Is 'no satellite dish clause' unfair/illegal?

In the end of the day, all this is subject to planning rules. EU Competition laws do not over ride planning laws. To use an extreme example, since the deregulation of the energy markets to conform with competition laws, anyone can built an electricity power station and compete in the deregulated market. However, anyone cannot build the power station any where they like just because of the EU competition laws - still subject to planning laws.

The satellite dish thing is similar. Anyone can erect a dish, but only where planning laws permit.


Surley everyone would only have 1 dish on their wall not a flock of them..
Click to expand...

I know someone who has nine - 3 rows of 3 on a gable wall. All for different functions all pointing at different satellites.

The Court of Justice itself stated in its decision against Belgian city regulations that the free provision of services prevents the application of a tax on satellite dishes, as such a tax is liable to dissuade residents seeking access to television broadcasts from other Member States.
Click to expand...

I still stand by my post earlier on this matter. The ruling is that a local authority cannot impose a tax on the erection of a satellite dish IN AN AREA WHERE PLANNING LAWS ALLOW THE ERECTION OF DISHES. The ruling DOES NOT provide that anyone can erect a dish anywhere. Local authority planning laws and/or management company rules ARE NOT A TAX.
 
To answer the posters question within the realm of a contract it is a perfectly acceptable term to include and one which can be accepted or declined by you but one which forms part of the contract. If you ask for it to be omitted they may not accept that and thus refuse to offer you the contract.
This is neither unfair or illegal as you can always walk away or choose to accept the term within the contract.
So when we have finished talking about our EU Regulations and Nuclear Reactors and Aunty Jacks house it is really the age old process of offer and acceptance so dont moan about the contractual term after you previously agreed to it however under contract law the term may be invalid but that is a different question altogether and one that cannot be made here unless we see the contract.
 
csirl said:
In the end of the day, all this is subject to planning rules.
Click to expand...
Planning rules and management company rules are not necessarily the same thing!
The satellite dish thing is similar. Anyone can erect a dish, but only where planning laws permit.
Click to expand...
Yes - and many planning permission exempt locations for dishes/aerials are not allowed by some management company lease agreements. So which prevails?

For example:
Generally, you will not need planning permission for:
  • ...
  • A TV aerial on the roof so long as it is less than six metres higher than the roof
  • A satellite dish (up to one metre across the below the top of the roof) at the back or side of the house (a dish on the front needs planning permission). Only one dish may be erected on a house.
  • ...
Click to expand...
 
Hasslehoff said:
To answer the posters question within the realm of a contract it is a perfectly acceptable term to include and one which can be accepted or declined by you but one which forms part of the contract. If you ask for it to be omitted they may not accept that and thus refuse to offer you the contract.
This is neither unfair or illegal as you can always walk away or choose to accept the term within the contract.
So when we have finished talking about our EU Regulations and Nuclear Reactors and Aunty Jacks house it is really the age old process of offer and acceptance so dont moan about the contractual term after you previously agreed to it however under contract law the term may be invalid but that is a different question altogether and one that cannot be made here unless we see the contract.
Click to expand...
But in the case where the management company lease agreement is legally binding and not overridden by other more fundamental laws/rights what are the implications where a householder ignores the rules (but not planning regulations) but the management company would be trespassing if they were to attempt to remove the equipment?
 
shesells said:
As already mentioned, in an apartment complex you do not own the exterior walls of your unit - it is common property. meaning an L shaped block with 30 apartments like mine could ahve 30 dishes if it was permitted.
Click to expand...

Then the apartment they own is theirs, someone elses wall is not theirs hence there would not be 30 dishes on their wall




shesells said:
Not in the brochures but yes when we met the agent.
Click to expand...

Thats a no so. An agents words doen't mean anything



shesells said:
We paid more for a property without dishes. We could have bought in a neighbouring development with dishes for 20k less. The actual dishes were about 50% of the reason, the general disregard for the rules that the erection of dishes suggested was the other 50%.
Click to expand...

So are you saying you devolopment was sold for a higher price because dishes were banned????
Whats next?? No cars older than 4 years??
No Fiats or Ladas?? They will bring down the tone of the area..



shesells said:
The OP was claiming his being asked to remove his dish was in breach of EU human rights legislation even though he bought in a development where dishes were SPECIFICALLY banned.
Click to expand...
But I rekon it is a breach of consumer rights & competition laws

shesells said:
Liaconn - great to meet a likeminded person on this issue. It amazes me how many people would prefer an ugly dish on the outside of their apartment to get expensive tv, where almost the same service is available through cable for a lot less.
Click to expand...
IMO the service from Cable & satellite is not the same. Either way as a consumer it is my right to chosse
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ClubMan said:
But in the case where the management company lease agreement is legally binding and not overridden by other more fundamental laws/rights what are the implications where a householder ignores the rules (but not planning regulations) but the management company would be trespassing if they were to attempt to remove the equipment?
Click to expand...

Legal contracts can not supercede the law
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by csirl http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=573491#post573491
In the end of the day, all this is subject to planning rules.

Planning rules and management company rules are not necessarily the same thing!

Quote:
The satellite dish thing is similar. Anyone can erect a dish, but only where planning laws permit.
Yes - and many planning permission exempt locations for dishes/aerials are not allowed by some management company lease agreements. So which prevails?
Click to expand...


What happens in freehold apartments is an interesting question. It would be interesting to find out what is written in the deeds i.e who owns land, party areas, exterior walls - they could be vested in the management company even if apartment is owned. If I were an apartment developer and I wanted to stop dishes, I would guess that the best way to do it would be either to retain ownership of the exterior walls OR, if possible, enter it as a "burden" on the title deeds - in much the same way as a wayleave or ROW is a "burden". Anyone got any insight or experience of this?
 
Hasslehoff said:
To answer the posters question within the realm of a contract it is a perfectly acceptable term to include and one which can be accepted or declined by you but one which forms part of the contract. If you ask for it to be omitted they may not accept that and thus refuse to offer you the contract.
This is neither unfair or illegal as you can always walk away or choose to accept the term within the contract.
So when we have finished talking about our EU Regulations and Nuclear Reactors and Aunty Jacks house it is really the age old process of offer and acceptance so dont moan about the contractual term after you previously agreed to it however under contract law the term may be invalid but that is a different question altogether and one that cannot be made here unless we see the contract.
Click to expand...


The OP's question has been answered. Time to lock the thread. All the other arguments about planning laws and EU law are irrelevant. Members of management companies have freely signed up to the terms of the lease and agreed to abide by them. If they didn't like them, they were free to walk away. What is really at the heart of this issue (& pretty much every mgt co-related issue) is property owners feeling they have been tricked simply because they did not educate themselves about the 'house rules' when buying their property. Talk of 'trespass' is also irrelevant because, again, if people took the time to read their lease, they would find the clause whereby they have given the Mgt Co the right to enter their property in order to enforce the terms of the lease (& reimburse the mgt co for the expense of doing so).
To all those posters who feel aggrieved and feel it is their right to ignore this particular term imposed by their lease I ask this question - what if the Management Company decided that it would ignore one of its responsibilities as set out in the lease, such as deciding not to pay the buildings insurance?
At the end of the day, no one forced you to join the management company, nor is any one forcing you to remain a member.
 
There have been plenty of cases where a judge has overruled a contract.
This is just another one waiting to happen.
 
avantarklu said:
The OP's question has been answered. Time to lock the thread. All the other arguments about planning laws and EU law are irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Isn't it a bit presumptious to lock a thread on your say so? Threads will naturally die when all arguments have been looked at and exhausted. I thought this discussion was quite interesting, and it is a shame that it seems to have raised your ire by its existence - its not like someone is suggesting we take up arms in defence of our telly watching freedom! When I bought my house, it was three years old and had a satellite dish attached (presumably put there by the renters or the previous owners) so I didn't personally break the rules, though I took full advantage of the dish being there. The Estate Agent even said that although there was a rule about them, nobody seemed to worry about it. I thought it was interesting to see if someone can come along and demand that dish must be removed, and if they have the legal right and powers to follow through.
 
Well in the absence of a legal ruling, I still maintain that the OP's question has been answered. The 'no satellite dish clause' is covered by a legally binding contract (which it shall remain until it is successfully challenged). The basis of a contract is 'offer' and 'acceptance'. Members of Mgt Co's freely accepted the terms of the lease upon which they were sold their property.

Is it 'unfair' or 'illegal' that the terms of the contract that I have with my mobile phone provides them with the right to charge me more to contact family members abroad? Of course not, I am free to use some other service which is more affordable. Or, alternatively, I could challenge the clause in Court on the grounds that I am being denied the right to maintain a long distance relationship with my relatives (!!!)

You don't join a golf club and then give out that you can't use the fairways to play cricket!
 
Clubman Wrote: " But in the case where the management company lease agreement is legally binding and not overridden by other more fundamental laws/rights what are the implications where a householder ignores the rules (but not planning regulations) but the management company would be trespassing if they were to attempt to remove the equipment?"

They can sue you for breach of contract and a court can remedy that you pay damages or by specific performance of the contract in that you take it down and do not rerrect.

Correct in that any attempt to remove the item could be a tresspass depending on who owns the section of property to which the sat is attached , just as much as attaching the sat to someone elses property is a tresspass.

But to organise a civil bill can take about 4000 and six to 12 months to execute that is why management agents are wont to let these matters go through negotiations.
 
Hasslehoff said:
But to organise a civil bill can take about 4000 and six to 12 months to execute that is why management agents are wont to let these matters go through negotiations.
Click to expand...

Also there is no guarantee of success for the management company.
 
Take it easy, guys.

Someone suggested that my question has been answered; I do not think so.

We can say that elements of contract formation did take place: intention, offer, acceptance, consideration and capacity. That is clear, we needn't talk about it any longer. The contract does exist.

Let's talk about whether the right of choice and to receive satellite signal is a human right. If so, then a contract has to protect and safeguard such a right. Any contract that attempts to violate a right can be challenged in the Courts, and such a clause can be taken out as if it never existed.

It is okay to say you can't attach something to the wall for safety reasons, but you can't say no dishes allowed for aesthetic reasons and that is exactly what the EU is saying: there has to be a provision for an adequate alternative. Cable TV is not an alternative. If I watch channels at Hot Bird satellite (through German, for example), you can't say that giving me NTL channels through English is an alternative. Nearly 15 % of population in Ireland speak some other language as their first language, and 'no dish rule' certainly does not acknowledge that.

Something similar happened in the States few year back, when FCC ruled that satellite dish ban was illegal, but of course residents had to comply with certain requirements in terms of safe dish installation.
 
Untill there is a case taken (and I dont think it will be too long) then we will never have an answer.
This is a contractual issue & usually these rules disappear over time. I remember estates 15-20 years ago where they were to remain open plan & no walls were allowed.. Once one wall went up & went unchallanged everyone else followed suit.
But the key to this issue is the consumers right to choose who to give their business to & I think this has to superceed any contractual issues based on snobbery & alleged devaluing of any property. ( I have never heard of this being an issue TBH)
At the end of the day Property management companys are tight enough with money anyway. And for them to spend everyones management fee on a pointless court case that they have a good chance of losing is never going to happen.
If I wan in this position I would erect the dish , get a survers report to say it is safe & ignore any empty threats you may get. If they remove your dish without your permission that ammounts to theft plain & simple. No contract is above the law of the land.
 
Thanks Colm,

that is exactly what I did. I installed my dish on the balcony railing, and did not cause any structural damage whatsoever. Yesterday, in response to their letter, I rang the management company and said that I will not remove my dish, nor will let anyone do so and I invited them to take me to court. The guy said to me they were aware of the EU position on this, and that there's no need to go to court over such a matter.
 
There you go then. Thats the real Irish solution. Leave it up but I didnt tell you to LOL
 
The real underlying issue here is that many Irish people:

A. Have very little regard for rules, and in particular are very quick to ignore a rule when it suits them.

B. Are very slow to get involved in any formal process to address how those rules are made and enforced.

This usually means that :

1. If you own an apartment where satellite dishes are banned, and you want one, you are most unlikely to pursue the issue by means of actually attending at management company meetings and getting the thing put to a vote, much less actually canvassing the views of your neighbours on the issue.

2. If you own an apartment where dishes are banned, and you like this rule, but the rule is being flouted by what seems to be a minority, you are most unlikely to hold a meeting and\or canvas the views of neighbours so as to have the rule enforced.

All of this talk about the rule being some sort of conspiracy by the forces of capitalism to keep us from our 'basic human right' (?!) to slap up a satellite dish is just a pile of nonsense. In a small number of developments, the management company is still run by the developer, and this argument might at least have some theoretical possibility of being true. Most management companies are owned and run by the house\apartment owners, and it is their general reluctance to get involved which perpetuates existing rules but simultaneously hinders the enforcement of those rules.
 
The management comapnys are reluctant to persue this because they are unlikely to win it. Rule,rule, rules???? I have siad it here 3 times now. Rules or contracts can not supercede the law & peoples statory rights.
If you are on the other side & wish you neighbour to remove their dish. (why something black & 60-80 cm across would bother you that much is beyone me TBH) then take them to court & let a judge decide. I have yet to see one shread of evidence that a dish devaules property. If I do I will be romoving them from my properties, but I really dont see that happening. A neighbour with a few broken windows & 3 foot high grass will devalue you property but what can you do about that either????
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top