# Is 'no satellite dish clause' unfair/illegal?



## Mick31

Hi everyone,

how does this clause fit within law, and what is the actual law governing this matter?  Is it fair that developers who are in much stronger bargaining position insert this as a clause to a potential buyer who does not have an opportunity to negotiate?

The European Union states that any individual who wishes to install a satellite dish should have the right to do so.  The Commission specifically set out the idea of individuals right to use a satellite dish in its Communication, that stems from the Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights as interpreted by the European Court on Human Rights in Strasbourg.  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.  

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:62000J0017:EN:HTML


Also, the exercise of this right may not be obstructed by rules which are too onerous and which would restrict an individual all the broadcasts of their choice, or even more so, by a general ban, an unjustified refusal , or refusal on aesthetic grounds.  The following is the link of EU Communication:

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en


Is the ban on satellite dishes in direct contavention with the aforementioned rights and rulings from the European Court on Human Rights?


----------



## Sylvester3

There is a clause in the private estate I'm on stating that satellite dishes are not allowed, yet nearly everyone (incl. myself) has one. I think it must be safe to ignore, for the most part.


----------



## quinno

Sylvester3 said:


> I think it must be safe to ignore, for the most part.


 
An Irish solution to an Irish problem. . Same on our estate.


----------



## purpeller

One presumes though that a management company could force you to take down a satellite dish if they so wished?  (provided you had signed an agreement stating that it was not allowed).


----------



## ClubMan

There was at least one long running discussion about this issue over on _boards.ie _if I recall correctly:

				[broken link removed]  	> Tech   	> Cable & Digital TV


----------



## Mick31

Yeah, most  contracts for the apartments come with that clause.  I have a dish too, but recently received a letter to take it down.  

If contracts in Ireland have that clause, does that mean that the EU Communication and rulings of EU courts are worthless documents, or does it mean that what Irish developers are doing in terms of satellite dish restriction is illegal by EU standards?


----------



## shesells

Our management company takes them down within 2 weeks of them sending out a letter giving 7 days notice. This is pursued aggressively, without exception. Our development has a certain style and dishes negatively impact the "look" and potentially the value of the properties in the development. AFAIK, when you sign the deeds at purchase you waive your right to a dish.

Bottom line is if you want a dish, don't buy in a development that doesn't allow them.


----------



## ClubMan

shesells said:


> Bottom line is if you want a dish, don't buy in a development that doesn't allow them.


Or do and then get actively involved in the management company to see if you can change the relevant rule (not sure how feasible this is as it may involve varying the terms & conditions of existing lease agreements or covenants!).


----------



## shesells

Ours requires consent of 70% of all owners to change the conditions of the development in the leases and deeds (not just 70 % of all owners present). Given that AGMS have averaged 10-15% then it's not very likely!


----------



## csirl

> 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.


 
The ruling above applies to circumstances where you are allowed to erect a satellite dish, but must pay an extra fee or tax to do so. This does not happen in Ireland, so this ruling is irrelevant.

As a general rule, in Ireland, there are planning restrictions on the erection of satellite dishes on properties e.g not allowed on front of house or on the balcony/exterior of apartment blocks. The management companies are just enforcing these planning restrictions as the local authority will be after them and the occupiers if they do not enforce.


----------



## Mick31

I wouldn't agree with you Shesells in terms of waiving your right.  No contract is legally binding if contravenes human rights.    I agree that satellite dishes do take away from style of development, but to restrict them and not provide for an alternative means of access to satellite is completely unfair.  I agree that everyone signs a contract; for example I asked my solicitor to get the no dish clause out and was told I could lose the apartment and to save this for another day.  
You do not even get to negotiate anything.  

CSirl,
I do not know where you read that rulings above apply to circumstances where you are allowed erect a dish?!  As it is, it talks about unfair discouraging by means of tax, or other kind of restriction that prevents an individual from receiving satellite signals from other member states.


----------



## bond-007

You will have to convince the learned judges of the high court of the illegality of such contracts.


----------



## serotoninsid

Would be good to see Local Authority enforcement as regards dishes installed on the front face of a dwelling as in this case, they do have a negative impact on the general aesthetics of the area.

As regards management company enforcement, in a lot of cases can this policy not be traced back to the developer doing deals with the likes of NTL, magnet,etc.?


----------



## bond-007

serotoninsid said:


> Would be good to see Local Authority enforcement as regards dishes installed on the front face of a dwelling as in this case, they do have a negative impact on the general aesthetics of the area.


The LA's have not got the resources to chase those with dishes on the front of houses. They ain't got the time for something that will yield very poor results. 



serotoninsid said:


> As regards management company enforcement, in a lot of cases can this policy not be traced back to the developer doing deals with the likes of NTL, magnet,etc.?


You are quite correct.


----------



## shesells

serotoninsid said:


> Would be good to see Local Authority enforcement as regards dishes installed on the front face of a dwelling as in this case, they do have a negative impact on the general aesthetics of the area.
> 
> As regards management company enforcement, in a lot of cases can this policy not be traced back to the developer doing deals with the likes of NTL, magnet,etc.?


 
I still go back to the basic notion of not buying somewhere that bans dishes if you really want one. Whatever the reason for the ban.

Dishes being banned here was actually a major attraction to this development for us, and several neighbours we've discussed this with agreed. I would fight tooth and nail to stop this ban being overturned in the unlikely event that enough other owners cared enough to actually attend meetings!


----------



## theoneill

To the best of my knowledge if you live in an apartment you do not
own the exterior wall or the balcony, therefore the management company
is entitled to remove the dish.

I live in a detached house in an estate with a management company that
banns satellite dishes, I consulted my solicitor and he informed me the
ban in my case was not worth the paper it was written on as I had freehold
and the management company could not enter my property. This is the same
on all of the detached houses on the estate, none of the dishes have been removed
though the fact that all except a few houses have dishes may have something to do with it.

However the ban has been successfully implemented on the apartment block to the
rear of where I live.


----------



## John Rambo

theoneill said:


> To the best of my knowledge if you live in an apartment you do not
> own the exterior wall or the balcony, therefore the management company
> is entitled to remove the dish.
> 
> I live in a detached house in an estate with a management company that
> banns satellite dishes, I consulted my solicitor and he informed me the
> ban in my case was not worth the paper it was written on as I had freehold
> and the management company could not enter my property. This is the same
> on all of the detached houses on the estate, none of the dishes have been removed
> though the fact that all except a few houses have dishes may have something to do with it.
> 
> However the ban has been successfully implemented on the apartment block to the
> rear of where I live.


 
The voice of reason...that's exactly the reason. In an apartment you don't own the exterior, so you can't put things on something you don't own. Maybe sticking it on the couch pointing out the window is an option?!


----------



## Sylvester3

theoneill said:


> To the best of my knowledge if you live in an apartment you do not
> own the exterior wall or the balcony, therefore the management company
> is entitled to remove the dish.
> 
> I live in a detached house in an estate with a management company that
> banns satellite dishes, I consulted my solicitor and he informed me the
> ban in my case was not worth the paper it was written on as I had freehold
> and the management company could not enter my property. This is the same
> on all of the detached houses on the estate, none of the dishes have been removed
> though the fact that all except a few houses have dishes may have something to do with it.
> 
> However the ban has been successfully implemented on the apartment block to the
> rear of where I live.



I take it this must be the case where I live as well. Nearly everyone has a dish now.


----------



## John Rambo

Yes, but it depends on how militant the residents are and if the management agent is proactive. Let's be honest, SKY is a hell of a lot better than NTL but satellite dishes are unsightly strewn across a complex. There is a balance to be struck. It's a pity developers don't explore the installation of a communal roof dish more often. I'm sure SKY would subsidise this in the same way cable and broadband companies do to get exclusivity.


----------



## ClubMan

Sylvester3 said:


> I take it this must be the case where I live as well. Nearly everyone has a dish now.


Same in our place. Privately managed townhouse development. I'd say that c. 25% of the houses have dishes or antennae in breach of the rules. The management agent (at the behest of the management company) circularised householders reminding them of the rules and saying that steps would be taken to remove such installations. Nothing happened and I can't see them doing anything. At this stage I'm half considering ignoring the rule myself to erect a dish. I'd prefer to have this at the back anyway but getting a signal there is non trivial.


----------



## theoneill

John Rambo said:


> Yes, but it depends on how militant the residents are and if the management agent is proactive. Let's be honest, SKY is a hell of a lot better than NTL but satellite dishes are unsightly strewn across a complex. There is a balance to be struck. It's a pity developers don't explore the installation of a communal roof dish more often. I'm sure SKY would subsidise this in the same way cable and broadband companies do to get exclusivity.



I used to live in an apartment complex and did broach the subject of a communal dish with the management company. After assuring me that they would look into it nothing happened and I ended up NTL digital.

I know for a fact that in the estate I live in now the developer had a deal with a cable company and that is where the *no satellite dishes** for antennae for aesthetic reasons *rule came about. Frankly I chose to ignore it and so did the vast majority of the other residents.


----------



## Mick31

EU is quite clear on this.  It's a fundamental right, and any rule that restricts this is in breach of the EU Convention on Human Rights and free flow of goods and services in the internal market..

Many Man COs do not even attempt to look into communal dish installation, nor are willing to negotoate in terms of safety of individual satellite dish installation.  Thus, they show an utter disregard for the aforementioned articles of the EU conventions.  

How many security alarms have been removed since they are placed on the external walls?


----------



## bond-007

I don't think too many man Cos give 2 hoots about the EU. As said once you own the freehold the Man Company can take a long walk off a short pier.


----------



## serotoninsid

John Rambo said:


> It's a pity developers don't explore the installation of a communal roof dish more often.


Dead right.  Actually, theres not all that much investment required.  Its just that it need to be given a bit of thought.


----------



## colm

shesells said:


> Our development has a certain style and dishes negatively impact the "look" and potentially the value of the properties in the development. .


 
Could you explain this please??
I have dealing with various properties & have never heard of a dish decreasing the value of any property.


----------



## ClubMan

Yeah - what's wrong with [broken link removed] anyway?

[broken link removed]


----------



## bond-007

I would love to see a management company try to enforce their rules here:
[broken link removed]
[broken link removed]


----------



## shesells

colm said:


> Could you explain this please??
> I have dealing with various properties & have never heard of a dish decreasing the value of any property.


 
Not everyone wants a flock on dishes on their wall. We bought specifically in a dish-free zone. Any property is only worth what people will pay for it and if a development is stylishly designed, you pay for that look. Dishes take away the look therefore erasing the premium paid for the style of the development. 

As for communal dishes, they are ugly too, my sister's complex have them, one on each block and they put me right off the development. Seriously lowers the tone.

Mick - if you're so convinced that your management company is in breach of your Human rights, sue them! In the meantime YOU still CHOSE to buy in a development where dishes were not allowed. By having a dish you're in breech of the legal conditions of sale, so at the moment the only person with a clear case to answer is you. It still hasn't been established if the EU convention applies to residential developments where there is an alternative ie cable (irrespective of the speculated reason for the ban!)


----------



## bond-007

What can the developer do? He can't trespass if you have the freehold. I doubt they would get very far in a court. Just because it is in a contract don't make it legal.


----------



## liaconn

shesells said:


> Not everyone wants a flock on dishes on their wall. We bought specifically in a dish-free zone. Any property is only worth what people will pay for it and if a development is stylishly designed, you pay for that look. Dishes take away the look therefore erasing the premium paid for the style of the development.
> 
> As for communal dishes, they are ugly too, my sister's complex have them, one on each block and they put me right off the development. Seriously lowers the tone.
> 
> Mick - if you're so convinced that your management company is in breach of your Human rights, sue them! In the meantime YOU still CHOSE to buy in a development where dishes were not allowed. By having a dish you're in breech of the legal conditions of sale, so at the moment the only person with a clear case to answer is you. It still hasn't been established if the EU convention applies to residential developments where there is an alternative ie cable (irrespective of the speculated reason for the ban!)


 

I totally agree. I live on a privately managed estate and a large number of us are getting fed up with the minority who ignore the rules and do what they like regardless of how much they're inconveniencing or annoying their neighbours. This includes satellite dishes, parking commercial vehicles outside houses and installing wooden floors in upstairs apartments. Nobody forced these people to buy in this particular estate or held a gun to their heads while they signed up to the rules and agreements.


----------



## Sylvester3

liaconn said:


> Nobody forced these people to buy in this particular estate or held a gun to their heads while they signed up to the rules and agreements.



Cor... that sounds like a classy place!


----------



## liaconn

Sylvester3 said:


> Cor... that sounds like a classy place!


 
???????


----------



## colm

shesells said:


> Not everyone wants a flock on dishes on their wall.


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


shesells said:


> We bought specifically in a dish-free zone.


 Are you saying your property was marketted as a dish free zone?


shesells said:


> Any property is only worth what people will pay for it and if a development is stylishly designed, you pay for that look. Dishes take away the look therefore erasing the premium paid for the style of the development.


I agree 100% but I have never seen evidence of dishes affecting what people will pay for a property




shesells said:


> if you're so convinced that your management company is in breach of your Human rights, sue them! In the meantime YOU still CHOSE to buy in a development where dishes were not allowed. By having a dish you're in breech of the legal conditions of sale, so at the moment the only person with a clear case to answer is you. It still hasn't been established if the EU convention applies to residential developments where there is an alternative ie cable (irrespective of the speculated reason for the ban!)


I doubt there is any breach of human rights, but I am sure this will be successfully challanged in the near future on fair trade & competition grounds. If I for example being in the security industry were to do a deal with a devoloper that only we could install the alarms on that property there would be uproar, and rightly so.


----------



## shesells

colm said:


> Surley everyone would only have 1 dish on *their* wall not a flock of them..


 
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.




colm said:


> Are you saying your property was marketted as a dish free zone?


 
Not in the brochures but yes when we met the agent.



colm said:


> I agree 100% but I have never seen evidence of dishes affecting what people will pay for a property


 
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%.



colm said:


> I doubt there is any breach of human rights, but I am sure this will be successfully challanged in the near future on fair trade & competition grounds. If I for example being in the security industry were to do a deal with a devoloper that only we could install the alarms on that property there would be uproar, and rightly so.


 
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.


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.


----------



## ClubMan

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.


Yes - but not all privately managed developments are apartments. Some are developments of individual freehold properties/houses on a leasehold privately managed site. I know - I live in one.


> 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.


FTA satellite is free other than the once off payment for installation of the equipment (a few hundred € at most in most cases). Less than a year of monthly subscriptions for many providers' basic cable _TV _packages would easily pay for an _FTA _satellite installation.


----------



## shesells

Still doesn't get away from people buying in a development with rules and then specifically deciding that they had the right to break them. There are plenty of houses out there not in managed developments.


----------



## ClubMan

The whole point of the thread is whether or not there are more fundamental rules/rights that supersede those in a management company lease agreement in specific cases (i.e. in this case in regard to satellite dishes etc.). There doesn't seem to be a clear answer to this.


----------



## bond-007

Until there is a court case we won't know.


----------



## Mick31

Thanks Clubman, that's exactly what I asked.

I wrote to the EU Commision's internal market department and they sent me an official letter in which they quote all relevant provisions from the various EU documents, as well as the rulings of the European Court on Human Rights in Strasbourg.  

I did not get to go to solicitor yet as I only received the letter two days ago.  Basically, it puts pressure on the management company to specify requirements on use of satellite dishes rather than ban them.  

As I said I did not get to see my solicitor yet; hopefully next week


----------



## shesells

Thinking about this in a bit more detail, our agreement basically bans the attachment of any aerials, antennae, dishes or any external fittings to the exterior walls apart from light fittings where the outlet is pre-wired.

I know the management company used it to take down hanging basket brackets randomly erected by someone protesting at the removal of their dish! 

Not sure how this would work with townhouses.

Back to you Mick, are you using the same solicitor who told you to buy anyway and then try to get the rule changed?


----------



## csirl

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..


 
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.


 
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.


----------



## Hasslehoff

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.


----------



## ClubMan

csirl said:


> 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! 


> 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? 

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.
> ...


----------



## ClubMan

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.


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?


----------



## colm

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.


 
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.


 
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%.


 
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.


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.


IMO the service from Cable & satellite is not the same. Either way as a consumer it is my right to chosse


----------



## colm

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?


 
Legal contracts can not supercede the law


----------



## csirl

> 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?


 

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?


----------



## avantarklu

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.




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.


----------



## ClubMan

avantarklu said:


> The OP's question has been answered.


Not necessarily:


ClubMan said:


> The whole point of the thread is whether or not there are more fundamental rules/rights that supersede those in a management company lease agreement in specific cases (i.e. in this case in regard to satellite dishes etc.). There doesn't seem to be a clear answer to this.





bond-007 said:


> Until there is a court case we won't know.


----------



## colm

There have been plenty of cases where a judge has overruled a contract.
This is just another one waiting to happen.


----------



## Sylvester3

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.



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.


----------



## avantarklu

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!


----------



## Hasslehoff

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.


----------



## bond-007

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.



Also there is no guarantee of success for the management company.


----------



## Mick31

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.


----------



## colm

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.


----------



## Mick31

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.


----------



## colm

There you go then. Thats the real Irish solution. Leave it up but I didnt tell you to  LOL


----------



## MOB

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.


----------



## colm

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????


----------



## Mick31

Mob,

that is very problem that you do not see this as a human right.  If it is not a human right, then you are 100 percent spot on.  Can you tell somebody from Hungary (I am just taking it as an example) if they were to buy an apartment, they would not have an access to their TV station because they are not allowed erect a dish and yet there is no adequate provision?  No judge in Court would ever deprive you of such a right; he might not let you have a dish, but will certainly make a management company provide you with a signal as such.  Why do they not take me to court?  

Even management companies see this as a human right; few months ago I was told that I was not deprived of this right, just not allowed erect a dish because of the structural damage?!  I would love them to repeat this in Court and see what the judge thinks since they did nothing to even consider any suggestion.

In regards to voting, you can vote on whether the rubish is collected on Tuesday or Thursday, whether you repaint the building magnolia or green, but you can't vote on whether someone should be watching NTL, SKY or any other TV.


----------



## John Rambo

Mick31 said:


> Even management companies see this as a human right; few months ago I was told that I was not deprived of this right, just not allowed erect a dish because of the structural damage?!  I would love them to repeat this in Court and see what the judge thinks since they did nothing to even consider any suggestion.


Because it's not your wall...why should you be allowed erect something on an exterior wall which don't own. Even when we own an apartment, it's actually technically a lease of sorts where we own "air" for want of a better word. The CEO of Sky was on the Last Word the other night saying they're doing this communal stuff more often now. As for dishes all over a building, they are unsightly and make a building look like a tenement.


----------



## colm

I have a dish up & I assure you my property does not look like a tenement.
Thats a very big generalisation to make.


----------



## John Rambo

colm said:


> I have a dish up & I assure you my property does not look like a tenement.
> Thats a very big generalisation to make.


 
And also one I did not make...I said dishes all over a building, meaning a block of apartments covered with lots of dishes which does, in my opinion, look terrible. Houses are a different matter.


----------



## MOB

"Mob,
that is very problem that you do not see this as a human right. If it is not a human right, then you are 100 percent spot on"

Then I am 100 percent spot on.    A 'Human Right' as normally understood is a right which everybody has, and with which neither a management company nor the state can lawfully interfere (assuming of course that the state has signed up to its responsibilities in this regard)

You have the right to life, liberty and the security of person.  You have the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.  You have the right not to be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.  You have a lot of other rights which are recognised as basic and fundamental.   

The right to stick up a satellite dish is not yet one of those rights.


----------



## csirl

Somehow I doubt that erecting a satellite dish is a "human right" (sometimes articles on EU websites are a bit off on the translation - it is more likely that they were referring to what we would call a "personal right" or "legal right"?). Where is it listed in the UN Charter of Human Rights or any of the Geneva Conventions?

When will we be seeing human rights charities on the streets of Dublin raising money to by satellite dishes for all those people in oppressed or poor countries who dont have one?


----------



## colm

John Rambo said:


> And also one I did not make...I said dishes all over a building, meaning a block of apartments covered with lots of dishes which does, in my opinion, look terrible. Houses are a different matter.


Also I never said it was a house. I have some apartments with dishes. They do not look like tenements either. Saying all apartments with dishes look like such is still a generalisation


----------



## John Rambo

colm said:


> I have a dish up & I assure you my property does not look like a tenement.
> Thats a very big generalisation to make.


 
You said you've a dish up...now you're saying you have "some apartments with dishes". Which is it exactly? One of the main objectuions people have to satellite dishes on apartment complexes is that they are unsightly and make a building terrible. By all means try and use the human right, quality of service or monopoly argument but please don't try and tell me a building with loads of satellite dishes on it looks anything other than completely ridiculous.


----------



## colm

It is both.! I have a dish on my own home. I also have a number of apartments all of which I have given my written permission to to erect a dish if they wish. I would love to see any figures which prove such dishes devalue any property. I don't see how anyone can generalize that all apartment blocks with dishes resemble tenements.


----------



## truthseeker

colm said:


> It is both.! I have a dish on my own home. I also have a number of apartments all of which I have given my written permission to to erect a dish if they wish. I would love to see any figures which prove such dishes devalue any property. I don't see how anyone can generalize that all apartment blocks with dishes resemble tenements.


 
the word tenements may be a slight exageration but there is no doubt that lots of dishes on the walls of an apartment block creates an aesthetically displeasing look. It takes away from the uniformity of the building. Its the same way washing hanging out on balconys looks bad.


----------



## John Rambo

colm said:


> I also have a number of apartments all of which I have given my written permission to to erect a dish if they wish. I would love to see any figures which prove such dishes devalue any property. I don't see how anyone can generalize that all apartment blocks with dishes resemble tenements.


 
How have you given written permission for your tenants to erect satellite dishes on the outside of the apartments? You don't own the outside of those apartments...the management company does. I can't see how anyone can argue that a sea of satellite dishes across a building doesn't look terrible. Much the same as washing drying out on balconies looks terrible. Maybe it's just me but satellite dishes, laundry, flags, bunting, or painting your property blue to support the Dubs are all bedfellows.


----------



## colm

A slight exageration, but however. I have given tenants my written permission because I believe the balconys on my apartments are my property. As for the management company they have yet to challange anyone.


----------



## John Rambo

colm said:


> A slight exageration, but however. I have given tenants my written permission because I believe the balconys on my apartments are my property. As for the management company they have yet to challange anyone.


 
That's the point though, you don't own the balconies or the outside walls. An apartment owner essentially owns the air in which they live but not the structure. Even when it's freehold it's technically an infinite lease. I suspect you haven't been challenged because of the apathy of the residents. I must admit, I don't like seeing satellite dishes or laundry. Partly because they're unsightly and partly because I'd love to have SKY Plus and be able to dry my clothes effectively!


----------



## csirl

Hopefully this argument will disappear in a few years when technology reduces the size of satellite dishes to a few inches.


----------



## Sylvester3

csirl said:


> Hopefully this argument will disappear in a few years when technology reduces the size of satellite dishes to a few inches.



Or indeed TV is broadcast via broadband internet services.


----------



## colm

No doubt it will.
We are starting to go around in circles here any but here is a few observations.

1>It is pointless of us arguing about how dishs look on apartments. Peoples point of view varies. Some think they look like tenaments others wouldnt even notice them.
2> With regard to them devaluing property I again ask to see proof of this. (Does a big metal box from NTL on the side of your property devalue it?)
3> We all have our own views on the legality of being denied permission to install them.  Untill this is tested in the courts we will have to agree to disagree


----------



## NiallP

Mick31 said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> how does this clause fit within law, and what is the actual law governing this matter?  Is it fair that developers who are in much stronger bargaining position insert this as a clause to a potential buyer who does not have an opportunity to negotiate?
> 
> [...]
> 
> Is the ban on satellite dishes in direct contavention with the aforementioned rights and rulings from the European Court on Human Rights?



The clause is entirely legitimate for many, many reasons. 

Firstly, it is a matter of private contract. 

Secondly, european law is inapplicable to private contracts. It can only confer rights on a private individual if they are opposing an act of a public body (or "emanation of the state") that contravenes european law.

Thirdly, any decisons of the European Court of Human Rights are entirely seperate from decisions of the European Court of Justice. Decisions of the ECHR are non-binding in their entirety.

Fourthly, the links cited are of no help to anyone resisting the enforcement of such a clause. It is clear that these communications relate to the acts of PUBLIC bodies - i.e. a Belgian municipal authority, planning bodies etc. As such, they relate to unlawful restrictions on the provision of a service - e.g a requirement to get planning permission for a satellite dish would effectively destroy any putative satelite dish market.

There is absolutely no basis, legal or otherwise, for an argument that it is somehow an integral human right to affix a large metal eyesore to a communal edifice.

If you really need to get SKY rather than NTL, I believe there are satelite receivers available that are camoflagued to look like rocks which can be left out on your apartmetn balcony.


----------



## shesells

Mick31 said:


> 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.


 
Technically you don't own the balcony, balconies are considered common areas - at least in our development, you are not allowed erect anything on a balcony.


----------



## Mick31

NiallP,

if something is in the contract, it doesn't necessarily mean that it is legal.  
Where do you get an idea of the European Law and its relation to private contracts?  Contracts could be social and commercial, and it is obvious that the Lease is a commercial contract.  

Have you ever heard of European Directive on Unfair Contract Terms?  Does that apply?  AllMember States were required to implement this Directive into their national laws.  

In regards to rights: they are inherent in every person and the function of the Constitution is to recognize their existence and afford them protection.  It seems that you think that we are talking about the right to affix a dish?! Someone even asked where in the UN charter this could be founr.  No, we are talking about the basic right to choose, right of choice.  
I have to repeat it's perfectly fine to say no dishes allowed, but an *adequate *alternative must be provided.  Satellite TV is a service like any other.  Electricity is a service, telephone landlines are a service, needless to say all apartments are provided with access to these services whether you choose to use or not. Could a management company decide that apartments shouldnt be allowed to have elctricity because electric cables would have to pass through walls owned by the management company. Same for telephone lines. Management companies seem to think they can provide services on the basis of vested interest ruling out all others. The EU has decided otherwise.


----------



## bond-007

Quite Mick, You cannot contract outside the law. You can't enforce a contract that says "by buying this house you must kill your first born child." That would be contracting outside the law. An extreme example but it proves a point.


----------



## MOB

"No, we are talking about the basic right to choose, right of choice. "

The choice is made when you decide whether or not to buy an apartment in a development which has a 'no dishes' rule.  


'I have to repeat it's perfectly fine to say no dishes allowed, but an adequate alternative must be provided.'  

No it mustn't. 

'Satellite TV is a service like any other.'

No it isnt'.

'Could a management company decide that apartments shouldnt be allowed to have elctricity because electric cables would have to pass through walls owned by the management company.'

Actually, if some nutcase wants to offer 'no electricity' apartments for sale, and if he sets up the management company accordingly, and if he finds people daft enought to buy them, then there is no reason why this could not be enforced.  That is the essence of freedom of contract.

What is missing from all of the thinking in the pro-dish posts is that freedom of contract is a two way street.  If, within the bounds of the law, I want to set up an apartment scheme which bans cars, which bans dogs, which bans music after 10.00 p.m., which bans wooden floors, etc. etc.  I am free to do so.  Apartment purchasers are free to contract with me in those terms.  If people buy apartments in the development on those terms, then they are bound by those terms.  


'Management companies seem to think they can provide services on the basis of vested interest ruling out all others. '

The Management Company is not a 'vested interest' and it does not exist to serve a 'vested interest' other than the communal interest of the apartment owners.


'The EU has decided otherwise.'

Actually it hasn't.

I am astonished that this discussion has provoked so much interest.   In other European countries, they frequently have all sorts of rules in apartment developments which we would probably find ridiculously onerous, but they have been living in apartments for a lot longer than we have.  

The botton line here is that if you buy into an apartment or a managed development, you rally should take a look at the rules of the community (even though, as already stated, many are but rarely enforced) before going ahead with your purchase.

I would be concerned that anyone reading some of the contributions to this discussion would come away with the belief that they could purchase an apartment in the mistaken belief that the 'no-dishes' rule (or indeed any other rule in the scheme) could not be enforced.   Certainly, this being Ireland, it probably won't be enforced, but that is a different thing altogether.


----------



## bond-007

The same position applies to houses, where the buyer owns it lock stock and barrel?


----------



## Mick31

Mob,

if the nutcase decided to build an apartment block with no electricity, then he has to specify that there will be no electricity in the apartments, and then on that basis you can contract.

In case of satellite dishes, it states that no aerial or satellite dishes allowed.  That's fine.  Contract never specified anything in relation to satellite services, so I entered the contract implying that when I move into this 'sophisticated', 'state of art', 'new generation' apartment I will have a socket (and there are another two sets of sockets apart from NTL) through which I can receive signal from satellite dish, for instance via communal dish).  That's why I agreed to no satellite dish rule.  

Then I erected a dish (since there was no even NTL for the first two months), and at the same time I realised that my sophisticated, state of art, modern lifestyle apartment (as advertised) is not as sophisticated...And then I fought the management company and am fighting to this day.

Contract never said that the NTL will be the only provider, if I were even to get Magnet in, they would not do it.  

When you mention the freedom of contract, it is as free as long as it does not contavenes the law.  Irish Law talks about planning permission for the satellite dishes over certain size ( I think it is one meter diameter).  Mob, I offered and invited my management company to take me to court for this breach of contract, and told them let's see if the judge thinks it is fair, does it actually prevent you from receiving services, why did the EU actually issue its communication, why did FCC in the States put out of force no dish rule.  

No court is fond of these management companies as they are still not regulated by law, imposed by developers who are in much stronger bargaining position when contracting with 'people'.

Then if their arguments for no dish rule are of aesthetic nature, then how come the houses in the same development can have their dishes?  Does that not take away from the appearance of the area already?  If their arguments are in terms of structural damage, then dishes should not be attached to external walls.  There is much wider context in terms of this ban, it is not as black and white as some would like to present


----------



## colm

Taking the argument that a contract is a contract & the owner agreed to this when purchasing the property. Can this rule ever be changed?
Is it a case of majority rules?
Or is it a case of who the builders done the deal with?


----------



## csirl

None of the contract stuff answer the planning question. If it is a case that the erection of satellite dishes is contrary to the planning permission given (as is common in Dublin City) to build the apartment block, then the contract is academic.


----------



## csirl

> *Communal satellite dishes
> *[FONT=Arial,Arial]3.10 To avoid subsequent demands for the installation of numerous individual satellite dishes on apartment complexes, developers should be encouraged to consider the potential for locating communal dishes as part of the overall design, e.g. at roof level.
> [/FONT]


 
Above is from the Dept of Environment Guidelines for Planning Authorities.


----------



## colm

This is the obvious solution. But it doesn't help the delelopers do their deals with other providers.


----------



## John Rambo

How many times do people need to hear that they do not own anything outside their own apartment?! Not the balcony, not the outer walls, not the windows on the outside!!!


----------



## truthseeker

Mick31 said:


> Mob,
> Then if their arguments for no dish rule are of aesthetic nature, then how come the houses in the same development can have their dishes?


 
Because the people in the houses own their external walls and people in apartments dont.


----------



## Mick31

Are you saying that if I attached a bit longer pole onto the inside wall and let the dish stick out in the air, that management company would ask you to remove it?  
As the Dept of Environment said, developers should be encouraged to install communal dishes, and that's the problem solved.  Very simple, isn't it?


----------



## John Rambo

Mick31 said:


> Are you saying that if I attached a bit longer pole onto the inside wall and let the dish stick out in the air, that management company would ask you to remove it?
> As the Dept of Environment said, developers should be encouraged to install communal dishes, and that's the problem solved.  Very simple, isn't it?


 
Again, it's not really up to the developers...it's up to SKY to be more proactive in bidding for exclusivity in these complexes. What happens is the builder offer the opportunity to NTL/Smart/SKY/Chorus/whoever to wire for television services. The TV provider pays for this. In the past SKY have not been as willing as others to engage in these arrangements but according to their chief on The Last Word the other night they will be looking at this more often in the future.


----------



## Mick31

John Rambo,

why SKY?  

I don't care about the SKY.  There is so many channels on the satellite and many of them are Free-to-Air.  Access to satellite does not mean access exclusively to SKY.

Buildings should be wired by developers, and then up to you what you want to take.  I personally watch programmes on Hot Bird satellite, they are free once you have a satellite receiver


----------



## shesells

Mick31 said:


> Are you saying that if I attached a bit longer pole onto the inside wall and let the dish stick out in the air, that management company would ask you to remove it?
> As the Dept of Environment said, developers should be encouraged to install communal dishes, and that's the problem solved. Very simple, isn't it?


 
Again, our contracts say nothing inside that's visible from the outside. Primarily refers to clothes horses in windows but would apply here.

Installing communal dishes would not retrospectively solve the issue for you Mick - so why the fascination with them?


----------



## Mick31

Shesells, 

what on earth makes you think that communal dish would not solve this issue???  As you see I put 3 question marks.

Is there something that little dish can do, and a large dish could not?


----------



## colm

I think he was referring to wanting other satellite besides SKY


----------



## Complainer

John Rambo said:


> Again, it's not really up to the developers...it's up to SKY to be more proactive in bidding for exclusivity in these complexes. What happens is the builder offer the opportunity to NTL/Smart/SKY/Chorus/whoever to wire for television services. The TV provider pays for this. In the past SKY have not been as willing as others to engage in these arrangements but according to their chief on The Last Word the other night they will be looking at this more often in the future.


It's not up to Sky. It is up to those purchasing in these developments to ensure that the conditions suit them before purchase. While builders would not have negotiated on these terms in the past, buyers are in a strong position to negotiate with builders these days.


----------



## Mick31

Thanks Complainer.

You are spot on there.

When I was buying an apartment, it was take it or be priced out of market situation.  Only weeks later, the price went up by another 25k.  Of course, you would agree to anything presented to you in those circumstances.  
It's like high unemployment in which you accept any job, which doesn't mean you agree with it.  In such circumstances they can offer you a job contract with 5 days annual leave and you accept it because you have to.  Then you 'discover' that you are actually entitled to minimum 20, and when you want to use them, your employer says you are not allowed since you agreed and signed the contract. The context is very important when it comes to any contract, and any Court takes this into consideration.   

Colm you are right when you say I was referring to other satellites.  One dish can pick up few satellites while being in the same position so I don't know what shesells is talking about.  

She is right when she says that contracts even specify that you can't put anything even inside that could be visible from outside (clothes rack, sat dish...), and yet the houses in the same complex can put dish outside...It's ridiculous.

What happens if owners actually agree and dismantle the management company and let the City Council do the maintenance? Who owns the external walls then?


----------



## csirl

> What happens if owners actually agree and dismantle the management company and let the City Council do the maintenance? Who owns the external walls then?


 
City Council will never do and are not permitted to do maintenance on a private apartment blocks. If you've nobody maintaining the fabic of the buildings, then in time it will fall into disrepair.


----------



## Mick31

Is there a law that says that they are not permitted?

Nevertheless, who owns the external walls once there is no management company?


----------



## moondance

John Rambo said:


> How many times do people need to hear that they do not own anything outside their own apartment?! Not the balcony, not the outer walls, not the windows on the outside!!!



Sorry if this is slightly off topic but does this mean the management company are responsible for cleaning my windows (on the outside) of my apartment?


----------



## Mick31

Moondance,

of course they are.  This management company stuff is a lot of bull****, where they basically say it's their as if they represent 'people of Mars'.  All this ownership stuff is just to impose rules and to have something over you.

Management companies are in for a big shock in this country.

What about people that are renting who certainly sign nothing of the sort that they are not allowed satellite dishes, or that they do not own the balcony, since they do not own anything anyway.


----------



## shesells

Mick - in answer to your question - I would think it highly unlikely that any development would install communal dishes after the apartments have been occupied. The wiring inside the apartments etc would be difficult to arrange, even to get access to them.

You also confuse management agents (ie the people who maintain the development and enforce the rules) and management company (the registered company that you became a member of at purchase).

Finally on the rented thing, the leases generally state that if you rent out your property then you are required to ensure your tenants are advised of and obey any development rules.


----------



## csirl

> Is there a law that says that they are not permitted?


 
The various Acts of the Oireachtas concerning the spending of public monies as well as various local government legislation. 

Its not a case that if there is no law preventing the spending on a particular thing then the council is allowed to spend money on it. It works the other way around. Money CANNOT be spent on something unless provided for in law. Public money can only be spent of things if a law has been passed to allow its expenditure.

Somehow I do not see the Oireachtas passing a law forcing councils to maintain the fabric of buildings owned by private developers or householders. No doubt if they did, it would shortly be followed by court cases forcing councils to maintain all private dwellings. Could you imagine what the tax rate would need to be to fund this? Could you imagine the public outcry of having to pay other peoples maintenance bills?


----------



## Mick31

Shesells,

I am not mixing up things at all.  Management company Ltd like any other company could be abolished.  The agent does not come into this at all.  

Have you never heard of Limited companies ceasing their existence?  Who owns the walls then once there is no management company?  Leave agents out since they do not own anything and are just there to maintain premises.  

In regards to communal dishes I would not agree with you.  Existing wiring could be used as well, and many buildings today do come with extensive wiring.  

In regards to public monies, people in apartments do not pay any less tax than others, so i don't see why public monies would not apply here


----------



## Pulped

The management company ceasing to exist is not something that could just happen overnight with the freehold of the building floating off into the air as if it no longer existed. The company which has shareholders and the freehold is an asset of the company. If the company was to be sold off or go into liquidation then the asset would be sold to someone else. 

As far as your analogy goes of an employer forcing someone to agree to only five days of holidays a year in a time of high unemployment it is completely nonsensical and not applicable to this situation at all. There is a difference between a term being included in a contract which is illegal, namely no holidays, and a term being included which you may not like. The last time I checked there was no mention of a right to a satellite dish anywhere in the Constitution (can't imagine how Dev missed out on that one), nor for that matter am I aware of any ECtHR decision with regard to a satellite dish being a human right. The fact of the situation seems to me to be that you signed up to a contract that contained a clause that you don't like but which you were aware of and agreed to anyway. The ability to watch as many tv channels as you like, while probably part of the couch potato's charter, is not one fundamental to the successful operation of society as we know it. What is fundamental is choice.

The developer chose to stop people from erecting satellite dishes.
You chose to agree to this term.
All of the other people in your apartment building did so as well.
You subsequently seem to have selfishly chosen to ignore this and attempted  to justify this decision to yourself and others by cloaking your pigheadness in some nonsensical babble about human rights. 
I hope the other people in your building choose to challenge you on this.
And finally I choose to think that you are a nob and that I'm glad I don't live in your building.

Choosing things is just the best


----------



## Blueberry08

Pulped said:


> You subsequently seem to have selfishly chosen to ignore this and attempted  to justify this decision to yourself and others by cloaking your pigheadness in some nonsensical babble about human rights.....I choose to think that you are a nob and that I'm glad I don't live in your building.



You've had a bad day, haven't you? Or are you just allergic to dishes?


----------



## colm

I really don't understand how someone who objects to something is a nob & should be insulted. Very poor debating skills pulped & I for one am very happy I don't live in YOUR building.


----------



## MOB

To be very fair to pulped, before he snapped he was at least arguing with reasonable logic.   Comments such as:

"All this ownership stuff is just to impose rules and to have something over you." 

are rather irritating, and certainly do not add to the debate.

To be frank, this debate is going nowhere.   A number of people who want satellite dishes are not prepared to countenance the possibility that they might in breach of an enforceable rule.   Nothing will change their view.


----------



## csirl

> In regards to public monies, people in apartments do not pay any less tax than others, so i don't see why public monies would not apply here


 
Yes people in apartments are on the same tax rates as others. But people who dont live in apartments dont get their private houses maintained by the council free of charge, so why should apartment owners?

I think you fail to see the difference between public and private ownership. These apartment blocks are private property owned by someone, some company or the residents. They are not public property and so public money cannot and should not be used to maintain them.


----------



## Sunny

MOB said:


> To be very fair to pulped, before he snapped he was at least arguing with reasonable logic. Comments such as:
> 
> "All this ownership stuff is just to impose rules and to have something over you."
> 
> are rather irritating, and certainly do not add to the debate.
> 
> To be frank, this debate is going nowhere. A number of people who want satellite dishes are not prepared to countenance the possibility that they might in breach of an enforceable rule. Nothing will change their view.


 
Fully agree. Some of the arguments go beyond the realms of stupidity. As someone who is on a residents committee in an aprtment complex, it astounds me the amount of people who didn't read the lease or house rules when spending a few hundred grand.


----------



## Sylvester3

Sunny said:


> Fully agree. Some of the arguments go beyond the realms of stupidity. As someone who is on a residents committee in an aprtment complex, it astounds me the amount of people who didn't read the lease or house rules when spending a few hundred grand.




Ah you see, You might be in the right legally, and you might be in the right morally..... and of course you might be in the right contractually and err.... the right logically. But you see.... ummmmmm I want to have a dish. And its my house. So there! <runs away>


----------



## colm

Sometime, somewhere , somehow  this needs to be challanged in court.
When that happens is will simply be down to whether the contract is legal or whether it is breaching anyone rights. Untill then we are just going to keep going around in circles.


----------



## shesells

There seems to be 2 clear groups of people on here.

1 group, myself included who maintain that you knew what you were getting yourself into when you bought the property and if you wanted to have a dish you should have bought elsewhere.

The other group who bought/would buy anyway and either blatantly ignore the rules or moan about and try to challenge the rules.

We'll never agree and as Colm said, until there is a challenge we will keep going around in circles. So either take that legal challenge if you believe you are right or else abide by the rules as they stand!


----------



## Complainer

Mick31 said:


> I am not mixing up things at all.  Management company Ltd like any other company could be abolished.  The agent does not come into this at all.
> 
> Have you never heard of Limited companies ceasing their existence?  Who owns the walls then once there is no management company?


Abolishing the management company is a recipe for disaster, and it is extremely unlikely that a majority of owners would agree to this approach. This would leave existing owners unable to sell, as no-one is going to buy a property where this is no certainty about the common areas and the block insurance in particular. No bank will lend money for a purchase unless there is certainty about the the management company.

If you really disagree with what the management company is doing, you're gonna have to persuade a majority of the other owners to change the rules. There is no need to abolish the management company.


----------



## Mick31

Thanks Pulped,

I hope you had great time telling me who or what I am, but I choose not to go down that road. You have demonstrated all prejudice you have towards people who think different from you. You should read a little bit before you make such statements, and not just press CTRL+F and look for 'satellite dish' under Human rights convention or EU internal market of free goods and services.

I have already stated I don't have nothing against this rule, but I believe it does violate a right to service reception. The contract you sign is meant to be a fair contract, not a denial of rights. Of course people need rules, some more than others and they are for the common good of all living in the confines of apartment blocks. You dont have a right to litter or play loud music or graffiti your walls but you do have a right to satellite services.
It is absolute nonsense to try illustrating your argument with some farcical situation of putting your dish on another persons wall; that is their home, it is not for your use. A balcony on your apartment is for your use, whether you own it or not. This regularly cited nonsense argument serves purely to misdirect and has no merit. For a start, you would likely have to commit tresspass to install your dish in somebody else's garden. If management companies want to prohibit dish; fine, but provide an alternative. 

Different jurisdiction but they had pretty much the same rights and policies in the US though the same problems with management companies, in 1996 and again after appeal (moan whine Fifth Ammendment, constitution etc ) against it by IREM (Institute of Real Estate Management) in July 2001, the U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that Order 98-273, issued by the FCC, would remain in effect, ie confirmed that "In general, a satellite dish that is 1 meter (39.37 inches) or less may be installed on an area that you own or where you have exclusive use" Stems from the same basic rights as we have in the EU.
"The FCC confirmed that a unit owner has the right to install a dish in areas such as balcony that has been designed to be used only by that unit owner/tenant even if association management or maintenance personnel has access to that areas.
"Tenants on rental properties may install satellite dishes on balconies, porches and other properties with leaseholds."



[broken link removed] (this is IREM's own publication)


In regards to the EU: The Commission specifically set out the idea of individuals’ "right to use a satellite dish" in its communication of 27 June 2001 on satellite dishes. 

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en


Here is the EU Directive (2002/22/EC) on universal service and users rights relating to electronic communications networks and services:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32002L0022:EN:NOT


----------



## MOB

And here, word for word, is an extract from one of those links:

"Concerns of an architectural and town-planning nature, which are often cited in this context, can be met by solutions which make it possible, where necessary and technically feasible, to minimise the visual and aesthetic impact of satellite dishes without impairing quality of reception, under reasonable conditions and at reasonable cost; such solutions can, for example, involve the location of the dish (indoors rather than outdoors) or the type of dish (e.g. a collective dish rather than numerous individual dishes). "


----------



## Mick31

Correct Mob.

Management companies reject everything straighaway without even considering any of these.  I have sent numerous letters to my management company (still in developers hands) in regards to dish erection, and they never replied to any of these.

I still have receipts from the AnPost since I used registered mail.  Some months later they sent me a letter without any reference to the letters I had sent them, simply asking me to remove the satellite dish.  And that's why I rang them and told them that they have been ingoring me for a long period, and that I will physically prevent them for taking down my dish, and invited them to take me to court.

I have many documents at home in relation to this, some of them are from different jurisdictions though, but if these are unacceptable I have sufficient amount of an Irish ones too.  
The logic of aesthetic is just wrong.  30 meters from my balcony is a set of houses in the same development under the same management company and most of them have clearly visible dishes, I can't see why my dish is less aesthetic or 'uglier' than theirs.

As you could see from those documents, there are some conditions that cane be met under reasonable conditions and at reasonable cost, without impairing quality of reception.  Management company never specified any of these conditions, never even entered any talks about these


----------



## Mick31

Thanks Csirl,

I admit, my mistake.  You are correct in saying that.


----------



## Pique318

If the management company own the outer walls, and the tenants are, in effect, the management company (all equal shareholders), then isn't it the same thing that everyone owns their share of the outer walls ?

Still, all the 'I want...I don't want' arguments above illustrate why I would never live in an apartment.


----------



## shesells

Nope - as members of the management company the houseowners own some of my walls too! But get this, they also own their own!! They get deeds of sale, we get 1000 year leases. Not very fair but that's how it is!


----------



## John Rambo

Some of the posting in this thread is outrageous and I'm amazed it hasn't been locked. Let's look at the salient points...in an apartment complex, the apartment owner does not own the outer walls of the unit. A 'freehold' apartment is not technically freehold, it's more of an infinite lease on a piece of air. So they cannot unilaterally erect a satellite dish on property they do not own. The only way to do this would be to get the management company to change the rules. This will involve getting a majority of votes at an AGM/EGM which means a majority of residents or the developer if he has retained control of the management company. Personally I would vote against such a measure as I believe satellite dishes on an apartment building are an eyesore and akin to having laundry on balconies or Celtic flags hanging off your property. I'd love a satellite dish as I much prefer SKY's services rather than NTL but am happy with the rules. This human rights stuff is nonsense...even if it's true, how does it apply to people who don't own a wall to erect the satellite dish on? Does the poor unfortunate homeless guy sleeping outside Burger King tonight have the right to erect a satellite dish on the side of their building? No he does not!


----------



## colm

Is the homeless guy outside Burger King paying burger king €1000 a year for the privledge?
Hardly comparing like with like there!!


----------



## John Rambo

colm said:


> Is the homeless guy outside Burger King paying burger king €1000 a year for the privledge?
> Hardly comparing like with like there!!


 
The €1000 is for the maintenence of the common areas. I'm just playing devils advocate...there are many flaws in the management company/apartment system. I recommend that Robert Goggin Guide to Apartment Living book. Some of the misconceptions out there are crazy.


----------



## Mick31

John Rambo,

you are mixing thing up comparing eyesore and outer walls.

If its an eyesore that it is an eyesore regardless whether you own it or not.  

In regards to outer walls, the dish needn't necessarily be fixed to an outer wall.  That's my point.  I could attach a dish without drilling the holes.  

Nevertheless, apartments owners have an exclusive use of their balconies.  

The thing here is that no satellite dish people (if I can call them that way) constantly switch from eyesore to ownership issue.  It is clear that they do not really care about the holes, ownership; it is just the mindset of people who think that their property is devalued due to dishes being erected.  There is many more things that are uglier: old cars, bins on the balconies, dirty windows....


----------



## liaconn

The point some of us are making is that people are signing up to rules and agreements and then taking a unilateral decision to completely ignore them once they have moved into the area of their choice. I don't understand the logic of your last sentence. Has anyone posted here saying they are okay with bins on balconies, rusty old cars etc but not with satellite dishes?


----------



## John Rambo

It's not mixing issues...it's reinforcing the argument against them! A) You don't "own" the outer walls so erecting anything on them is unacceptable without permission from the management company. B) Most people agree that satellite dishes across a building are an eyesore. The issues don't need to be mixed up and nobody is doing so. I did not "compare" the two issues, whatever that means.


----------



## Mick31

Let's leave out outer walls.  No holes since the outer walls are owned by the management company.  Right?

Liaconn,  the logic of my last sentence is to do with satellite dishes being unacceptable since they look awful (I put it in simple words).  If somebody's car is old and looks awful, do you approach the owner and tell him to remove his car?  You can't say one thing is ugly and therefore not acceptable, and another thing is ugly but acceptable.

In terms of contract signing, yes I did sign the contract aware of this rule believing since dishes are prohibited we must have been provided with satellite access by means of communal dish.  That was implied term of my contract.  I have to stress that developer was in much stronger bargaining position.  

I did not drill the holes, so no one can say that I inflicted any damage whatsoever.


----------



## shesells

A communal dish implied in the terms of your contract  Care to share the text with us??


----------



## Mick31

Yes.  

Apart from NTL socket, I have another two sets of sockets for TV.  They are no use unless I have a dish or signal coming frm them


----------



## Sunny

Mick31 said:


> Yes.
> 
> Apart from NTL socket, I have another two sets of sockets for TV. They are no use unless I have a dish or signal coming frm them


 
And that shows a implied term in your contract 

There is nothing stopping you getting a communal dish or satellite dish. Raise it at the AGM and get your fellow residents to vote with you. However if the majority of residents signed a lease prohibiting the use of satellite dishes in the development and are happy with that clause, what gives you the right to go against their wishes? People are sprouting a load of rubbish on this thread about human rights and EU law...Let someone take an Irish test case if they feel so strongly about it.


----------



## liaconn

Mick31 said:


> Let's leave out outer walls. No holes since the outer walls are owned by the management company. Right?
> 
> Liaconn, the logic of my last sentence is to do with satellite dishes being unacceptable since they look awful (I put it in simple words). If somebody's car is old and looks awful, do you approach the owner and tell him to remove his car? You can't say one thing is ugly and therefore not acceptable, and another thing is ugly but acceptable.
> 
> In terms of contract signing, yes I did sign the contract aware of this rule believing since dishes are prohibited we must have been provided with satellite access by means of communal dish. That was implied term of my contract. I have to stress that developer was in much stronger bargaining position.
> 
> I did not drill the holes, so no one can say that I inflicted any damage whatsoever.


 

Nobody's saying ugly cars are acceptable, but if they're not forbidden by the management company rules then I have no right to approach the owner and ask him to remove it. I do, however, have the right to object to satellite dishes, commercial vehicles parked on the kerb etc because these are forbidden and we all agreed, at the time of purchase, not to inflict these on the rest of the estate.


----------



## Mick31

Yes, it is a human right.  

There is no point arguing over this with you.  FCC in the States determined that it is a human right..EU issued its communication in relation to this.  You simply choose to ignore all this.

I will let you know when managemtn company takes me to court


----------



## shesells

Sunny said:


> And that shows a implied term in your contract
> 
> There is nothing stopping you getting a communal dish or satellite dish. Raise it at the AGM and get your fellow residents to vote with you.


 
Not correct. Residents are not entitled to vote at an AGM unless they are owners. It amazes me how many renters (in our development and I'm sure elsewhere too) think they have the right to show up at an AGM.

Depending on the lease agreement you may need up to 70% of owners to agree to change clauses such as satellite dishes. In our development we're lucky if we get 25% of owners to even show up at an AGM!


----------



## Sunny

shesells said:


> Not correct. Residents are not entitled to vote at an AGM unless they are owners. It amazes me how many renters (in our development and I'm sure elsewhere too) think they have the right to show up at an AGM.


 
Obviously that was what I meant. He is an owner as he said himself he bought the property. A residents association is only made up of owners but its not called an owners association. At least I never have never heard that. And I don't have that problem with renters in my devlopment. They wouldn't even know an AGM is on because they don't get notice about it.


----------



## Sunny

Mick31 said:


> Yes, it is a human right.
> 
> There is no point arguing over this with you. FCC in the States determined that it is a human right..EU issued its communication in relation to this. You simply choose to ignore all this.
> 
> I will let you know when managemtn company takes me to court


 
You should really bring a case to the European Court Of Human Rights. Not like they have anything else more important to rule on.

What about your neighbours 'human rights' to have the lease they signed up to enforced. 

This thread is stupid now.


----------



## MOB

"I will let you know when managemtn company takes me to court.."

If you want to pm their contact details to me, I may well take the case pro bono.  This issue is far too important to be left in limbo.  We must think of the children.


----------



## mf1

MOB said:


> "I will let you know when managemtn company takes me to court.."
> 
> If you want to pm their contact details to me, I may well take the case pro bono.  This issue is far too important to be left in limbo.  We must think of the children.




Thanks, MOB. You just made my day - I think thats the funniest post ever!

mf


----------



## liaconn

I have actually contacted Amnesty International. They are taking this case very seriously.


----------



## Mick31

As you do not see this as a human right, there is no point in arguing this. Someone said its stupid and I agree. 

Management company itself recognized this as a human right.

You might as well lock this thread


----------



## NiallP

Mick31 said:


> As you do not see this as a human right, there is no point in arguing this. Someone said its stupid and I agree.
> 
> Management company itself recognized this as a human right.
> 
> You might as well lock this thread



Surely it makes the entire concept of "Askaboutlaw" redundant if the original poster is steadfastly refusing to acknowledge or accept people's considered legal opinions.

An opinion is just that, an opinion. There may well be merit in an argument that a person should not be prevented from obtaining a service by virtue of a contractual clause that does not appear to be freely negotiated. Personally I think the facts of the case do not support this argument. My personal opinion is that any European law dimension would be based on the provision of these services as opposed to the receipt of these services. I certainly disagree with the legally unsustainable  view being propogated that it is a human right to receive satelite television.

However, this is a matter to be adjudicated upon by a court. All any of us posters can suggest is an opinion based on our legal knowledge and/or professional understanding of the relevant legal issues arising. 

As noted above, this forum is titled "Askaboutlaw". It is not a forum for positing a proposition and then attempting to dismiss or demean opinion that is contrary to the original proposition. "Letting off steam" is a separate forum. 

I feel it is inappropriate, and downright rude, to ask for assistance on a legal issue and then blankly refuse to acknowledge or accept the advice proffered. If that is approach adopted by all op's then it will inevitably lead to a helpful thread turning into a complete farce.

Having said that, in Mick31's defence, his original question was ambiguously framed. As any lawyer would agree, just because something is unfair does not mean it is unlawful. There appears to be a clear breakdown on previous posts between those who question the fairness of such a clause, and those who question the suggestion that such a clause in unlawful. I fall into the latter grouping

This is, of course, only my opinion. By my own logic, this post should probably be moved to "Letting off Steam" but anyway...


----------



## shesells

Sunny said:


> Obviously that was what I meant. He is an owner as he said himself he bought the property. A residents association is only made up of owners but its not called an owners association. At least I never have never heard that. And I don't have that problem with renters in my devlopment. They wouldn't even know an AGM is on because they don't get notice about it.


 
A residents association is made up of RESIDENTS!! They do not have to be owners and frequently aren't - in my experience.


----------



## Sunny

shesells said:


> A residents association is made up of RESIDENTS!! They do not have to be owners and frequently aren't - in my experience.


 
Why would allow someone renting a say in making permanent decisions with regard to your development? Only owners are members of our residents committee as we are responsible for spending management fees. People renting in our development have to go through their landlords if they want something changed.


----------



## John Rambo

There's a difference between a Residents Association and and being elibible to vote and decide things at an AGM. I would be deeply concerned at tenants having any say at an AGM, nevermind a vote equal to that of an owner.


----------



## Sunny

John Rambo said:


> There's a difference between a Residents Association and and being elibible to vote and decide things at an AGM. I would be deeply concerned at tenants having any say at an AGM, nevermind a vote equal to that of an owner.


 
I know that but all I know is how things work in our development. A residents committee is elected every year at the AGM (so only owners eligible). This committee liases with the agent throughout the year on certain projects such as security and maintenance and all major expenditure is put to the committee for approval. Not sure what other resident committees do but why would you allow someone renting to have a say in how the development is run and money is spent and be part of the committee? Tennants never have a vote at the AGM under any circumstances.


----------



## shesells

Sunny said:


> Why would allow someone renting a say in making permanent decisions with regard to your development? Only owners are members of our residents committee as we are responsible for spending management fees. People renting in our development have to go through their landlords if they want something changed.


 
Generally a residents association is a talking shop more than an organisation with finances to manage.

Residents associations do not collect management fees, if so surely you are talking about a management company. If you have an AGM and set management fees then it sounds like a management company to me.

Tenants are not members of management companies, only owners are. However all residents are surely entitled to be part of a residents association?


----------



## Sunny

shesells said:


> Generally a residents association is a talking shop more than an organisation with finances to manage.
> 
> Residents associations do not collect management fees, if so surely you are talking about a management company. If you have an AGM and set management fees then it sounds like a management company to me.
> 
> Tenants are not members of management companies, only owners are. However all residents are surely entitled to be part of a residents association?


 
Fair enough. Our development obviously does things differently. Look, I am not confused about what a management company is. I am a director of mine so I wouldn't want to be. I was just curious how other developments did it.

All I am saying is that every year at the Company's AGM, we elect a residents committee for the upcoming year. This residents committee is responsible for liasing with residents and the management agent with regard to any issues that residents have or any changes they want made. Its basically the face of the management company. This committee has the power to get the agent to carry out any remedial work up to a certain point that may be necessary that may not have be raised at the AGM without having to call an EGM to get residents approval. For example, this year, our committee on the back of increased security concerns raised by residents authorised the agent to install extra security devices even though it wasn't in the budget approved at the AGM. I never said this committee set management fees. I just said they have the power to spend some of it so thats why we don't allow people renting to be part of it.

If people renting want something changed, they are free to contact the committee through their landlord. As I say though, it is obvious that other developments do things differently. Nothing wrong either way. Apologies to the OP for taking this off topic and the issue of satellite dishes and human rights.


----------



## Reactor

Yes.  The dishes do look ugly when you see a lot of them, looks slummish.  solly.  Companies need to re-design.


----------



## sorin

hy
I would go to court to solve this problem - the management company just have removed my dish
I also found something which I hope it will help me : 
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=...qywwg6n&sig=x7JNI7931bd_1d-oUUzbtWlyg3Y&hl=en
If anyone can help me with advices and legal documents related to this I would appreciate
thanks


----------



## John Rambo

The managing agent removed a satellite dish you erected from a wall owned by the management company. You do not own the external walls and should be held liable for any remedial work. It's seems to me very few people understand the law in this area. I'd recommend that 'Apartment Living in Ireland' book by Robert Goggin.


----------



## serotoninsid

Jailed for Dish Mounted at front of house


----------



## sorin

the satellite dish was on the roof on a special postament, not wall erected.


----------



## sorin

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Human Rights in Private Law[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'] By Daniel Friedmann, Daphne Barak-Erez[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']Page 171:[/FONT]

_[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']“[/FONT]__[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']2. Freedom of expression under Article 10 of the ECHR and German private law [/FONT]_

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']     To a certain extent, Article 10 of the ECHR constitutes the counterpoint to Article 8 of the Convention; whereas the latter protects different elements of privacy, Article 10 safeguards the participation of the individual in the social process of communication.[/FONT]

_[FONT='Times New Roman','serif'](a)   [/FONT]__[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']The Application of Article 10 of the ECHR by German Courts in Civil Proceedings[/FONT]_

[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']     Article 10 of the ECHR plays a less significant role than Article 8 in German private law.[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']     Article 10 and the German law of landlord and tenant: the Magistrate’s Court (Amtsgericht) of Tauberbischofsheim in the State of Bavaria was required to decide whether the tenant of an apartment can demand that his landlord allow him to install a satellite dish on property belonging to the landlord. Under German law, a landlord is required to allow the installation of a satellite dish only if there is no other adequate possibility –for example, through cable-of receiving the normal variety of television programmes. In this case, the tenant was of Turkish origin and wanted to receive Turkish television broadcasts by satellite, which he could not receive by cables or the airwaves. The court found as an important reason to allow the tenant to install the dish the fact that it would provide him with an appropriate source of information. This was based on the tenant’s freedom of expression and information under Article 10 of the ECHR.[/FONT]
[FONT='Times New Roman','serif']     We can assume that the court applied Article 8 of the Convention rather than Article 5 of the German Constitution, which also guarantees freedom of information, because there was a transnational dimension to the case’s set of facts. A Turkish citizen living in Germany wanted to receive television broadcasts from Turkey. “[/FONT]


----------



## John Rambo

sorin said:


> the satellite dish was on the roof on a special postament, not wall erected.


 
Is it an apartment? I'm assuming it is. All apartment owners should know about these issues and I'd recommend that book. With an apartment you do not own the outside areas so cannot unilaterally erect a satellite dish.


----------



## sorin

well I do think that the role of the management company is to try to make the living conditions better not only to read some books


----------



## sorin

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/cm/601/601591/601591en.pdf

well it seems that the management company is braking the law


----------



## sorin

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressRelease...format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en


----------



## sorin

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdo...3/617113en.pdf


----------



## John Rambo

That is completely irrelevant. The point is apartment owners DO NOT OWN the outside walls or roof. The right to have a satellite dish does not supercede property rights. The homeless guy sleeping outside Burger King cannot cite human rights and lash a satellite dish up on their wall. It's makes no sense to think you have the right to erect a satellite dish on property you do not own. Yes, many people have a difficulty with this as they've paid large sums of money for apartments but it is the reality. I've said it before and I'll say it again...this area of management agents, management companies and apartment living is a minefield. I'm no expert, but I do have experience on a residents committee as treasurer, have worked with management agents and have read my own leases. That coupled with information obtained on this site helps me understand this area. People could do a lot worse than reading that 'Guide to Apartment Living' book by Robert Goggin. Heard him on Gerry Ryan's show and he spoke a lot of sense about these matters. (and I've no connection with this guy!)


----------



## sorin

you don't own the air also, so, following your logic,  kindly please stop using it


----------



## truthseeker

sorin - i have to ask at this stage - have you read ANY of this thread?

You are posting in an extremely childish manner and you are (a) not making any sense, (b) being 'smart' and (c) posting in such a manner as to have yourself at worst banned, at best, not taken seriously by anyone.


----------



## John Rambo

sorin said:


> you don't own the air also, so, following your logic,  kindly please stop using it


 
I'm sorry, I don't see the point you're making. In an apartment you do not own the outside walls or the roof. Therefore it's not unreasonable that you cannot put a satellite dish on the outside walls or the roof. Why should the right to have a satellite dish, if that right does in fact exist, supercede other peoples rights? My sister for example doesn't have her own property...she still lives at home. Should she be able to erect her own satellite dish because her rights are being trodden on?


----------



## so-crates

Sorin, the law is relatively straightforward on this. It is an apartment in a building consisting of several dwellings. The building as a whole belongs to a management company who have an agreed set of terms that you sign up to when you buy a leasehold apartment in the block. It is assumed that you are capable of understanding the legally binding documentation that you sign and that by signing them you agree to all terms within them. The best time to disagree is before you sign! The managing company engages a management agent to act on their behalf, including enforcing the agreed contract.

By purchasing an apartment in the building you also become a member of the managing company with the rights to influence said company in the normal manner. If you wish the terms of the agreement to be altered the proper forum in which to do so is the AGM. It is quite amazing how few people turn up to AGMs considering how important these meetings are. if agreement can be arrived there on your "right" to have a satellite dish then perhaps the contract (if it is explicitly in there) or the rules of the development if they are separate can be updated (not necessarily cheaply or easily done).

The externals of the block (walls, foundations, common areas, hallways etc) are essentially someone else's property. Any change that you make to these is effectively trespass and vandalism.

If you are renting an apartment you have even less right to interfere with other people's property, and are bound by the terms of the contract governing the leasehold with regards to your enjoyment of the property.

It doesn't really matter if you spent money on having a satellite dish installed and it doesn't matter if you want to watch television. The point is you broke the agreement you made. That you are out of pocket and angry about it is irrelevant. If I were to decide to fence off part of the public park for my own exclusive enjoyment the council who own/manage the property would be perfectly entitled to dismantle my fence and charge me for the fact they had to! This is no different.


----------



## Sunny

Well said. I wish people would stop posting links to European law to back up what they precieve to be their human right to have a dish and actually read what it says. Nowhere does it say that an apartment dweller has a right to stick a dish on the common areas of an apartment block at the expense of other residents rights not to have them if the lease that you signed forbids the use of dishes.


----------



## Speedwell

Did anyone here the case of the women sent to prison for the night for putting up a satellite dish on her council house?

It is on RTE 1 radio now.


----------



## Brouhahaha

veron01 said:


> Did anyone here the case of the women sent to prison for the night for putting up a satellite dish on her council house?
> 
> It is on RTE 1 radio now.


 
The story was in this week's [broken link removed]


----------



## shesells

so-crates said:


> Sorin, the law is relatively straightforward on this. It is an apartment in a building consisting of several dwellings. The building as a whole belongs to a management company who have an agreed set of terms that you sign up to when you buy a leasehold apartment in the block. It is assumed that you are capable of understanding the legally binding documentation that you sign and that by signing them you agree to all terms within them. The best time to disagree is before you sign! The managing company engages a management agent to act on their behalf, including enforcing the agreed contract.
> 
> By purchasing an apartment in the building you also become a member of the managing company with the rights to influence said company in the normal manner. If you wish the terms of the agreement to be altered the proper forum in which to do so is the AGM. It is quite amazing how few people turn up to AGMs considering how important these meetings are. if agreement can be arrived there on your "right" to have a satellite dish then perhaps the contract (if it is explicitly in there) or the rules of the development if they are separate can be updated (not necessarily cheaply or easily done).
> 
> The externals of the block (walls, foundations, common areas, hallways etc) are essentially someone else's property. Any change that you make to these is effectively trespass and vandalism.
> 
> If you are renting an apartment you have even less right to interfere with other people's property, and are bound by the terms of the contract governing the leasehold with regards to your enjoyment of the property.
> 
> It doesn't really matter if you spent money on having a satellite dish installed and it doesn't matter if you want to watch television. The point is you broke the agreement you made. That you are out of pocket and angry about it is irrelevant. If I were to decide to fence off part of the public park for my own exclusive enjoyment the council who own/manage the property would be perfectly entitled to dismantle my fence and charge me for the fact they had to! This is no different.


 
The most sense spoken on here since this thread was started!


----------



## so-crates

Thanks shesells, just re-iterating your points for the outraged but foolish!


----------



## krinpit

shesells said:


> Our management company takes them down within 2 weeks of them sending out a letter giving 7 days notice. This is pursued aggressively, without exception. Our development has a certain style and dishes negatively impact the "look" and potentially the value of the properties in the development. AFAIK, when you sign the deeds at purchase you waive your right to a dish.
> 
> Bottom line is if you want a dish, don't buy in a development that doesn't allow them.



Hi SheSells. I've been reading through many of your posts on this thread with great interest (not the full 9 pages so far though ).

I'm just wondering, if you haven't already done so, would you mind posting the exact procedure that your management agent employs to remove such dishes forcibly? Just curious as to how this happens in practice. Things I'd be interested in knowing is the equipment used, the type of company that does it, whether the occupant is present at the time etc.

Thanks in advance


----------



## John Rambo

krinpit said:


> would you mind posting the exact procedure that your management agent employs to remove such dishes forcibly? Just curious as to how this happens in practice. Things I'd be interested in knowing is the equipment used, the type of company that does it, whether the occupant is present at the time etc.
> 
> Thanks in advance


 
Why would the occupant have to be present? The management agent is removing an item from an area owned by the management company which should not have been put there.


----------



## krinpit

John Rambo said:


> Why would the occupant have to be present? The management agent is removing an item from an area owned by the management company which should not have been put there.



OK.....


----------



## shesells

krinpit said:


> Hi SheSells. I've been reading through many of your posts on this thread with great interest (not the full 9 pages so far though ).
> 
> I'm just wondering, if you haven't already done so, would you mind posting the exact procedure that your management agent employs to remove such dishes forcibly? Just curious as to how this happens in practice. Things I'd be interested in knowing is the equipment used, the type of company that does it, whether the occupant is present at the time etc.
> 
> Thanks in advance



To be honest I don't know and as long as it keeps happening I don't really care. I know they did take legal advice before any dishes were removed so I presume it's all above board.

Sorry for the vague answer but my concern is the removal of dishes in breach of lease agreements asap.


----------



## sorin

What a *LAWER* did said after checks of the legislation? Well, ... *IT’S ILLEGAL TO BAN AND REMOVE THE DISH...*, and if I want I can take to court the Management Company and put them on really troubles.
Well, I know that many of you just don’t care about law and legislation so I’m just tell you that my DISH IS BACK ON THE ROOF and I’m enjoying watching TV channels from everywhere.
Finally, any of you from the Management Company are just forgetting that you don’t own buildings and your job is to make the quality of living better not worse.


----------



## so-crates

sorin said:


> What a *LAWER* did said after checks of the legislation? Well, ... *IT’S ILLEGAL TO BAN AND REMOVE THE DISH...*, and if I want I can take to court the Management Company and put them on really troubles.
> Well, I know that many of you just don’t care about law and legislation so I’m just tell you that my DISH IS BACK ON THE ROOF and I’m enjoying watching TV channels from everywhere.
> Finally, any of you from the Management Company are just forgetting that you don’t own buildings and your job is to make the quality of living better not worse.


Sorin, good luck to you in carrying your point, hope it works out for you and your neighbours.

I do not know how you deduce that because we are law-abiding citizens who take our civic responsibility seriously, *including abiding by the terms that we agree to when we sign a contract*, we are somehow by your strange logic careless about "law and legislation". 

Finally, there is no such singular entity as "the Management Company", apartment owners across the country are members of management companies that manage their own particular development. Every owner is involved, not just those that are directors. And contrary to your assertion, they do own the building. Their remit is to manage the development for the benefit of *ALL OWNERS* not just cave into the ludicrous and recalcitrant. This includes responsibilities regarding the maintenance of the exterior and the management of services. It does not include pandering to the specific wants of any one individual in the development. If you want to do as you please to the exterior, buy a freehold house, otherwise learn to live with your neighbours rather than against them.


----------



## shesells

Sorin - are you the owner? If so you are most likely in breach of the legal documents you signed at purchase by erecting the dish. You would have to take a court case to prove that these documents breach the law. If you're not the owner then you have zero rights in this.

By the way the management companies DO own the buildings of apartments, "owners" only have leases!


----------



## xb_deai

love hearing about owners taking the managment company to court so you pay the legal fees twice to have a day in court. Pay your own legal team then the company's legal fees via a levy or next years service charge all because they did not read the lease before buying a property


----------



## so-crates

xb_deai said:


> love hearing about owners taking the managment company to court so you pay the legal fees twice to have a day in court. Pay your own legal team then the company's legal fees via a levy or next years service charge all because they did not read the lease before buying a property


 
 good point xb_deai!


----------



## L_earner

Mick31 said:


> .  .  .  I agree that satellite dishes do take away from style of development, but to restrict them and not provide for an alternative means of access to satellite is completely unfair.   .   .


I am one of the owner directors on the board of our management company. Just back from a meeting tonight where this very issue was discussed. We want to have all sat dishes removed on health and safety grounds as they protrude into outdoor landings. We decided to install sat dish transmitting free-to-air signal to all apartments, with the option of adding pay signals. I wonder if we will need a separate dish to pick up Polish TV?


----------



## ClubMan

L_earner said:


> I wonder if we will need a separate dish to pick up Polish TV?


Depends on what else you are looking for. See www.lyngsat.com for details of what satellites carry what _FTA _and other broadcasts and see the _boards.ie _cable and digital TV forums for more advice.


----------



## jhegarty

L_earner said:


> I wonder if we will need a separate dish to pick up Polish TV?



Yes


Also you do know setting everyone up for FTA will mean running separate cables from the dish to each apartment ?


----------



## forza_milan

Hi Mick31,

I'm a foreign national (Italian) who has been living in Ireland for quite a while. 3 years ago I purchased an apartment in Gleann Ribh in Lusk and I had a similar issue to yours concerning the installation of a satellite dish.

First of all I'd like to say that I'm in total agreement with all your posts. The fact that a contract has been signed which has a clause that prohibits the installation of a satellite dish is totally worthless since it violates basic human rights and it's in breach of the free movement of goods and services within the EU.

Secondly I have other interesting articles that you may want to read:


http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/cm/601/601591/601591en.pdf

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/cm/617/617113/617113en.pdf


In my case what happened is that my satellite dish was taken down 3 times by the management company of the apartments and in one case the satellite dish disappeared as well (so I reported the management company to the police).

I spoke to my solicitor about that and I showed her the same links that you posted in your first post but she said that since there was a clause in the contract she coudn't do anything about it. I got the impression that she only said that because she didn't want to get involved in a case like that and not because there was nothing that she could do.

I then spoke to a team of legal people in the company I work for who provides free legal advice to employees and again I showed them the same URLs of your first post stressing the fact that as a foreigh national living abroad I have a right to watch the programs from my own country. In addition I said that I was in the process of learning a foreign language (spanish) and I needed spanish TV to practice.
However I was told that those URLs refer only to press conferences and not to actual EU laws.

All in all no one wanted to take the responsability of pursuing this issue which is possibly very long and expensive (we are looking at EU high-court here with all the intermediate steps to get there - possibly 2-3 years before you get there and lots of money spent).

I'm sure though that if someone is willing to get to the bottom of this issue through the various stages of courts will succeed and either your management company let you have the satellite dish on your balcony or else the court would ask them to install a common satellite dish on the roof.

Now I have sold the apartment (for other reasons) and purchased a new one elsewhere which I haven't fully moved in yet. As soon as I move in I will install a satellite dish again.


If I can be of any help let me know. Although I'm not a lawyer I may be able to help from my own experience.

Thanks


----------



## shesells

Forza are you for real 

You have had legal advice from two quarters and you still think you know better 

If you don't like the clause then I suggest you move to a house or a development that allows dishes instead of purposely moving into developments that ban dishes and insisting on breaking the rules!


----------



## L_earner

sorin said:


> the satellite dish was on the roof on a special postament, not wall erected.


The roof is usually included in the common areas, which are owned by the management company. Once it is attached to the common areas, it is lawfully owned by the management company.


----------



## forza_milan

Thanks for your comments SheSells.

Hypothetically, If you signed a contract that forces you to jump down from a 500-meter-high cliff do you think it would be legal and enforceable? The answer is no.

We can talk for as long as you want as to why someone may sign a contract with a clause that he or she doesn't agree with but nevertheless the contract is illegal. This is at the base of the law of any Western World country.

I don't pretend to know more than a solicitor or a lawyer but the problem with them is that they only want to make a quick profit and don't want to get involved in cases like that or else they may not have the knowledge in that particular field (as the law has a very wide scope)

The right of information is at the heart of every society and no one can force anyone else to watch only a certain type of channels or even force you to pay a sky subscription when you can watch 300+ channels for free (FTA) on the satellite.


----------



## europhile

krinpit said:


> I'm just wondering, if you haven't already done so, would you mind posting the exact procedure that your management agent employs to remove such dishes forcibly? Just curious as to how this happens in practice. Things I'd be interested in knowing is the equipment used, the type of company that does it, whether the occupant is present at the time etc.



I'm aware of a development where the management company will ask the offending apartment owner to remove the dish/washing from the balcony/bicycle on balcony, whatever.  If the owner refuses, the management company hires a cherry picker, removes the offending object and sends the bill to the apartment owner.  They don't have many repeat offenders.


----------



## shesells

forza_milan said:


> Thanks for your comments SheSells.
> 
> Hypothetically, If you signed a contract that forces you to jump down from a 500-meter-high cliff do you think it would be legal and enforceable? The answer is no.
> 
> We can talk for as long as you want as to why someone may sign a contract with a clause that he or she doesn't agree with but nevertheless the contract is illegal. This is at the base of the law of any Western World country.
> 
> I don't pretend to know more than a solicitor or a lawyer but the problem with them is that they only want to make a quick profit and don't want to get involved in cases like that or else they may not have the knowledge in that particular field (as the law has a very wide scope)
> 
> The right of information is at the heart of every society and no one can force anyone else to watch only a certain type of channels or even force you to pay a sky subscription when you can watch 300+ channels for free (FTA) on the satellite.


 
Firstly I would not sign a contract to do anything I did not want to do. I researched my the contract for my home and it said no satellite dishes which is perfectly fine by me!

Secondly you are not legally trained but persist in thinking that all lawyers are in it for the money and don't actually care about the law. If you feel so strongly why don't you take a test case, I would be very interested to see if those who studied law know the law better than someone who can use Google!

Nobody forced you to come to Ireland. Nobody forced you to buy in a development that bans dishes yet you chose to do so and won't play by the rules. If you bought in my development I assure you we would keep removing dishes as long as you kept putting them up. You also would incur fines and removal costs and potential breach of contract proceedings. Because that's what you sign up for when you buy here, if you don't like it, buy somewhere else - there are plenty of options out there now!

Incidentally, check out the Irish constitution which remains supreme over European regulations unless adopted here. Nothing about satellite dishes in there!


----------



## ClubMan

Have to agree with _shesells _here. I'm not mad about the fact that our management company agreement circumscribes certain actions (such as the erection of dishes/antennae). I'm also not mad about the fact that some residents ignore the agreement and do their own thing while the management company/agent pay lip service to enforcement (but I don't really want to see the management company budget swallowed up frying this specific fish!) although ultimately this does not really impinge on me generally. But ultimately I did decide, of my own volition and with good legal advice on the implications, to sign the agreement when buying the property. Nobody forced me and, to be honest, I personally (not a lawyer) don't really consider being able to watch _FTA _or other _TV _an important, never mind inalienable, human right.


----------



## shesells

Stroke of genius Clubman!


----------



## liaconn

I have to say,i can't believe the arrogance of forza's post. You choose to come and live in a foreign country and then say you have the  right to break agreed management company rules, signed up to by all the other residents, because you have a 'right' to watch your own national television stations. I hope the management company in your new estate is as proactive as the one in the previous estate in dealing with your selfish attitude.


----------



## Pique318

As I don't live in an apartment block, this has no bearing on me, but is Forzas point applicable in this case?

A signed agreement is worthless if it infringes on legislation.
European legislation may have something to say on this matter.
No Irish legislation does, therefore Euro rules prevail.

Bearing all this in mind (and assuming I'm correct), does he have a case?

I think the fact that he's foreign is completely irrelevant also, so the 'if you don't like it, you know where the door is' type posts are out of line, imo.


----------



## liaconn

Pique318 said:


> I think the fact that he's foreign is completely irrelevant also, so the 'if you don't like it, you know where the door is' type posts are out of line, imo.


 The reason I brought this up was because he himself made the point that he felt he should be allowed flout the rule because he's foreign and should be allowed see his home television stations. Therefore, I don't see how its out of line.


----------



## Pique318

I think it's out of line because I believe it shows a level of intolerance. He was explaining his reasons for wanting a sat. dish. The reason is not really relevant and I don't see how it impinges on basic human rights either. But if the rule is non enforceable/illegal under euro law, then he has a point...doesn't he ?


----------



## liaconn

Pique318 said:


> I think it's out of line because I believe it shows a level of intolerance. He was explaining his reasons for wanting a sat. dish.


 There was no intolerance. I (and a previous poster) are saying that he cannot decide he is entitled to flout a rule because he wants to see Italian television stations when he knowingly signed up to  this rule and came to  Ireland by his own choice. Intolerance is a serious accusation and I don't think it should be thrown about lightly.


----------



## Pique318

I believe there was. Comments such as were made are similar to those we've all heard about in the much more serious debate about immigration, and they hit a nerve with me when I see them brought into a discussion like this. 

His country of origin is of no relevancet o this discussion. If I was in his position and said I wanted to watch Italian TV, I very much doubt that I would be told to go to Italy to watch it, why should he ?

His arguement has been overlooked, focus has changed to his nationality and his presence in this country, and his (and my) question has gone unanswered.


----------



## Hoagy

bond-007 said:


> You will have to convince the learned judges of the high court of the illegality of such contracts.


 


Pique318 said:


> his (and my) question has gone unanswered.


 
Answered way back on the first page.


----------



## liaconn

Pique318 said:


> I believe there was. Comments such as were made are similar to those we've all heard about in the much more serious debate about immigration, and they hit a nerve with me when I see them brought into a discussion like this.
> 
> His country of origin is of no relevancet o this discussion. If I was in his position and said I wanted to watch Italian TV, I very much doubt that I would be told to go to Italy to watch it, why should he ?
> 
> His arguement has been overlooked, focus has changed to his nationality and his presence in this country, and his (and my) question has gone unanswered.


 
You don't seem to understand. The poster is saying that he is entitled to break the management co agreement because he wants to watch his 'home' stations. If you made a similar argument in Italy ie I've chosen to come and live here and now want to break the  rules because I have a 'right' to watch RTE then yes, I think they would be perfectly entitled to tell you that  no one forced you to come to Italy. Forza made the fact that he is Italian a salient and central part of his argument yet you're saying that no one can mention this in their response???? Sorry, but you've really lost me. And by the way, I work in the area of immigration and am well aware of the issues. Italy is part of the EU and as such, their citizens can move freely around all Member States without  needing any kind of permit. There's no question of anyone thinking he 'shouldn't' be here, just that he has to accept that he can't use his nationality as an excuse for breaking the conditions of his lease.


----------

