord can be sued by both the tenant and the management company ?

Paulw

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Yes but surely if a landlord has neglected to include a clause in his lease with the tenant stating that the tenant is bound by the management company rules (and setting these out) then the lease (between landlord and tenant) is null and void and the landlord can be sued by both the tenant and the management company ?

Sued for what? I guess it would really depend on the exact contracts used between landlord and tenant.

Either way, the Lease Contract between the Management Company and the unit owner (landlord) supercedes any contract clauses between landlord and tenant.

It boils down to two contracts - between Management Company and shareholder, and a contract between landlord and tenant. There is no contract between MC and tenant, but yet the tenant is still bound by the Management Company Lease Contract clauses.

Mike 1972

Paulw wrote: »

Sued for what? .

Tenant: unable to get the "quiet enjoyment" of the property which he had a reasonable expectation of/Landlord entered in to lease contract on false pretences (details of additional restrictions on what could be done on/with premises not outlined)/ Refund of deposit/relocation expenses/inconvenience/wasted time/loss of satellite dish.

Management company: Failure in duty to make terms of conditions a clause in contract with third party, Failure to inform third party of terms and conditions, costs incurred as a result of tenant not adhering to said T & C's, costs incurred as a result of enforcing same.

Paulw wrote: »

Either way, the Lease Contract between the Management Company and the unit owner (landlord) supercedes any contract clauses between landlord and tenant.

It boils down to two contracts - between Management Company and shareholder, and a contract between landlord and tenant. There is no contract between MC and tenant, but yet the tenant is still bound by the Management Company Lease Contract clauses.

We have already established this. And there is really no need to keep restating this. The issue now is whether a third party (the tenant) can be bound by an agreement they were not a party to (or even made aware of) and so isint the landlord obliged to make this clear to the tenant (idealy as part of the lease agreement) before such a lease is signed

Paulw

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Tenant: unable to get the "quiet enjoyment" of the property which he had a reasonable expectation of/Landlord entered in to lease contract on false pretences (details of additional restrictions on what could be done on/with premises not outlined)/ Refund of deposit/relocation expenses/inconvenience/wasted time/loss of satellite dish.

Good luck with taking such a case to court. I could never see it happening (due to cost) and it would still be complex and you have no idea if you could win or not.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

Management company: Failure in duty to make terms of conditions a clause in contract with third party, Failure to inform third party of terms and conditions, costs incurred as a result of tenant not adhering to said T & C's, costs incurred as a result of enforcing same.

And in law that would come under?????? There's no case there to answer. If the tenant does not abide by the rules, then there are already means to enforce this.

Mike 1972 wrote: »

We have already established this. And there is really no need to keep restating this. The issue now is whether a third party (the tenant) can be bound by an agreement they were not a party to (or even made aware of) and so isint the landlord obliged to make this clear to the tenant (idealy as part of the lease agreement) before such a lease is signed

But, they can (and are) because of what I seem to have to keep repeating.

As for what the landlord is obliged to inform the tenant, I've no idea. Maybe the PRTB can answer that.

D3PO

Mike your really clutching at straws to be fair. However Id love to see you try and argue those points in court. I think you would most probably find its an expensive rebuttal of your views though !

axer

Thanks for the discussion so far guys.

Would the management company normally own the exterior of the windows?

Paulw

axer wrote: »

Would the management company normally own the exterior of the windows?

Yes, the management company own the whole exterior of the building, normally.

In general, the management company own the structure, and the owner only has exclusive use of the unit.

axer

Paulw wrote: »

Yes, the management company own the whole exterior of the building, normally.

In general, the management company own the structure, and the owner only has exclusive use of the unit.

Do they own the windows or just the exterior of the window?

Paulw

axer wrote: »

Do they own the windows or just the exterior of the window?

Can you own the interior of a window, separate from the exterior of it??

It's a "common" issue, with windows, as to who owns it, or who is liable for any cost of repair/replacement.

In my opinion, while the management company may not own the glass (ie the owner is liable for costs of repair/replacement), you (or the unit owner) cannot make any changes to the window (or doors) without the expressed consent of the management company.

pawnacide

Shove the disc up ur ass and sit on the balcony

axer

Paulw wrote: »

Can you own the interior of a window, separate from the exterior of it??

It's a "common" issue, with windows, as to who owns it, or who is liable for any cost of repair/replacement.

In my opinion, while the management company may not own the glass (ie the owner is liable for costs of repair/replacement), you (or the unit owner) cannot make any changes to the window (or doors) without the expressed consent of the management company.

I am just wondering if a flat satellite was attached to the window would the mangement have grounds to remove it. I understand there is an easement on the balcony and external walls but would there be also on the windows?

pawnacide

Methinks you're confusing management companies and mangement agents. The management company is made up of the owners of the apartments and appoints a management agent, usually for a fixed term. If you dont like any of the rules you can always get them changed. However you will have to stop watching satelite tv long enough to become involved. If you're a tenant you'll just have to put up with the rules.

Paulw

axer wrote: »

I am just wondering if a flat satellite was attached to the window would the mangement have grounds to remove it.

Does it detract from the look of the building? Is it mounted externally or internally? If it's internal, then it's unlikely the can remove it, but if it detracts from the look of the building, then they have grounds to have you remove it. If it's external, yeah, I'd say they can remove it.

Ultimately, it is a decision for your management company, so people here would only be guessing.

Paulw

pawnacide wrote: »

Methinks you're confusing management companies and mangement agents. The management company is made up of the owners of the apartments and appoints a management agent, usually for a fixed term. If you dont like any of the rules you can always get them changed. However you will have to stop watching satelite tv long enough to become involved. If you're a tenant you'll just have to put up with the rules.

Maybe you should actually read the thread from the start. No one is confusing anything here, aside from you. :cool:

The OP is a tenant, and not a unit owner, so isn't part of the management company, and therefore has no say.

pawnacide

It falls to the management agent to ensure that all tenants know the rules. As there is no reasonable way for the management agent to enforce these rules before the property is let, it's highly unlikely that any action taken as a result of enforcement would sucede.

P.S. Not everyone posting is a tenant. Ya 'orrible angry little person.

Paulw

pawnacide wrote: »

It falls to the management agent to ensure that all tenants know the rules. As there is no reasonable way for the management agent to enforce these rules before the property is let, it's highly unlikely that any action taken as a result of enforcement would sucede.

P.S. Not everyone posting is a tenant.

The OP clearly stated that he was a tenant (if you read the thread).

Incorrect. It is up to the landlord to ensure that the tenant is aware of the rules. The contract is between landlord and tenant.

However, the management company (through the management agent) can enfore the rules (in this case no satellite dish) by taking action (removing the dish).

The management company (through management agent) should have minimal interaction with the tenant, as all interaction should be via the landlord (company shareholder). It should then be up to the landlord to resolve any issues with the tenant, and his/her actions.

markpb

pawnacide wrote: »

It falls to the management agent to ensure that all tenants know the rules.

Actually, it doesn't - it is the landlords responsibility to ensure their tenant is aware of the house rules. The new MUD bill specifically states this just to reinforce the fact.