Renting, pushy neighbor on the "board"

Zema Grim

Hi all, hope you can help out with some advice here. I'm renting an apartment with two friends, it's in a fairly large apartment community in D15. We are in a second story place, all the ground floor apartments have their own front door, where as the second story ones have an entrance hallway and stairs that is shared between two apartments.

Unfortunately for us, we share with a lady who is on the board for the managing company I assume, or maybe just some form of residents council, I'm not really sure. We usually don't have a problem other than her exceptional nosey-ness but lately two of us got bikes to cycle to work. Her partner also has a bike, which has always remained in the hall downstairs. Now we have ours down there too, and one day I come home to find tags on our bikes stating it is against fire regulations and house rules to have them there and if we don't move them they would be taken away by the caretaker in 3 days. That was last Thursday, and the bikes are ALL still there. I haven't been home yet to do anything about it, but I won't be pushed around just because she doesn't want more bikes in the hall.

Lastly, we got Sky installed on Wednesday, and apparently she claimed that we have to take the dish down, it's also "against the rules".

So I ask you, what is the story? How much can she actually do? We rent off the lady that owns the apartment and used to live there herself, and she has never laid any such regulations on us. Thanks for reading!

mitosis

NOBODY should have bikes in the hall. Unless you have permission from the management co AND the Council you can't have a dish mounted on the building.

UDP

She is right about the bikes and the dish but she has to follow the rules too so if her partner continues to put his bike downstairs after you remove yours then you should make a complaint to the management company.

Was the note from her or from the management company?

anncoates

She's not making rules up in her head.

They are no doubt the rules of the management company and sound pretty standard.

If she owns the apartment, she is liable for obeying the rules of the management company.

gctest50

mitosis wrote: »

you can't have a dish mounted on the building.

You can if you need to receive satellite from you home country afaik

EU law > law of miserable,wet,broke country ?


http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055124066&page=3

1stimpressions

Neighbour

peter_dublin

gctest50 wrote: »

You can if you need to receive satellite from you home country afaik

EU law > miserable wet country law ?

Eh your wrong. There is a very long thread about this in Legal Forum, several in the Satellite forum and other forums on here.

Short Version: The management company is the legal owner of the building, the unit (apartment) owners have only a lease and tenents own nothing, therefore nether the tenents or the leasehold (landlord) have any right to attach anything to the building as they don't own it. You can however attach your dish to a table or chair inside a window without issue if you wish.

also there is planning contraints on the amount of dishes on a building that councils can act upon if they wish. This is a clear cut case of tenents over stepping the mark with respect to the dish. Bikes should never have been in the hall. Theirs or the husbands.

Simples.

GRMA

Ignore and carry on until your landlord says anything

peter_dublin

GRMA wrote: »

Ignore and carry on until your landlord says anything

This is bad advice, at this stage the management company would be within their rights to have the dish removed (for the tenents to collect), the building returned to its original condition and charge the entire lot to the landlord who will bill the tenents for the costs.

Ignorance is not an excuse for breach of any contract or lease as i'm aware. The landlord should have provided the tenents with a copy of a household rules if any exist but it doesn't take much to know you can't go around installing dishes etc on buildings you don't actually own.

Zema Grim

Thanks for the responses guys. I'm not even interested in contesting the rules, if the dish has to come down so be it, I had no part in the Sky anyway so I'll let the lads know of their error. The bikes thing is fine too, if her partners is removed also, it's just the principal of the matter of her partner getting special treatment. For the record, have they any right to take the bikes, legally speaking?

djimi

Zema Grim wrote: »

For the record, have they any right to take the bikes, legally speaking?

If they are creating a safety hazard then I believe they are within their rights to move them, yes.

UDP

Zema Grim wrote: »

For the record, have they any right to take the bikes, legally speaking?

I think you will find that it is not entirely clear but the Gardai will say it is a civil matter and I would imagine you wouldn't get anywhere unless they damaged the bikes or satellite dish or refused to give them back.

In an apartment block I was living in they were very strict on the satellite rule. They used to go around with a cherry picker and remove satellites from balconys etc. Mine and my neighbours were removed. My neighbours called the Gardai when they discovered their satellite had been removed. They didn't have much english so the Gardai came over to me. I explained what had happened but the Gardai said they couldn't/wouldn't be able to do anything as it is a civil matter. The caretaker said "sue me" when the asked about taking the satellites without permission but offered the satellites to be picked back up but said they they would be taken away again if put back up.

The only thing you can do is make sure the rule is applied to your neighbours bike also. If it was the neighbour that left the note on your bikes then make sure to leave a similar note on her partner's bike too. You could mention on that note that you would be happy to come to a mutual agreement where all bikes are allowed or something.

djimi

While she is correct in what she says on both counts, one thing I will say is that if she is acting on behalf of the management company then she should be conducting herself in a more professional manner, ie writing proper letters with detailed explinations rather than leaving notes on bikes. She should also be practicing what she preaches...

peter_dublin

djimi wrote: »

While she is correct in what she says on both counts, one thing I will say is that if she is acting on behalf of the management company then she should be conducting herself in a more professional manner, ie writing proper letters with detailed explinations rather than leaving notes on bikes. She should also be practicing what she preaches...

Agree 100%, as a director she should be the last person breaching the rules, seems to be a case of it's okay when it suits her, if they remove the bikes they have to be returned, if they removed yours only and not the husbands she is an idiot and your landlord would have a field day at the next agm with her especially if they tried and levy any charge against your landlord. Get photos in that case and pass them on. Nothing worse as a director on a power trip who thinks the rules don't apply to themselves.

carpejugulum

1stimpressions wrote: »

Neighbour

OP might be American for all you know.

Marcusm

UDP wrote: »

In an apartment block I was living in they were very strict on the satellite rule. They used to go around with a cherry picker and remove satellites from balconys etc. Mine and my neighbours were removed. My neighbours called the Gardai when they discovered their satellite had been removed. They didn't have much english so the Gardai came over to me. I explained what had happened but the Gardai said they couldn't/wouldn't be able to do anything as it is a civil matter. The caretaker said "sue me" when the asked about taking the satellites without permission but offered the satellites to be picked back up but said they they would be taken away again if put back up.

In that respect, the Garda was only partly right; the removal of the satellite dish was a civil matter but the original installation (assuming holes were drilled) was technically criminal damage - thankfully that point is not pursued.

athtrasna

Marcusm wrote: »

In that respect, the Garda was only partly right; the removal of the satellite dish was a civil matter but the original installation (assuming holes were drilled) was technically criminal damage - thankfully that point is not pursued.

Our last AGM voted to actively remove dishes and to pursue damage cases where structural damage was done. One owner had to replace patio slabs where the tenant had bolted the satellite to the slabs. UPC were also contacted with a warning that we would pursue criminal damage cases against them if they continued their lazy practice of clipping cables to external walls for multi room set ups.

fasttalkerchat

You have no contract with your neighbour. Tell her where to go.
If the bikes are in a shared area, get permission from anyone directly affected.
You don't need permission for a dish but you do to drill the holes in the wall.

Gatling

athtrasna wrote: »

Our last AGM voted to actively remove dishes and to pursue damage cases where structural damage was done. One owner had to replace patio slabs where the tenant had bolted the satellite to the slabs. UPC were also contacted with a warning that we would pursue criminal damage cases against them if they continued their lazy practice of clipping cables to external walls for multi room set ups.

A bit Ott

athtrasna

Gatling wrote: »

A bit Ott

You might think so but we have had to re-point sections of walls to seal off holes where cables were clipped (not regular cable clips, these seem to have gone well through). The bottom line is if you put a hole in something you don't own, without permission, you can be pursued for damage/vandalism.

fasttalkerchat

athtrasna wrote: »

You might think so but we have had to re-point sections of walls to seal off holes where cables were clipped (not regular cable clips, these seem to have gone well through). The bottom line is if you put a hole in something you don't own, without permission, you can be pursued for damage/vandalism.

I think that's just a technicality. The same way as you technically cant paint or hang pictures in your home unless you own it.
I think in reality you would be expected to fill all holes and repaint back to a neutral colour.

jimmycrackcorm

athtrasna wrote: »

You might think so but we have had to re-point sections of walls to seal off holes where cables were clipped (not regular cable clips, these seem to have gone well through). The bottom line is if you put a hole in something you don't own, without permission, you can be pursued for damage/vandalism.

Strangely enough I think house owners with sky or upc don't Jane this problem

peter_dublin

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Strangely enough I think house owners with sky or upc don't Jane this problem

Yes most likely because they have an interest in maintaining the poperty both physically and visually, tenents tend not to care and a lot of landlords would not be too bothered either, we as an apartment complex spent in excess of a 1000 euro repairing the damage to the complex done in by tenents with satellites over two years, none of which was recoverable, before we implemented proper controls, several owners had been running amock acting as if units were freeholds.

It included:
1. Several Burst Red Bricks. (Cable Entry and Mounting Fixings)
2. Several Broken Air Bricks (Cable entry but no so carefull when leaving)
3. Several sets of Window Hinges to be replaced. (Cable Entry)
4. Removal of old fixings/dishes left on the building.
5. Remove of cables strung accross roof to get satellite from rear dish to sitting room rather than route internally as landlord said no to this :-)
6. Removal of dozens of raw plugs etc for said dishes.
7. Removal of clips left on the building
8.Repointing and restoration of finish.

All of this damage along with the "several" dishes had made the complex look rundown, now we have a large (Hidden) communial dish. The damage won't be done in a week but over the years it adds up and drags a complex down.

Gatling

Still the way I see it and ,my neighbours who are owners say if it doesn't directly affect them it shouldn't affect anybody else ,if a tenant or owner puts a dish with permission and some over zealous owner on a committee usually voted in by an average of 7 people decide ohhh let's see what we can force on people on the basis of keeping up appearances of a complex ,what was there a walk around with clip boars let's see who has a dish and have it removed bases on cost measures for repairs ,
If i put up a dish with ,with my landlords permission on a balcony no caretaker or director would get near the dish as trespass and assault charges would follow rather swiftly

djimi

athtrasna wrote: »

Our last AGM voted to actively remove dishes and to pursue damage cases where structural damage was done. One owner had to replace patio slabs where the tenant had bolted the satellite to the slabs. UPC were also contacted with a warning that we would pursue criminal damage cases against them if they continued their lazy practice of clipping cables to external walls for multi room set ups.

So you have effectively ensured that the only TV service available to residents is Saorview?

fasttalkerchat

If there is concern around the appearance or damage done by dishes surely owners should chip in for a communal dish with cabling run internally through air-vents or hidden in skirting. If this isn't done individual tenants will pay for their own dish and it will be installed in the cheapest and quickest way.
SKY won't throw a cable over a roof because then they have to pay to replace the cable if its damaged so they will run a cable through a house tacking it to walls.

fasttalkerchat

athtrasna wrote: »

Our last AGM voted to actively remove dishes and to pursue damage cases where structural damage was done. One owner had to replace patio slabs where the tenant had bolted the satellite to the slabs. UPC were also contacted with a warning that we would pursue criminal damage cases against them if they continued their lazy practice of clipping cables to external walls for multi room set ups.

The resident could very easily sue the caretaker for removing their dish from their property since there is a cost to put it back up and they pay subscription for the service. That's a very silly move and at best will push away good tenants, causing landlords to stop paying the management company.

athtrasna

djimi wrote: »

So you have effectively ensured that the only TV service available to residents is Saorview?

No, we have UPC in the development. What it means is that if someone wants multi-room the engineer has to put the cables internally rather than take a short cut and go up the exterior of the walls.

athtrasna

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

The resident could very easily sue the caretaker for removing their dish from their property since there is a cost to put it back up and they pay subscription for the service. That's a very silly move and at best will push away good tenants, causing landlords to stop paying the management company.

No - our leases strictly prohibit the erection of dishes, this is what all owners and landlords signed up to (it's also part of our planning permission). The AGM mandated enforcement of lease term, not someone just deciding it would be "better".

peter_dublin

Gatling wrote: »

Still the way I see it and ,my neighbours who are owners say if it doesn't directly affect them it shouldn't affect anybody else ,if a tenant or owner puts a dish with permission and some over zealous owner on a committee usually voted in by an average of 7 people decide ohhh let's see what we can force on people on the basis of keeping up appearances of a complex ,what was there a walk around with clip boars let's see who has a dish and have it removed bases on cost measures for repairs ,
If i put up a dish with ,with my landlords permission on a balcony no caretaker or director would get near the dish as trespass and assault charges would follow rather swiftly

Again your wrong, the leaseholder / tenent of the unit only has exclusive use of the balcony, they do not own it, the management company retains ownership, therefore they have no right to afix anything to it so you cannot do anyone for trespass or assault (unless they actually did assault you) based on them removing a dish which you attached to a balcony you don't own and most likely in breach of the lease.

djimi wrote: »

So you have effectively ensured that the only TV service available to residents is Saorview?

I don't see where they said this at all. The building could have been wired for UPC as our was originally by the builder, at the end of the day it is not possible to give people the option of every provider, UPC cabling, "multi satellite satellite setup because not everyone is irish and only wants sky, Smart IPTv if available. There comes a point where you have to draw a line. We provided a communial system in our case but even now we have issues where satellites we cannot facilitate on the communial system are requested and they want a seperate (1.2m) dish for their tenancy.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

The resident could very easily sue the caretaker for removing their dish from their property since there is a cost to put it back up and they pay subscription for the service. That's a very silly move and at best will push away good tenants, causing landlords to stop paying the management company.

They can try and sue all they want, once the dish is not removed from the complex, damaged and returned when they request it then they don't have a leg to stand on or are you saying I should be allowed to put a dish on my neighbours house and sue them if they remove it. There will be no cost to putting it back up as they wouldn't be putting it back up as they don't "own" the wall and cannot attach something to someone elses property i.e. the management companies. Why is this so hard for people to understand re apartment buildings yet for houses its easy. You don't own it you can't change it.

athtrasna

Gatling wrote: »

Still the way I see it and ,my neighbours who are owners say if it doesn't directly affect them it shouldn't affect anybody else ,if a tenant or owner puts a dish with permission and some over zealous owner on a committee usually voted in by an average of 7 people decide ohhh let's see what we can force on people on the basis of keeping up appearances of a complex ,what was there a walk around with clip boars let's see who has a dish and have it removed bases on cost measures for repairs ,
If i put up a dish with ,with my landlords permission on a balcony no caretaker or director would get near the dish as trespass and assault charges would follow rather swiftly

It depends on what the development rules say. If they say no dishes, your landlord is not entitled to give permission because they have signed legal deeds to comply with the development rules. What you might have in that case is a case against your landlord for failure to provide the service agreed.

The management company would not be trespassing on a balcony, they own them (unit "owners" have exclusive use) so don't be too sure of that. Our dishes are removed, stored and returned to owners provided we get a legal undertaking that they will not be re-erected.