Renting, pushy neighbor on the "board"

fasttalkerchat

athtrasna wrote: »

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".

That's not worth the paper its written on. The UPC infrastructure cannot be used to receive international TV, which tenants cannot be stopped from receiving as satellite dishes come under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as it provides required news and information.
You would need to first provide an agreed alternative. I would suggest a place hidden from view where all satellite dishes can be installed then run cables from there to each apartment.
To be honest I can't see everyone sharing your aversion for a satellite dish and will probably want to cut costs by letting tenants sort out their own TV.

peter_dublin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That's not worth the paper its written on. The UPC infrastructure cannot be used to receive international TV, which tenants cannot be stopped from receiving as satellite dishes come under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as it provides required news and information.
You would need to first provide an agreed alternative. I would suggest a place hidden from view where all satellite dishes can be installed then run cables from there to each apartment.
To be honest I can't see everyone sharing your aversion for a satellite dish and will probably want to cut costs by letting tenants sort out their own TV.

Yes you are right they cannot be stopped from "recieving" the signal, a dish stuck to a table inside a window will recieve the signal, but that right does "NOT" overright the property owners rights so your plain and simply wrong just as you couldn't use your "Human Right" to demand neighbours cut down their trees as you can't get a signal due to them. The usual line which is always rolled out. Simply put your rights do NOT ever ride the property owners rights.

Also the fact that you signed a legal lease stating that you only have a leasehold, the fact as a tenent you signed a lease stating you would adhere to the details of the leasehold and should have enquired re dishes prior to moving in mean you wouldn't have a leg to stand on, the managment company is not removing your right as you have a choice to live in a development which allows dishes and you choose to live in the complex.

I'm not bothering to reply to this anymore, this has been hashed out so many times in this forum including legal its just stupid at this stage.
Legal Forums latest discussion: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=82480193

Marcusm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That's not worth the paper its written on. The UPC infrastructure cannot be used to receive international TV, which tenants cannot be stopped from receiving as satellite dishes come under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, as it provides required news and information.
You would need to first provide an agreed alternative. I would suggest a place hidden from view where all satellite dishes can be installed then run cables from there to each apartment.
To be honest I can't see everyone sharing your aversion for a satellite dish and will probably want to cut costs by letting tenants sort out their own TV.

Rights under ECHR are enforceable against the relevant government not against private individuals. The case taken was to stop a government from precluding the receiving of signals in the air. That does not and, in the Irish constitutional context, interfere with the rights of a property owner (OMC freehold company) from precluding the erection of dishes or damage to its own property. Even the requirement to obtain planning permission for more than 1 dish on a HOUSE is unlikely to be a disproportionate restriction. In the case of a multiple dwelling, there (I believe) is not even a single dish exemption. What OMCs need to do is site dishes to serve all relevant interest groups (prop Astra and Eurobird or so on)in a hidden space and pipe that internally in a secure manner to each unit.

fasttalkerchat

peter_dublin wrote: »

Yes you are right they cannot be stopped from "recieving" the signal, a dish stuck to a table inside a window will recieve the signal, but that right does "NOT" overright the property owners rights so your plain and simply wrong just as you couldn't use your "Human Right" to demand neighbours cut down their trees as you can't get a signal due to them. The usual line which is always rolled out. Simply put your rights do NOT ever ride the property owners rights.

The installer does it in the cheapest way possible. Cutting down trees would be dearer than using a longer cable and moving the dish so that wouldn't happen. And anyway you would need to go to court to have it removed, I'd imagine under right to light.
Does a property owner have a right not to have a neighbour with a satellite dish? I can't see how they could claim that affects them.

djimi

athtrasna wrote: »

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.

And UPC are happy to continue doing business with you even after you threatened to take legal action against their engineers? Im surprised at that tbh.

Also wouldnt drilling through interior walls not give the management company something else to complain about?

fasttalkerchat

Marcusm wrote: »

What OMCs need to do is site dishes to serve all relevant interest groups (prop Astra and Eurobird or so on)in a hidden space and pipe that internally in a secure manner to each unit.

That's what I suggested a few posts back. However, I can't see all management companies going to that much trouble. If they don't bother I can't see how they can object to tenants doing their own thing.

Marcusm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

That's what I suggested a few posts back. However, I can't see all management companies going to that much trouble. If they don't bother I can't see how they can object to tenants doing their own thing.

Because the flatholder signed leases precluding themselves from putting up satellite dishes and if building control departments actually did their joib, they would be issuing enforcement notices. If UPC is already piped int hen the satellite signal can be sent down those cables (provided any exclusivity period has expired). It's not that hard or expensive and I've seen it implemented in Dublin (Gasworks) some years after the development was completed.

peter_dublin

djimi wrote: »

And UPC are happy to continue doing business with you even after you threatened to take legal action against their engineers? Im surprised at that tbh.

In fairness DJIMI we had the same issue with UPC and also informed them they must get the managment companies consent to work, in our case it was due to two bricks being blown out (Drilled from inside out), running a cable over the roof, down a gutter and damaging more bricks and many more such cases, we allow upc and simply agreed a standard installation layout with them so there is one extrernal cable for each unit which is identical in entry point.

The issue is not upc but the shoddy and poor workmanship by their installers, a homeowner would not be happy if upc damaged their property in the way they did our apartment complex and would expect it repaired and i'm sure UPC would not be too happy at installers undertaking poor work on their behalf which could affect their reputation.

After all cables do go bad and require replacement, we just ask you don't wreck the place and hang cables all over it.

Marcusm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Does a property owner have a right not to have a neighbour with a satellite dish? I can't see how they could claim that affects them.

They are not a "property owner", merely holder of a long lease. Most of those leases would have covenants permitting a leaseholder to require the freeholder (OMC or equivalent) to enforce the covenants against neighbours so yes it should be legally feasible.

Gatling

First of all I may have come across a crank ,apologies if I have ,
OK if the committee said OK guys and gals were thinking of getting a communal sky dish rather than 50 dishes all over the place and everybody agreed yeah great idea we want in ,and we will take down the dishes we bought ,I'd be quite happy a communal agreement,
Now I've checked with my landlord who checked his agreement there is no mention of satellite dishes or sky dishes in his paperwork ,
now my landlord is a professional landlord and well respected at that,
If somebody the decides they want to remove a dish or me from a balcony that's part of my rented apartment without landlord written permission and mine then the person who comes on to my balcony is a treat to my family and me there for will be treated as such and sent back where he came minus the help of a ladder or cherry picker ,now if this happened while me and my family were our as in been sneaky I'd have the person and persons involved charged with "larceny" theft is theft despite what any lease or lease hold says , all the above is purely hypothetical ,but it seems people think quoting leasehold leasehold that at people doesn't cut it,

I'll gladly wait for a judge to ask me nicely to move my dish, but no handyman has the legal right to take property that doesn't belong to him on the order of some committee.


Thank god I'm a hassle free tenant and UPC customer who's bill is all up to date and paid ,

peter_dublin

Gatling wrote: »

First of all I may have come across a crank ,apologies if I have ,
OK if the committee said OK guys and gals were thinking of getting a communal sky dish rather than 50 dishes all over the place and everybody agreed yeah great idea we want in ,and we will take down the dishes we bought ,I'd be quite happy a communal agreement,
Now I've checked with my landlord who checked his agreement there is no mention of satellite dishes or sky dishes in his paperwork ,
now my landlord is a professional landlord and well respected at that,
If somebody the decides they want to remove a dish or me from a balcony that's part of my rented apartment without landlord written permission and mine then the person who comes on to my balcony is a treat to my family and me there for will be treated as such and sent back where he came minus the help of a ladder or cherry picker ,now if this happened while me and my family were our as in been sneaky I'd have the person and persons involved charged with "larceny" theft is theft despite what any lease or lease hold says , all the above is purely hypothetical ,but it seems people think quoting leasehold leasehold that at people doesn't cut it,

I'll gladly wait for a judge to ask me nicely to move my dish, but no handyman has the legal right to take property that doesn't belong to him on the order of some committee.


Thank god I'm a hassle free tenant and UPC customer who's bill is all up to date and paid ,

Sorry this is just more of the same, first of all, its not yours or the landlords balcony, its the management companies, nothing will change that.

They don't need your written permission, they only need to notify you, as I know people who are a threat to you or your family generally do not arrive in cherry pickers, ladders or high vis gear and identification or do you challenge all service providers in and around the development.

It's as much thieft as it is you interferring with the management companies properties, they have a right to remove such items once it is promptly returned undamaged and your empty threats of violance against any possible agents of the management company are just that. No judge will side with you on that case.

The fact is this, your "professional" landlord signed a legally binding contract to purchase the leasehold on a apartment where the ownership of the physical building remains with the management company. It is not yours not his to attach items to, modify or in any way alter, by doing so you or he is in breach of the leasehold and the managment company is able to enforce their property ownership rights as any owner should be able to do so especially since the managment company is itself acting in the best interest of "all" owners and they agenda they agreed at the AGMs which your landloard may or may not attend.

This is just turning into a pointless circular argument full of pointless posturing. Thankfully I can go back to my Sky tv and surfing my UPC internet, both fully paid up and provided by the managment company as part of a overall upgrade of the development :-)

fasttalkerchat

Given that the apartment is the landlords for the next 1000 years it can be assumed that by the time it is returned to the management company the holes in the wall will be the least of their worries since the building will no longer be standing.
What they should be concerned about is that these silly rules will drive buyers and tenants away and they won't get their fees.

P_1

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Given that the apartment is the landlords for the next 1000 years it can be assumed that by the time it is returned to the management company the holes in the wall will be the least of their worries since the building will no longer be standing.
What they should be concerned about is that these silly rules will drive buyers and tenants away and they won't get their fees.

The way apartment sales work though is that the MC owns all the external walls and areas and the property owner owns all the internal walls and areas.

By that logic the MC has the right to say what can and can't be done to the external walls and areas.

peter_dublin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Given that the apartment is the landlords for the next 1000 years it can be assumed that by the time it is returned to the management company the holes in the wall will be the least of their worries since the building will no longer be standing.
What they should be concerned about is that these silly rules will drive buyers and tenants away and they won't get their fees.

Your right, you know what, F**K it, I always wanted a pink PVC door, i'm getting one. Do you think your house will be standing in a 1000 years, doubt it, do you treat it like sh**t and not worry about the "holes" in the walls or worry about selling it on and possibly driving buyers away as its the least of your worries. The apartment is not the landlords, the lease is the landlords, the building is and always has been the managment companies. You seem to have some issue with management companies and apartments, no one is forced to purchase an apartment and the fees referance is a non point. They are only silly rules because you don't agree with them, I personally don't want to live in a development that looks like a corpo block of flats with dishes, cabling and landry everywhere.

Marcusm

Gatling wrote: »

First of all I may have come across a crank ,apologies if I have ,
OK if the committee said OK guys and gals were thinking of getting a communal sky dish rather than 50 dishes all over the place and everybody agreed yeah great idea we want in ,and we will take down the dishes we bought ,I'd be quite happy a communal agreement,
Now I've checked with my landlord who checked his agreement there is no mention of satellite dishes or sky dishes in his paperwork ,
now my landlord is a professional landlord and well respected at that,
If somebody the decides they want to remove a dish or me from a balcony that's part of my rented apartment without landlord written permission and mine then the person who comes on to my balcony is a treat to my family and me there for will be treated as such and sent back where he came minus the help of a ladder or cherry picker ,now if this happened while me and my family were our as in been sneaky I'd have the person and persons involved charged with "larceny" theft is theft despite what any lease or lease hold says , all the above is purely hypothetical ,but it seems people think quoting leasehold leasehold that at people doesn't cut it,

I'll gladly wait for a judge to ask me nicely to move my dish, but no handyman has the legal right to take property that doesn't belong to him on the order of some committee.


Thank god I'm a hassle free tenant and UPC customer who's bill is all up to date and paid ,

You're seeing it from your perspective and I can understand your concept of "threat" or fear. However, it's perfectly correct that your landlord won't necessarily see it in his documentation as he has no rights over the outside of the walls of the apartment or duplex or whatever. His rights cease a couple of centimetres into the plasterwork. He/you have no more right to drill holes int he external wall than any Tom, Dick or Harry walking along the street.

With respect to the balcony, if this is truly a balcony stuck on the wall (and not a terrace where the floor is on top of the downstairs apartment), his rights (from which yours derive) are no more than a licence to use it, he doesn't even have a lease over the relevant land. Irrespective, the licence (which may be part of the master lease agreement) will specify that nothing is to be affixed to the balcony or any part of it.

These things are badly thought out in that a lot of developers took NTL/UPC onboard without thinking of long term planning. OMCs will now need to do that and the best way forward is to make it clear how easy and simple it is to solve it for everyone rather than stringing up 50 dishes which will undoubtedly have to be removed in the heel of the hunt. Either because the OMC objects or the building controls people (if they ever do their job) objects, or the rubbish installation causes water ingression and damage to the fabric of the building.

fasttalkerchat

peter_dublin wrote: »

Your right, you know what, F**K it, I always wanted a pink PVC door, i'm getting one.

As long as you replace it with a neutral one when you sell the house or return it to the LL to be let again I don't see the problem.
In Ireland we have a serious problem of creating boring housing estates that all look the same and people don't give a **** about where they live because every house is the same.
Which house from the two below would attract model neighbours:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9zwRLcbbXJ0/UATXQow4aCI/AAAAAAAAP4Y/Edp03cQZrs4/s1600/contemporary-home.jpg
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51191000/jpg/_51191407_north_kest_homes226.jpg

Marcusm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

Given that the apartment is the landlords for the next 1000 years it can be assumed that by the time it is returned to the management company the holes in the wall will be the least of their worries since the building will no longer be standing.
What they should be concerned about is that these silly rules will drive buyers and tenants away and they won't get their fees.

Crap holes in the wall drilled by people who won't be around to fix them leads to water ingression which freezes and expands and ultimately creates bigger holes, leaks through the building and much bigger bills than agitating to have the satellite dish sorted properly for the whole block. I've had to deal with this and, as a leaseholder, pick up part of the bill. Ultimately, if it can be traced back to one leaseholder (or anyone who buys from them), they will have to pick up the whole bill as it arises from their negligence.

It's actually easier and cheaper for it all to be done centrally (esp if UPC type cables are already in place).

Marcusm

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

As long as you replace it with a neutral one when you sell the house or return it to the LL to be let again I don't see the problem.
In Ireland we have a serious problem of creating boring housing estates that all look the same and people don't give a **** about where they live because every house is the same.
Which house from the two below would attract model neighbours:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9zwRLcbbXJ0/UATXQow4aCI/AAAAAAAAP4Y/Edp03cQZrs4/s1600/contemporary-home.jpg
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51191000/jpg/_51191407_north_kest_homes226.jpg

But that's not an equal comparison. Peter suggested one person in a block changing their colour which will make it look gick in the midst of what is otherwise supposed to have been designed and thus more like the first example, which I suspect is the one you prefer. People who buy apartments or duplexes need to realise that they buy the inside not the outside. If they want individual expression then buy somewhere without some requirement for uniformity.

peter_dublin

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

As long as you replace it with a neutral one when you sell the house or return it to the LL to be let again I don't see the problem.
In Ireland we have a serious problem of creating boring housing estates that all look the same and people don't give a **** about where they live because every house is the same.
Which house from the two below would attract model neighbours:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-9zwRLcbbXJ0/UATXQow4aCI/AAAAAAAAP4Y/Edp03cQZrs4/s1600/contemporary-home.jpg
http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/51191000/jpg/_51191407_north_kest_homes226.jpg

Really, thats your argument, one off housing attracts a better quality of person, aside for the fact that the first looks like it was built from what ever was on special that day in the builders providers there is so many materials used never mind the Swift. The second is a english housing estate or somewhere in the UK generally so unless I'm moving to India or the UK it's a mute point. I travel a lot to eastern europe and I call tell you that one off housing does not equal quality, social status or taste in a person.

I've choosen to ignore the fact you also seem to think it is acceptable to do around replacing front doors as well once they are returned. Getting off track now, point is you cannot replace what is not yours, door included.

fasttalkerchat

My point was that stifling individuality will make everything look like one of the concrete jungle blocks over in the UK or Russia.
There should be limits, especially when you're in a city centre but I can't see a problem with a different colour PVC door, provided that it is back to normal for the next person so that the resale/rental value isn't affected.

To bring this back to the original problem...
Having satellite TV is a perfectly reasonable expectation for anyone in Ireland and if a third party has an issue they need to provide another solution. The shared dish and pre-installed cabling is a great way to go about it. If that doesn't happen and tenants are going to be prosecuted or have dishes removed people will move out and the block will be half empty or filled with anyone who will tolerate it. That can't be good for anyone.

amtc

on spellings - it's storey as well not story!

I'd hazard a guess that this is Waterville. If it is, all units have access to a shared storage shed. Which is where bicycles should be. No dishes, and no visible washing. (Although apparently also no animals, however I am awake because of neighbours dog yapping!)

ted1

gctest50 wrote: »

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

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


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

Nonsense it is against planning permission to mount on the front of the property.

ResearchWill

ted1 wrote: »

Nonsense it is against planning permission to mount on the front of the property.

To try and clarify this issue. A private landlord can refuse you permission to erect a dish, there may be an issue with Convention right to receive information but only if a State Authority gets involved. In the Area of planning if there is no other way to receive the signal there there may be a issue.

If you want to read the case. http://www.manskligarattigheter.se/Media/Get/174/Europadomstolens%20dom%20i%20målet%20(2008-12-16)%20Khurshid%20Mustafa%20m.fl.%20mot%20Sverige

fasttalkerchat

ted1 wrote: »

Nonsense it is against planning permission to mount on the front of the property.

Really? There is no need to seek planning permission for the first dish, only if you have one for sky and another for Polsat as far as I know

ted1

No, if it is on the front of the house theres a requirement:


Please find attached herewith a copy of the Class 4 exempt development conditions and limitations for satellite dishes.

If the dish is not placed, as per the exempt class requirement, it is not exempt development, and would require the benefit of a planning permission

CLASS 4
(a) The erection of a wireless or
television antenna, other than a satellite
television signal receiving antenna, on the roof of a house.

(b) The erection on or within the
curtilage of a house, of a dish type
antenna used for the receiving and
transmitting of signals from satellites.

The height of the antenna above the roof
of the house shall not exceed 6 metres.

1. Not more than one such antenna shall
be erected on, or within the curtilage of a
house.

2. The diameter of any such antenna shall not exceed 1 metre.

3. No such antenna shall be erected on, or forward of, the front wall of the house.

4. No such antenna shall be erected on
the front roof slope of the house or higher than the highest part of the roof of the house.

athtrasna

peter_dublin wrote: »

Your right, you know what, F**K it, I always wanted a pink PVC door, i'm getting one.

fasttalkerchat wrote: »

As long as you replace it with a neutral one when you sell the house or return it to the LL to be let again I don't see the problem.
In Ireland we have a serious problem of creating boring housing estates that all look the same and people don't give a **** about where they live because every house is the same.

In a managed development you will find a clause that prohibits you from altering the external appearance of the development so changing doors would not be tolerated either! People signed up to these rules at purchase, and they are legally enforceable.

skimpydoo

Marcusm wrote: »

Because the flatholder signed leases precluding themselves from putting up satellite dishes and if building control departments actually did their joib, they would be issuing enforcement notices. If UPC is already piped int hen the satellite signal can be sent down those cables (provided any exclusivity period has expired). It's not that hard or expensive and I've seen it implemented in Dublin (Gasworks) some years after the development was completed.

My apartment has the same management agents as The Gasworks, and a couple of years ago like them we allowed a Sky Dish to be put on our complex. With the one dish many Sky customers can access it.

ResearchWill

ted1 wrote: »

No, if it is on the front of the house theres a requirement:


Please find attached herewith a copy of the Class 4 exempt development conditions and limitations for satellite dishes.

If the dish is not placed, as per the exempt class requirement, it is not exempt development, and would require the benefit of a planning permission

CLASS 4
(a) The erection of a wireless or
television antenna, other than a satellite
television signal receiving antenna, on the roof of a house.

(b) The erection on or within the
curtilage of a house, of a dish type
antenna used for the receiving and
transmitting of signals from satellites.

The height of the antenna above the roof
of the house shall not exceed 6 metres.

1. Not more than one such antenna shall
be erected on, or within the curtilage of a
house.

2. The diameter of any such antenna shall not exceed 1 metre.

3. No such antenna shall be erected on, or forward of, the front wall of the house.

4. No such antenna shall be erected on
the front roof slope of the house or higher than the highest part of the roof of the house.

Just to clarify, you are saying that to position a dish at the front of a house requires planning permission. So therefore is not impossible.

athtrasna

Ronan Leonard wrote: »

My apartment has the same management agents as The Gasworks, and a couple of years ago like them we allowed a Sky Dish to be put on our complex. With the one dish many Sky customers can access it.

The problem with that is that a large number of the people who want dishes want them to get eastern European channels rather than Sky. Could be open to a discrimination case