Fines for hanging of laundry in the balcony

Yawns

Exactly my point to the other guy suggesting a cherry picker. That kind of thing will only work until you do it to someone with common sense. If I came home and discovered someone had taken anything from my balcony on behalf of the management company, I'd report to the guards and proceed with criminal charges against the person doing the deed, then would proceed with a civil suit against the management company.

Marcusm

Yawns wrote: »

Exactly my point to the other guy suggesting a cherry picker. That kind of thing will only work until you do it to someone with common sense. If I came home and discovered someone had taken anything from my balcony on behalf of the management company, I'd report to the guards and proceed with criminal charges against the person doing the deed, then would proceed with a civil suit against the management company.

What criminal charges would you suggest the Gardai press? Likewise, provided the property is made available to the owner on request, I'm not sure what civil suit you might make. There is no intent to deprive the owner of his property, merely an intent to enforce the lease covenants. If a leaseholder is not in breach of the lease, they would not have to fear enforcement!

Alternatively, permit the hanging of laundry etc. it doesn't particularly bother me but it does interfere with the aesthetic presentation of a building.

One of the particular issues is that people acquire apartments without realising that they are permitting restrictions to be placed on their lives.

Solair

Marcusm wrote: »

Yawns wrote: »

Exactly my point to the other guy suggesting a cherry picker. That kind of thing will only work until you do it to someone with common sense. If I came home and discovered someone had taken anything from my balcony on behalf of the management company, I'd report to the guards and proceed with criminal charges against the person doing the deed, then would proceed with a civil suit against the management company.

What criminal charges would you suggest the Gardai press? Likewise, provided the property is made available to the owner on request, I'm not sure what civil suit you might make. There is no intent to deprive the owner of his property, merely an intent to enforce the lease covenants. If a leaseholder is not in breach of the lease, they would not have to fear enforcement!

Alternatively, permit the hanging of laundry etc. it doesn't particularly bother me but it does interfere with the aesthetic presentation of a building.

One of the particular issues is that people acquire apartments without realising that they are permitting restrictions to be placed on their lives.

Trespass and theft come to mind...

TheTurk1972

Marcusm wrote: »

What criminal charges would you suggest the Gardai press? Likewise, provided the property is made available to the owner on request, I'm not sure what civil suit you might make. There is no intent to deprive the owner of his property, merely an intent to enforce the lease covenants. If a leaseholder is not in breach of the lease, they would not have to fear enforcement!

Alternatively, permit the hanging of laundry etc. it doesn't particularly bother me but it does interfere with the aesthetic presentation of a building.

One of the particular issues is that people acquire apartments without realising that they are permitting restrictions to be placed on their lives.

Just steal someones bike and then demand a ransom for its return. Nothing wrong with that at all is there. :rolleyes:

Yawns

Marcusm wrote: »

What criminal charges would you suggest the Gardai press?

Theft is still a criminal matter unless I am very much mistaken. Your solution is theft. Gardai have no choice to be involved if a complaint is lodged.

There is no intent to deprive the owner of his property

But there is intent. You can't decide to remove someone's property, place it somewhere else and then say well I didn't technically steal it, I just moved it over there out of sight and out of the way without your permission or knowledge...


Solution to aesthetic problem is simple. Provide a communal laundry area with coin operated commercial washers and dryers. Coin operated saves the hassle of an extra management fee for electricity reasons. Everyone pays for what they use.

Solair

Yawns wrote: »

Marcusm wrote: »

What criminal charges would you suggest the Gardai press?

Theft is still a criminal matter unless I am very much mistaken. Your solution is theft. Gardai have no choice to be involved if a complaint is lodged.

There is no intent to deprive the owner of his property

But there is intent. You can't decide to remove someone's property, place it somewhere else and then say well I didn't technically steal it, I just moved it over there out of sight and out of the way without your permission or knowledge...


Solution to aesthetic problem is simple. Provide a communal laundry area with coin operated commercial washers and dryers. Coin operated saves the hassle of an extra management fee for electricity reasons. Everyone pays for what they use.

Or provide a screened off part of the balcony with louvers. This is common in Spain for example.

Marcusm

TheTurk1972 wrote: »

Just steal someones bike and then demand a ransom for its return. Nothing wrong with that at all is there.

I would agree that this is theft and/or extorion; it's not, however, the solution which would be adopted by an MC.

Marcusm

Solair wrote: »

Trespass and theft come to mind...

Trespass is a civil matter except where it is done to induce fear. The MC has a superior interest in the relevant land and a reason for occupying it. Moving property which is illegitimately occupying property and undertaking to return it to the owner does not meet the definition of theft applying in Ireland.

Marcusm

Yawns wrote: »

Theft is still a criminal matter unless I am very much mistaken. Your solution is theft. Gardai have no choice to be involved if a complaint is lodged.



But there is intent. You can't decide to remove someone's property, place it somewhere else and then say well I didn't technically steal it, I just moved it over there out of sight and out of the way without your permission or knowledge...


Solution to aesthetic problem is simple. Provide a communal laundry area with coin operated commercial washers and dryers. Coin operated saves the hassle of an extra management fee for electricity reasons. Everyone pays for what they use.

Theft is a defined term; the intent here is to enforce a covenant in the lease not to deprive the person of the clothes. It will not meet the standards for a prosecution.

I do agree that it would be an extreme position to take but then soe would say a continuous breach of the terms of the lease is an equally serious point leaving the MCopen to sanctions under the Planning and Development Control Acts.

Solair's suggestion of a louvred section is a good one and perhaps someone shoud lobby the Dept of the Environment to inclde this is planning guidelines.

P_1

I've always been perplexed as to why people don't like seeing washing out on balconies.

Anybody of the washing haters wish to explain how this impacts on them?

Yawns

Marcusm wrote: »

Theft is a defined term; the intent here is to enforce a covenant in the lease not to deprive the person of the clothes. It will not meet the standards for a prosecution.

You can't remove someone's clothes without permission from a balcony in order to enforce a covenant in a lease tho. You must understand this point no? I'll bring you back to the car example.

Lets say a car is parked in a parking spot. Ownership of the spot is the MC which leases out exclusive use of a particular spot with an apartment. car owner parks the car there. Down the line some issues with MC for w/e reasons, let's go with the typical no fees paid so no new permit issued. The MC cannot then decide to come along and tow the car to a different place because it would be classed as theft. It's pretty much the same scenario.

Chris_5339762

How about allowing washing drying on the balconies at weekends only?

Anyway, it doesn't bother me too much as I just bought a dehumidifier and hang the clothes horse up in the sitting room overnight. You end up with dry clothes the next morning AND a dry room with no worries about condensation. Also the room is warmer because the dehumidifier spits out a bit of heat. It also doesn't cost much to run.

Far better than a tumble drier.

Marcusm

Yawns wrote: »

You can't remove someone's clothes without permission from a balcony in order to enforce a covenant in a lease tho. You must understand this point no? I'll bring you back to the car example.

Lets say a car is parked in a parking spot. Ownership of the spot is the MC which leases out exclusive use of a particular spot with an apartment. car owner parks the car there. Down the line some issues with MC for w/e reasons, let's go with the typical no fees paid so no new permit issued. The MC cannot then decide to come along and tow the car to a different place because it would be classed as theft. It's pretty much the same scenario.

The car position is different; you would not be prosecuted for theft but for taking possession of a vehicle without authority ( http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1961/en/act/pub/0024/sec0112.html#sec112). A similar explicit provision in law does not apply to laundry and thus absent meeting the standards of "theft", a crime will not arise.

Yawns

Theft and Related Offences


Theft.


4.—(1) Subject to section 5 , a person is guilty of theft if he or she dishonestly appropriates property without the consent of its owner and with the intention of depriving its owner of it.

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0004.html#sec4

By removing the items from the balcony would be theft. By moving them to a different location would be intent to deprive. How is the owner to know after you have removed. If I came home and saw my items missing from balcony I wouldn't call the MC first, I'd call the guards first. This is what the average person would do and a judge would certainly not believe you had any authority to remove the items.

Yawns

It would also appear that not only could the cherrypicker operator be in trouble legally but also the MC for your proposed idea as when they move the items to another area they then are committing an offence.

18.—(1) A person who, without lawful authority or excuse, possesses stolen property (otherwise than in the course of the stealing), knowing that the property was stolen or being reckless as to whether it was stolen, is guilty of an offence.


(2) Where a person has in his or her possession stolen property in such circumstances (including purchase of the property at a price below its market value) that it is reasonable to conclude that the person either knew that the property was stolen or was reckless as to whether it was stolen, he or she shall be taken for the purposes of this section to have so known or to have been so reckless, unless the court or the jury, as the case may be, is satisfied having regard to all the evidence that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he or she so knew or was so reckless.


(3) A person to whom this section applies may be tried and convicted whether the principal offender has or has not been previously convicted or is or is not amenable to justice.[/quoute]

Taken from http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0018.html#sec18

Yawns

No harm quoting and linking this either

17.—(1) A person is guilty of handling stolen property if (otherwise than in the course of the stealing) he or she, knowing that the property was stolen or being reckless as to whether it was stolen, dishonestly—


(a) receives or arranges to receive it, or


(b) undertakes, or assists in, its retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or arranges to do so.


(2) Where a person—


(a) receives or arranges to receive property, or


(b) undertakes, or assists in, its retention, removal, disposal or realisation by or for the benefit of another person, or arranges to do so,


in such circumstances that it is reasonable to conclude that the person either knew that the property was stolen or was reckless as to whether it was stolen, he or she shall be taken for the purposes of this section to have so known or to have been so reckless, unless the court or the jury, as the case may be, is satisfied having regard to all the evidence that there is a reasonable doubt as to whether he or she so knew or was so reckless.


(3) A person to whom this section applies may be tried and convicted whether the principal offender has or has not been previously convicted or is or is not amenable to justice.


(4) A person guilty of handling stolen property is liable on conviction on indictment to a fine or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years or both, but is not liable to a higher fine or longer term of imprisonment than that which applies to the principal offence.

from www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0017.html#sec17

Marcusm

Yawns wrote: »

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0004.html#sec4

By removing the items from the balcony would be theft. By moving them to a different location would be intent to deprive. How is the owner to know after you have removed. If I came home and saw my items missing from balcony I wouldn't call the MC first, I'd call the guards first. This is what the average person would do and a judge would certainly not believe you had any authority to remove the items.

There is no intent to deprive and anywhere I've seen this done is only a last resort after the resident has been given 2 or 3 notices telling them to move the stuff. Any organised MC would also leave a note making it clear that they can have the property back unconditionally. I don't think it's the best approach but I equally think it can be done without contravening the law.

Marcusm

Yawns wrote: »

No harm quoting and linking this either



from www.irishstatutebook.ie/2001/en/act/pub/0050/sec0017.html#sec17

If there's no "theft", there's no "stolen property" andthus a handling or receiving charge wouldn't be sustainable!

Yawns

Marcusm wrote: »

There is no intent to deprive and anywhere I've seen this done is only a last resort after the resident has been given 2 or 3 notices telling them to move the stuff. Any organised MC would also leave a note making it clear that they can have the property back unconditionally. I don't think it's the best approach but I equally think it can be done without contravening the law.

I would dearly love to see this solution in action. 1 letter from a solicitor is all it would take for the MC to come running back with the items guarenteed. If it wasn't breaking any laws it would be the general done thing after a few letters sent to the resident.

You take someones property and move it elsewhere and according to the law both the person removing it and the person aiding him ( the MC ) are both committing offences.

By your logic if I don't like someone talking loudly on their phone on a train I can take it from them and put it out the window. The phone is in a certain spot and they can go and get it unconditionally. It simply can't be done. I would dearly love a MC to try this on me. Just during the week the MC sent an electrical team around all the apartments to check fire alarms. First I heard was when the guy knocked on the door. No ID or anything. He got sent on his away from my door. He said I'd have to inform the MC why. I told him to tell the MC himself and closed the door.

Yawns

Marcusm wrote: »

If there's no "theft", there's no "stolen property" andthus a handling or receiving charge wouldn't be sustainable!

Removing the items from a persons balcony where they have exclusive use of is theft. The clothes are the property of the owner. They have been taken from his exclusively used balcony without his permission by a third party. It's theft organised by the MC so they are liable along with the cherry picker operator.

Yawns

You seem to think that when a resident breaks a lease by putting clothes on the balcony, the MC have the law on their side when the remove the items without permission. If a person was renting a house, stopped paying rent and thus broke the lease, the LL can't suddenly walk in and throw them and their items on the street. How in the name of christ do you think a MC can do what you suggest when LL's etc have been taken to court for unlawful eviction. The same basic principal applies. What you are suggesting is theft plain and simple. You can argue all day long, but it boils down to theft and if a case ever ended up in front of a judge do you think they would see it differently?

Marcusm

Yawns wrote: »

I would dearly love to see this solution in action. 1 letter from a solicitor is all it would take for the MC to come running back with the items guarenteed. If it wasn't breaking any laws it would be the general done thing after a few letters sent to the resident.

You take someones property and move it elsewhere and according to the law both the person removing it and the person aiding him ( the MC ) are both committing offences.

By your logic if I don't like someone talking loudly on their phone on a train I can take it from them and put it out the window. The phone is in a certain spot and they can go and get it unconditionally. It simply can't be done. I would dearly love a MC to try this on me. Just during the week the MC sent an electrical team around all the apartments to check fire alarms. First I heard was when the guy knocked on the door. No ID or anything. He got sent on his away from my door. He said I'd have to inform the MC why. I told him to tell the MC himself and closed the door.

I'm heading out for the night so I'll probably drop out of this for now.

I don't think there'd be any need for a solicitor's letter, I would expect the MC to return the items as soon as the resident came home or asked for them - that's key to the no intent to deprive.

As regards your phone example, it's not anything like the same situation. Firstly, by taking the phone from their hand you will likely startle or induce fear in them sufficient to constitute an assault, by throwing it out the window you will e depriving them of it as you will not be able to return it to them immediately (and they would have to commit a criminal act - walking on a railway - to find it themselves) and you would likely have committed any number of additional offences under the RAilway Acts.

I posted here to point out to the OP that they woud not hae any standing o impose a "fine" for hanging laundry, we've now moved a long way from that. Given most Irish MCs are quasi insolvent anyway, I doubt any of them will be enforcing these types of covenants. They only enforce parking ones because clamping companies do it for no MC fee or may even pay the MC.

cookie1977

pithater1 wrote: »

I've always been perplexed as to why people don't like seeing washing out on balconies.

Anybody of the washing haters wish to explain how this impacts on them?

Because while most people will be sensible about it there will be some who wont. And if you're renting or selling a property no matter what most people here think, a lot of people will be put off by excessive clothes on a line. It might also be an age thing in some cases.

Yawns

I don't think there'd be any need for a solicitor's letter, I would expect the MC to return the items as soon as the resident came home or asked for them - that's key to the no intent to deprive.

They would be deprived tho. Even if it's only for 1 hour, you have deprived them of their property without permission. That's theft.

As regards your phone example, it's not anything like the same situation. Firstly, by taking the phone from their hand you will likely startle or induce fear in them sufficient to constitute an assault, by throwing it out the window you will e depriving them of it as you will not be able to return it to them immediately (and they would have to commit a criminal act - walking on a railway - to find it themselves) and you would likely have committed any number of additional offences under the RAilway Acts.

It's the same situation as both situations are examples of theft. If you take a car, phone, clothes, potted plant without permission it's theft. Take it from the hand or from the balcony or car park. It's theft.

I posted here to point out to the OP that they woud not hae any standing o impose a "fine" for hanging laundry, we've now moved a long way from that. Given most Irish MCs are quasi insolvent anyway, I doubt any of them will be enforcing these types of covenants. They only enforce parking ones because clamping companies do it for no MC fee or may even pay the MC.

Actually it's that bad a situation over here that management companies actually pay the clamping companies to come in and clamp in the car parks. They pay for the contract. They will give the company anything from €500 - €1200 for them to come in and operate in the area. The clamping company then charge €60 - €150 for a release fee for their clamp all of which goes to them and not a cent to the MC. You are correct in that the MC cannot impose any fines. They also cannot steal when they wish to impose any condition of any lease. Even if they remove the items from the balcony and walk around to the front door with the items, it's still theft.

cookie1977

NCA site also details house rules for apartments:
http://www.consumerproperty.ie/downloads/guide_page5.html

5.2 What are house rules?
Examples of house rules may include restrictions on noise levels, limits on alterations to the external appearance of units, a ban on the keeping of pets, restrictions on hanging laundry from balconies, rules on refuse disposal, car parking etc.
The exact terms and conditions of the house rules will generally be set out as part of the lease agreement.
These are generally presented as a standard set of 15-20 specific rules, but the precise terms and conditions of the rules may vary.
House rules typically appear as part of the lease in the following manner:
All stereo, radio and TV appliances must be kept at a volume which does not interfere with your neighbours' quiet enjoyment of their homes. No noise should be audible outside apartments between 9.00pm and 9.00am;
It is not permitted to hang or expose clothes/laundry or any other articles inside or outside their apartment so as to be visible from outside the apartment. Under no circumstances should washing/laundry be hung out to dry on balconies;
The managing agent must be provided with phone numbers where residents can be contacted during the day or at night. Where apartments are let to tenants it is the apartment owner's obligation to ensure that the agent has the contact names, address and phone numbers of the tenants;
Vehicles should be parked in the car park in such a way so as not to obstruct access to the apartment block, exits etc.

There's also some info for people on balcony ownership/use here.
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/property-plus/flat-plan-do-i-own-my-balcony-1474137.html

I still think that charges could be levied on the landlord/owner for not abiding by the house rules and that while some people are asking for evidence perhaps no cases have reached court as people pay.

TheTurk1972

cookie1977 wrote: »

NCA site also details house rules for apartments:
http://www.consumerproperty.ie/downloads/guide_page5.html



There's also some info for people on balcony ownership/use here.
http://www.independent.ie/lifestyle/property-plus/flat-plan-do-i-own-my-balcony-1474137.html

I still think that charges could be levied on the landlord/owner for not abiding by the house rules and that while some people are asking for evidence perhaps no cases have reached court as people pay.

Or they dont take people who dont pay to court. A solicitors letter is very powerful.

Yawns

I still think that charges could be levied on the landlord/owner for not abiding by the house rules and that while some people are asking for evidence perhaps no cases have reached court as people pay.

Out of the blue they cannot fine or impose a charge for breaking house rules. No legal authority. They can do as other suggest which is to have it in the contract from the beginning. They can't introduce it 6 years down the line say and everyone has to accept it. If someone refuses the new terms and informs the MC of refusal, ideally in writing for the own records too, then MC can do diddly squat. If someone ignores the new rules without informing the MC of a refusal it's a different ball game as the law can decide that they accepted the rules. This of course is a whole other kettle of fish compared to simply stealing someone's property.

It's extremely hard for a MC to enforce rules to begin with. If they were to withhold a permit for parking because the resident refused to remove laundry from a balcony, then the resident would start refusing to pay any management fees and we all know where that leads if more and more ppl refuse to pay. No bin collections, no garden upkeep and the MC goes bust. As it is the MC have enough to deal with getting everyone to pay fees these days. There's always 1 in a complex who won't pay.

cookie1977

TheTurk1972 wrote: »

Or they dont take people who dont pay to court. A solicitors letter is very powerful.

True but I presume if it's done properly then it's part of the annual management fee so a dispute is more difficult. We dont have it i(a penalty/charge) n our complex, although we do have the ban which is well observed to be honest.

cookie1977

Yawns wrote: »

Out of the blue they cannot fine or impose a charge for breaking house rules. No legal authority. They can do as other suggest which is to have it in the contract from the beginning. They can't introduce it 6 years down the line say and everyone has to accept it. If someone refuses the new terms and informs the MC of refusal, ideally in writing for the own records too, then MC can do diddly squat. If someone ignores the new rules without informing the MC of a refusal it's a different ball game as the law can decide that they accepted the rules. This of course is a whole other kettle of fish compared to simply stealing someone's property.

It's extremely hard for a MC to enforce rules to begin with. If they were to withhold a permit for parking because the resident refused to remove laundry from a balcony, then the resident would start refusing to pay any management fees and we all know where that leads if more and more ppl refuse to pay. No bin collections, no garden upkeep and the MC goes bust. As it is the MC have enough to deal with getting everyone to pay fees these days. There's always 1 in a complex who won't pay.

Why do you keep saying out of the blue? If it's voted on and is brought in at an AGM as some sort of levy/penalty/charge then why cant it be levied on the annual fee for those that break the rules?

Yawns

Not to take anything away from the points you are making cookie, but house rules don't supersede laws. Whilst a house rule might be no noise from 9pm - 9am, a MC would have a hard time punishing a resident who breaks it regularly. They can't issue a fine and it would be silly to remove other residential services as it generally leads to non payment of fees.