Estate House Rules legality

fromdublin · 15-11-2018 1:54pm #1

Dear legal helpers,

Mine is a question about the legal validity of 'House Rules' versus personal freedom as described in the law. Living in my house that I own, but which is part of an estate of multiple houses, the Management Company is about to issue a list of House Rules that is to be voted in by majority of households on the estate. The residents all own their own houses and the management company is only there to manage upkeep of rubbish, road surface, street lights and then landscaping of common areas.

Some of the proposed rules fly straight in the face of private property law and personal freedom of movement and expression. So I wonder whether they hold any water whatsoever and whether they are simply an expression of social agreement rather than rules to be adhered to under threat of penalty of some sort. Such proposed rules include:

- Children cannot play outside in the common areas or on the street (with or without supervision).
* The council has stated that these areas are actually public and that local bye laws apply to the use of these areas.

- Residents are not allowed to have pets.
* The council has stated that the only local bye law that applies is that dogs must come to heel when called.

- Residents are not allowed to have parties or make loud noises, unless the Management Company has been notified and has approved the party / noise making.
* Beyond anything, this is utterly childish and ridiculous for grown up people to tell each other as neighbours. But anyway.

- All front gardens must be uniform according to one strict design.

- No party lights (fairy lights) can be hung on the outside of the house.

- No posters or non-uniform designs can be hung in the windows.

What do you think the validity of House Rules is for our estate versus what I am actually allowed to do on my own property without interference from neighbours? Would it constitute as harassment if my neighbours would reprimand me over the breaking of any of these House Rules and tell me what I can and cannot do on my own property and in public space?

Thank you in advance for any thoughts and facts you can share!

seamus · 15-11-2018 2:17pm

It really depends on whether your ownership of the property is freehold or leasehold.

If the property is leasehold, then ownership of the property is subject to the terms of the leasehold agreement, of which the house rules form a part.

If the property is freehold, then the applicability of any house rules end at the boundary of your property.

Typically apartments/duplexes are leasehold and houses are freehold, but it's not always the case.

As such, any rules requiring "approval" for parties, prohibiting pets or dictating what you can and cannot hang in or on your property, are not applicable to freehold property owners. Because these are matters of personal freedom, you as an individual cannot be bound by house rules that other people have agreed to. The management company would have to obtain your explicit agreement, in writing, to be bound by the house rules, before they could levy any fines on you for breaching them.

Stuff like kids playing outside is probably trickier. The management company can say this is prohibited. And make noise about it. But again, unless you have explicitly agreed to it, then their only recourse is to try and bring a private prosecution against your kids for trespass. Which naturally would be laughed out of the solicitor's office.

drunkmonkey · 15-11-2018 2:18pm

What penalty can they give you, the cards are in your hand your paying the management fee. Tell them to get stuffed your doing nothing illegal.

Caranica · 15-11-2018 2:39pm

Did you sign a document or contract that has a clause that you will comply? If so it's a bit late to ask these questions now.

seamus · 15-11-2018 2:40pm

drunkmonkey wrote: »

What penalty can they give you, the cards are in your hand your paying the management fee. Tell them to get stuffed your doing nothing illegal.

Penalties usually take the form of a fine which is added to your management fee.

Cheshire Cat · 15-11-2018 2:45pm

Talk to the other owners and persuade them to attend the AGM and vote No.
If they don't get a majority nothing changes. I bet a lot of your neighbours don't even realise what is being proposed.

fromdublin · 15-11-2018 4:13pm

Thank you, this is brilliant. As we are freeholders and as we never signed an agreement to be bound by their House Rules, the Management Company has absolutely no way of forcing their particular rules upon us. Happy days!

crkcvnirl · 15-11-2018 4:42pm

fromdublin wrote: »

Dear legal helpers,

Mine is a question about the legal validity of 'House Rules' versus personal freedom as described in the law. Living in my house that I own, but which is part of an estate of multiple houses, the Management Company is about to issue a list of House Rules that is to be voted in by majority of households on the estate. The residents all own their own houses and the management company is only there to manage upkeep of rubbish, road surface, street lights and then landscaping of common areas.

Some of the proposed rules fly straight in the face of private property law and personal freedom of movement and expression. So I wonder whether they hold any water whatsoever and whether they are simply an expression of social agreement rather than rules to be adhered to under threat of penalty of some sort. Such proposed rules include:

- Children cannot play outside in the common areas or on the street (with or without supervision).
* The council has stated that these areas are actually public and that local bye laws apply to the use of these areas.

- Residents are not allowed to have pets.
* The council has stated that the only local bye law that applies is that dogs must come to heel when called.

- Residents are not allowed to have parties or make loud noises, unless the Management Company has been notified and has approved the party / noise making.
* Beyond anything, this is utterly childish and ridiculous for grown up people to tell each other as neighbours. But anyway.

- All front gardens must be uniform according to one strict design.

- No party lights (fairy lights) can be hung on the outside of the house.

- No posters or non-uniform designs can be hung in the windows.

What do you think the validity of House Rules is for our estate versus what I am actually allowed to do on my own property without interference from neighbours? Would it constitute as harassment if my neighbours would reprimand me over the breaking of any of these House Rules and tell me what I can and cannot do on my own property and in public space?

Thank you in advance for any thoughts and facts you can share!

If it's an estate of privately owned houses, I'd imagine that it's just a residents association type of arrangement. They volunteer and collect moneys to cut grass etc. As for passing a motion to ban parties etc that really hasn't got a legal standing. There's probably some sour person that's driving all of the loony rules.

That all being said have you a copy of your deed of sale/purchase? Before you go to the next residents meeting have a read for anything releveant that might be in or not in the documented.

Some people just love being a pain for pains sake!

Best of luck.

setanta1000 · 15-11-2018 4:54pm

Where is this estate?

I'd like to know so I can make sure I never buy a house there!!!

What a ridiculous set of "rules".

Mod
Pls do not identify the estate

cruizer101 · 15-11-2018 4:55pm

fromdublin wrote: »

- Children cannot play outside in the common areas or on the street (with or without supervision).
* The council has stated that these areas are actually public and that local bye laws apply to the use of these areas.

Isn't the main purpose of common areas like greens to be a space where kids can play??

Have you talked to you neighbours about this, are many in agreement.
Seems like a crazy set of rules.
I'd be amazed if many were in support of them.

seamus · 15-11-2018 5:01pm

crkcvnirl wrote: »

If it's an estate of privately owned houses, I'd imagine that it's just a residents association type of arrangement. They volunteer and collect moneys to cut grass etc. As for passing a montion to ban parties etc that really hasn't got a legal standing. There's probably some sour person that's driving all of the loony rules.

Not necessarily.

(Most) Newer estates are obliged by law to set up management companies to take care of the common areas. This law allows (in fact, obliges) the company to levy management fees on all unit owners to pay towards that upkeep.

They do have the power to take legal action against unit owners for non-payment.

Implementation of house rules and the levying of fines is a separate thing though. An individual cannot be bound by any set of rules that they haven't personally agreed to - either directly, or indirectly through a leasehold agreement or contract.

fromdublin · 15-11-2018 5:05pm

Indeed, it is one or two houses of sour grapes that are trying to tell the whole street how they should be living. Not surprisingly, these people don't have children themselves, nor pets and they never have parties. We talk a lot about this among the (other) residents but because there has not been a clear picture about whether or not we are or would be legally bound to these rules - up until now - most have simply accepted the idea that these rules were going to be binding.

The contract we signed at the purchase of the house does not regulate the relationship between members and the management company. The residents' meeting would have been the moment and the place the House Rules would have been explicitly accepted as being binding - a very sneaky way of this one particular person to try and impose his will upon the whole street.

It is also a matter of people not wishing to speak up or be singled out as trouble makers - not me, I stand up a speak up but most say: "Ah, it won't come to any fines or legal action". That is how a lot of oppression happens in society, ultimately.

Thanks again for the advice. Knowledge is power eh.

gctest50 · 15-11-2018 5:13pm

Someone is getting notions from Home Owners Associations in de America

https://www.google.com/search?&q=hoa+horror+stories

Gatling · 15-11-2018 5:15pm

Pretty standard house rules for developments with management companies for the most part

doolox · 15-11-2018 5:18pm

This is how prohibition came in the US.Most moderately sensible people thought it would not apply to beers and wines and were shocked when the severity of the actual laws were eventually revealed.

These silly rules rules need to be stamped out immediately or you will have an entity imposing charges on you at the the drop of a hat.

Its bad enough having councils, cities and nations trying to rob ordinary people at every little excuse without having little dictators hounding you out for extra money to enrich themselves and their cronies at your expense.

Fight this with all your might.

Better still if there is a solicitor in the estate who can handle the technical side of things.

I would also get the local councillors involved at an early stage.

BronsonTB · 15-11-2018 5:20pm

Could do with enforcement of a few 'House Rules' where I live.

American format is OTT but a few common sense rules being actually applied would be better for everyone.

wonski · 15-11-2018 5:27pm

What if one of the residents already have a dog?

Is the management company going to request the owner to put it down or what?

15-11-2018 5:30pm

fromdublin wrote: »

Indeed, it is one or two houses of sour grapes that are trying to tell the whole street how they should be living. Not surprisingly, these people don't have children themselves, nor pets and they never have parties. We talk a lot about this among the (other) residents but because there has not been a clear picture about whether or not we are or would be legally bound to these rules - up until now - most have simply accepted the idea that these rules were going to be binding.

The contract we signed at the purchase of the house does not regulate the relationship between members and the management company. The residents' meeting would have been the moment and the place the House Rules would have been explicitly accepted as being binding - a very sneaky way of this one particular person to try and impose his will upon the whole street.

It is also a matter of people not wishing to speak up or be singled out as trouble makers - not me, I stand up a speak up but most say: "Ah, it won't come to any fines or legal action". That is how a lot of oppression happens in society, ultimately.

Thanks again for the advice. Knowledge is power eh.

Horrible neighbours.

I suggest you educate your other neighbours and ensure they know not to agree to such rules and then arrange with your decent neighbours celebrate your continued liberties by holding a street party on the green, with a bouncy castle, petting zoo and upbeat dance music. Make it an annual event.

I’m 100% serious.

People like that get notions because they grew up living in a house on a street as opposed to a truly supportive neighbourhood. They know no better, so time to give them a friendly lesson in how to be neighbourly.

Purple Sheep · 15-11-2018 6:06pm

seamus wrote: »

It really depends on whether your ownership of the property is freehold or leasehold.

If the property is leasehold, then ownership of the property is subject to the terms of the leasehold agreement, of which the house rules form a part.

If the property is freehold, then the applicability of any house rules end at the boundary of your property.

That's interesting. I went back through the documents I got when buying the (freehold) house in an estate and the folio document has something in it, "The property is subject to rights, covenants and conditions relating to the use and enjoyment of the property." that I always assumed relate to there being a management company and a set of house rules (which I did read before signing and are no way as stringent as OP's!). So in this case, freehold or not, even within boundaries I would think the rules are expected to apply?

seamus · 15-11-2018 6:16pm

Purple Sheep wrote: »

That's interesting. I went back through the documents I got when buying the (freehold) house in an estate and the folio document has something in it, "The property is subject to rights, covenants and conditions relating to the use and enjoyment of the property." that I always assumed relate to there being a management company and a set of house rules (which I did read before signing and are no way as stringent as OP's!). So in this case, freehold or not, even within boundaries I would think the rules are expected to apply?

Specifically in your case, I don't know. That clause sounds too generic - any conditions & covenants would need to be otherwise specified, it couldn't just be assumed that the house rules form part of the conditions. Generally, yes it's possible that a freeholder could be bound to house rules of a management company in this way, but it would need to be called out more specifically in the folio document.

When I bought an apartment I do recall specifically the leasehold agreement including something relating to the leaseholder's obligation to adhere to conditions that may be set out by the management company.

jimmycrackcorm · 15-11-2018 7:26pm

Gatling wrote:

Pretty standard house rules for developments with management companies for the most part

Only when signing up. I remember reading a previous case where someone was in the same position and couldn't be forced to be bound to the MC introducing retrospective rules.

Carawaystick · 16-11-2018 12:49am

seamus wrote: »

Generally, yes it's possible that a freeholder could be bound to house rules of a management company in this way, but it would need to be called out more specifically in the folio document.

How would the children of freeholders be bound to rules a freeholder may have agreed to ?

seamus · 16-11-2018 10:32am

Carawaystick wrote: »

How would the children of freeholders be bound to rules a freeholder may have agreed to ?

The freeholder could be sanctioned for permitting their children to act contrary to the rules.

Peregrinus · 16-11-2018 10:41am

seamus wrote: »

The freeholder could be sanctioned for permitting their children to act contrary to the rules.

Well, that depends. Suppose the rule is "no children to play on the green".

The freeholder's right may be limited by covenants, etc, regarding how he can use his property, but the green isn't his property. "No children to play on the green" is not a covenant affecting the use or enjoyment of the freeholder's property.

And what if children who are not the children , guests, etc of a freeholder are playing on the green? Against whom can you enforce the "no children to play on the green" rule?

fromdublin · 16-11-2018 12:39pm

With Management Companies and their House Rules becoming a standard in new builds, this sort of issue will become more and more commonplace. In the end, law is there to be interpreted and applied with common sense - fining and suing parents of children for the children playing on a green is a gross waste of resources of police and courts and I should think any judge would want to see proof of reasonable attempts at common sense resolution of the conflict before spending time of such a case. If anything, I should think street law will be applied before any actual legal action is taken, leading to quite a nasty, aggressive atmosphere.

Ghekko · 16-11-2018 12:54pm

Don't sign a thing. These type of people are to be ignored, trying to control the estate. The nerve of them. I know in our estate we have a mgmt company and residents association. The only 'rule' we have is to give money for grass cutting, which we all comply with as none of us want to mow it. Other than that I'd be telling anyone where to shove their rules. I'd go as far as getting a cat!

stinkbomb · 16-11-2018 5:40pm

Gatling wrote: »

Pretty standard house rules for developments with management companies for the most part

On what planet? MA has zero jurisdiction and should be told to shove their rules up their collective asses. If I lived there I would go out and get a pet, make my children play outside all day long, and have many many parties. Just in spite!

They have no legal right to set any of these rules.

StupidLikeAFox · 16-11-2018 7:21pm

Ignore the lot, how are they planning on enforcing this if they do bring it in?

"Hello garda, I don't want to alarm you but there is a child currently playing on the green and the man two doors up had a dog in his garden send help at once!"

Peregrinus · 19-11-2018 1:46am

fromdublin wrote: »

With Management Companies and their House Rules becoming a standard in new builds, this sort of issue will become more and more commonplace. In the end, law is there to be interpreted and applied with common sense - fining and suing parents of children for the children playing on a green is a gross waste of resources of police and courts and I should think any judge would want to see proof of reasonable attempts at common sense resolution of the conflict before spending time of such a case. If anything, I should think street law will be applied before any actual legal action is taken, leading to quite a nasty, aggressive atmosphere.

The fact that estate rules may be binding doesn't mean that the guards will enforce them. This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. It's up to the management company to enforce them, ultimately through court action.

GM228 · 19-11-2018 12:12pm

Peregrinus wrote: »

The fact that estate rules may be binding doesn't mean that the guards will enforce them. This is a civil matter, not a criminal matter. It's up to the management company to enforce them, ultimately through court action.

But, even via civil channels how do you enforce this in relation to the actions of children?

Parents are not ordinarily vicariously liable for the actions of their children save in very rare circumstances such as tortious acts when directed, authorised or ratified by the parent or there is an employer/employee type of control relationship.

Peregrinus · 19-11-2018 12:21pm

I agree. I think a "no kids playing on the green" rule is all but unenforceable, in practical terms.

Estate House Rules legality

Comments