# Can Mgt Co rule that children are not allowed play in gated apartment complex.



## Luigi

Hi there

I'm new to this forum but I've heard great reviews about the site. I was hoping someone could advise me please. 

I live in a gated apartment complex and my 4 year old daughter asked if she could cycle along on her new bicycle that she got for her birthday over the weekend. Being a lovely day I took her along the cobbled path in the common garden area. Within a few minutes I received a complaint that children are not allowed to play in the vast common area at all and I was told my child had to immediately refrain from playing there. 

I called the management company immediately and I was told that it is true - children cannot play in the large common area at all.

I find this unbelievable. Could it possibly be true? Any advice would be much appreciated. 

Thanks.


----------



## Ann1

Hi Luigi
This subject was discussed on the forum some time ago.....Ong gave good advice re the planning permission and what it might state regarding common areas on the complex. Hope this helps  [URL="http://www.askaboutmoney.com/showthread.php?p=1033305#post1033305"]No kids allowed to play on common area, is this normal?[/URL]


----------



## purpeller

What do your house rules say about this?  You probably called the management agent rather than the company (all owners are part of the company, and the company contracts an agent to run the development).


----------



## Luigi

Hi Anni1 - thank you very much for your feedback. I actually did see that thread but thought it may be a bit different as it was a common area outside of a house rather than a very private gated complex where I live. Thanks once again.

Purpeller - I've noted from previous threads I was reading that there is a distinct difference between a prop mgt co and agent. I will do more research on this tomorrow. Thanks once again.


----------



## hollacia

Luigi - you don't live in Stillorgan by any chance? My apartment complex has the same ridiculous rules which were set up by the management company and shows how important it is to have proper representation of the committe. In my case there are a few older residents who dislike children running and playing around and enjoy telling them off - we actually have signs in the common areas saying children are not allowed to play. The same company also traps foxes - but don't get me started on that. The agent just acts and does as the management company instructs unfortunately.


----------



## liaconn

When you bought your property you would have been given a list of Management Company rules eg No satellite dishes, no washing being hung on balconies etc.   If this rule wasn't included I don't see how it can be imposed after you have moved in and signed a lease.


----------



## z107

She's not 'playing' though, is she? - she's just riding her bike.
Are older people allowed to ride their bikes there? If so, then there is a case for age discrimination.

This rule was probably originally made up to stop teenagers from kicking balls against property etc.


----------



## Yorrick

This attitude is typical of many of the cranks that live in apartment complexes. They are invariably single with no grasp of familiy life. If apartments are bing sold to families you can expect that children will want to play outside You will really have to check out the rules on this and endeavour to get them changed if you can.


----------



## liaconn

What a stupid sweeping post. Either it was a rule and she should have familiarised herself with the rules before buying, or it's not a rule and she can ignore it. It's nothing to do with people being 'cranks'.


----------



## Complainer

Stopping a 4 year old from cycling under parental supervision is very much to do with people being cranks.


----------



## liaconn

I don't agree with that rule Complainer, but I don't think people who want rules that were signed up to be adhered to are 'cranks'. Also, implying that cranks are all single people living in apartments is the kind of childish stereotypingthat puts people off making legitimate complaints. It was the tone of Yorrick's post that was silly and sweeping.


----------



## Ceist Beag

Luigi ignore the cranks complaining. As another poster has said, cycling is not playing. Hard to believe someone would actually make an issue of a 4 year old cycling on a path under parental supervision - takes all sorts!


----------



## amh

Completely agree with complainer. 

Why should allowing a child to cycle while under parental supervision be against the 'rules'? It's not as if they are out together vandalising the place. 

Playing has become a crime in the world of the apartment dwellers then, has it? It's a sad day if it has. Sure the child that's playing there today will probably be paying it off for the rest of their lives along with the rest of the borrowed money that the state never mind the estate owes. Sure let them enjoy it now rather than penning them into a one bed apartment like a prisioner in a cell. They'll be a prisioner to debt soon enough!


----------



## liaconn

As a single person living in an apartment with no grasp of family life, I would say that someone is being over zealous in their interpretation of this rule. It obviously means that kids are not to be kicking balls or jumping around on skate boards in the common garden area. I would get back on to the management company and explain that your child was cycling along beside you in the common area and ask if this is covered by the 'rule'. If it's not (and it shouldn't be) I would explain that this regulation is being misunderstood and could they issue a clarification to every one as you're being hassled about it. If it is covered, it seems ridiculous.


----------



## ontour

Case of a child who fell off the roof of a bin bay while out 'playing'  cost the insurance company a significant settlement and will cost all of the owners in an increased block policy premium.

There are cranks/ complainers in apartment complexes and there are also useless parents who leave the children unsupervised in dangerous surroundings or worse still 'supervise' the children while they cause risk or damage.

If you could trust groups of people to be reasonable, there would be no problem but it is the extremist on both sides that ruin it for the masses.


----------



## liaconn

I agree. There's a happy middle ground where people should feel free to complain about genuine issues and breaches of management rules without being called 'cranks' but should also realise that there has to be give and take in an apartment complex and complaining about every petty thing is unfair. Likewise, parents need to be responsible regarding their children's behaviour (without having to keep them locked inside all day) and not jump to their defence against every complaint and some of them should be a little less quick to look for someone to blame and sue when there's been an accident.
I also think in a lot of cases (although not this one) people don't bother to read management co rules, sign the lease and then get highly indignant when they realise they can't do this or that and decide 'ah shure feck it. I'll ignore it'. But anyway I started another thread about that.


----------



## Yorrick

I deal with a lot of management companies and residents. It is my opinion that apartments attract more cranks than any other form of development. They develop a "my little kingdom" mentality. At one A.G.M. I had a gent who wanted to restrict cars reversing into parking spaces as theur exhaust fumes would damage the flowers in the garden adjoing the parking space. Another whinger gave out because some one left their window open on a sunny day and he could hear their music playing.


----------



## liaconn

Oh I agree you come across moaners in apartment blocks, but you also come across them in housing estates. I live in an apartment block and have never lived amongst a group of more agreeable people. 
Also, someone complaining about people playing loud music on sunny afternoons is hardly unusual.


----------



## candyman

All rules enforced by a management company in an apartment complex are described in the house rules. The house rules are written based on the legal binding contract signed by each person at the time they bought a property in the complex. 

So if you want to work out whether any particular rule exists or not - check your copy of the house rules and/or the legally binding contract that you signed when you bought the property. 

Obviously if you are renting, get it from your landlord.


----------



## onq

If the management company have - through what may be be descibed as somewhat inappropriate terms and conditions - restricted the available amenity areas that were granted as part of the development by  an unreasonable  restriction of child playing areas [thus perhaps placing them at hazard if they were to play at the side of the road for example] one might refer the matter to the the Department of the Environment, the local authority planning department and the health and safety authority.

ONQ.


----------



## Complainer

onq said:


> If the management company have - through what may be be descibed as somewhat inappropriate terms and conditions - restricted the available amenity areas that were granted as part of the development by  an unreasonable  restriction of child playing areas [thus perhaps placing them at hazard if they were to play at the side of the road for example] one might refer the matter to the the Department of the Environment, the local authority planning department and the health and safety authority.
> 
> .



None of these bodies have any statutory role in regulating children's play areas in private estates. It's a wild goose chase.


----------



## zenga

The rule is there for one very good reason

A 4 year old child should not be playing in a public area where cars will be going by at 30+ mph.

Simple as. If the child gets knocked down or trips, it is the management company (ie all the owners whether parents or not) who will be sued. 

It is a totally sensible and reasonable rule. If you have children and you want them to ride their bike take them to the park...shes 4 you wouldnt let her play on the road on her own would you?


----------



## liaconn

It was a footpath in a common garden area not a public road from what the OP said.

I agree that Management Companies have to be careful about over litigious people sueing them, but they also have to be realistic. A four year old cycling with her mother beside her in a common garden area is not going to do herself or anyone else any harm. I can understand them stopping teenagers tearing around on bicycles or skateboards, but this was different.


----------



## T McGibney

zenga said:


> A 4 year old child should not be playing in a public area where cars will be going by at 30+ mph.



If anyone is driving at 30+ mph within the grounds of an apartment block, they should be prosecuted for dangerous driving.


----------



## ontour

The basic flaw is that people assume that the rules will be 'fair' to all.  The rules of a managed development will be a function of the preferences and lifestyle of the directors.  If the people who volunteer their time are all retired then the rules will reflect the surroundings that they want.   If parents of young children or landlords who wanted to attract families become directors, they can encourage pragmatic family friendly rules.


----------



## shesells

Proof of why this kind of rule is needed was seen in our development last weekend. Drove in on Sat to find and 18 month old kicking a ball down the middle of the road of our car park. Slammed on the brakes (I wasn't going fast), parked and got out and tried to convince him to go on the path. It was a good 3 minutes before an adult came looking for him. We've also had kids run out between parked cars and into traffic...so many near misses lately. We are constantly pushing for supervision, it's an uphill battle


----------



## liaconn

ontour said:


> The basic flaw is that people assume that the rules will be 'fair' to all. The rules of a managed development will be a function of the preferences and lifestyle of the directors. If the people who volunteer their time are all retired then the rules will reflect the surroundings that they want. If parents of young children or landlords who wanted to attract families become directors, they can encourage pragmatic family friendly rules.


 
The rules are presented to you before you buy the property. If you don't like them and they don't suit your lifestyle you don't have to buy. I agree that rules need to be fair to everyone. But what would be unfair would be changing the rules substantially after someone has bought and moved in.
Also, as you can see from Shesells post, it is often not the rules but the 'parents of young children' who are at fault.


----------



## Gekko

liaconn said:


> The rules are presented to you before you buy the property. If you don't like them and they don't suit your lifestyle you don't have to buy. I agree that rules need to be fair to everyone. But what would be unfair would be changing the rules substantially after someone has bought and moved in.


 
Not really...if it's done democratically by a vote at an AGM/EGM, then the rules may be changed.

If multi unit living doesn't suit children, people should live somewhere else.  Or take their kids to the park like sensible people do.


----------



## T McGibney

shesells said:


> Proof of why this kind of rule is needed was seen in our development last weekend. Drove in on Sat to find and 18 month old kicking a ball down the middle of the road of our car park. Slammed on the brakes (I wasn't going fast), parked and got out and tried to convince him to go on the path. It was a good 3 minutes before an adult came looking for him. We've also had kids run out between parked cars and into traffic...so many near misses lately. We are constantly pushing for supervision, it's an uphill battle



No rule is going to prevent children from occasionally walking onto roads, unbeknownst to their parents or guardians. Of course all toddlers and small children must be supervised at all times but its unrealistic to expect that such incidents will never, ever happen, even where children are being properly supervised.


----------



## Gekko

shesells said:


> Proof of why this kind of rule is needed was seen in our development last weekend. Drove in on Sat to find and 18 month old kicking a ball down the middle of the road of our car park. Slammed on the brakes (I wasn't going fast), parked and got out and tried to convince him to go on the path. It was a good 3 minutes before an adult came looking for him. We've also had kids run out between parked cars and into traffic...so many near misses lately. We are constantly pushing for supervision, it's an uphill battle


 


T McGibney said:


> No rule is going to prevent children from occasionally walking onto roads, unbeknownst to their parents or guardians. Of course all toddlers and small children must be supervised at all times but its unrealistic to expect that such incidents will never, ever happen, even where children are being properly supervised.


 
It sounds like the toddler was playing football on the road.  Surely that's avoidable?


----------



## liaconn

Gekko said:


> Not really...if it's done democratically by a vote at an AGM/EGM, then the rules may be changed.
> 
> If multi unit living doesn't suit children, people should live somewhere else. Or take their kids to the park like sensible people do.


 
I suppose what I mean is for instance parents buying on an estate where the rules are not particularly family friendly, getting them all changed and then making the estate unsuitable for elderly people who bought there in the first place because the nature of the estate suited them.


----------



## T McGibney

Gekko said:


> It sounds like the toddler was playing football on the road.  Surely that's avoidable?



Can a toddler really 'play football'??   Of course all lapses in supervision are individually avoidable, but they do unavoidably occur from time to time, sometimes with tragic consequences. 

Rather than solely blaming the child or the parent for such incidents, I would be interested in finding out how the Management Company's Safety Statement addresses such risks within the estate. Adding a new rule to the rulebook isnt going to eliminate those risks.



liaconn said:


> I suppose what I mean is for instance parents  buying on an estate where the rules are not particularly family  friendly, getting them all changed and then making the estate unsuitable  for elderly people who bought there in the first place because the  nature of the estate suited them.


You seem to ignore the possibility that sometimes people buy a property, live there for a period, and then have children. Also expecting people to move out once they have a child is utterly unrealistic in this negative equity era.


----------



## Gekko

T McGibney said:


> Can a toddler really 'play football'??  Of course all lapses in supervision are avoidable, but they do unavoidably occur from time to time, sometimes with tragic consequences.
> 
> Rather than solely blaming the child or the parent for such incidents, I would be interested in finding out how the Management Company's Safety Statement addresses such risks within the estate. Adding a new rule to the rulebook isnt going to eliminate those risks.


 
I'd classify "kicking a ball down the middle of the road" as "playing football".

In my view it's wrong to approach the issue with a view to imposing a greater regulatory burden on the management company. The salient point is whether it's appropriate for children to play in the common areas of a multi unit development. It isn't, so children should therefore be prevented from doing so.

Assuming that Shesells wasn't speeding and (God forbid) the toddler had been run over, there should be no adverse consequences for either Shesells or the management company. The child's parent should be culpable but given the increasingly litigious nature of Irish society, I'm sure the parents would sue anyone that they could. Residents and management companies have to protect themselves.

Nothing about this negative equity era should prevent parents from bringing their children to the park to play.


----------



## T McGibney

The management company cannot unilaterally disclaim responsibility for a public safety risk by merely adding a new rule for residents.  If it fails to identify and minimise such risks, it will, quite properly, be liable for the consequences of its failure.


----------



## liaconn

T McGibney said:


> Can a toddler really 'play football'??  Of course all lapses in supervision are individually avoidable, but they do unavoidably occur from time to time, sometimes with tragic consequences.
> 
> Rather than solely blaming the child or the parent for such incidents, I would be interested in finding out how the Management Company's Safety Statement addresses such risks within the estate. Adding a new rule to the rulebook isnt going to eliminate those risks.
> 
> 
> *You seem to ignore the possibility that sometimes people buy a property, live there for a period, and then have children. Also expecting people to move out once they have a child is utterly unrealistic in this negative equity era*.


 
I'm not saying people should move out when they have a child. I'm saying that its unfair to buy in an estate that has a certain tone and atmosphere and then insist it all be changed to suit your circumstances regardless of the effect on other people living there. I'm in negative equity and can't move although I would like to and had planned to, but that's my problem not my neighbours'.


----------



## T McGibney

liaconn said:


> I'm saying that its unfair to buy in an estate that has a certain tone and atmosphere and then insist it all be changed to suit your circumstances regardless of the effect on other people living there.



That is your opinion, but children have rights too, must fundamentally a right to live in a safe environment. I would argue that this right will in many respects supersede the competing rights of others, eg the right to peace & quiet, or the right to drive one's car at 30+ mph within the estate.


----------



## Gekko

T McGibney said:


> The management company cannot unilaterally disclaim responsibility for a public safety risk by merely adding a new rule for residents. If it fails to identify and minimise such risks, it will, quite properly, be liable for the consequences of its failure.


 
Yes, and surely by banning children from playing in common areas, imposing speed limits and putting in speed ramps, a management company shouldn't then be exposed to potential legal action in the event that an 18 month old toddler playing football on a road is run over by another resident?


----------



## liaconn

T McGibney said:


> That is your opinion, but children have rights too, must fundamentally a right to live in a safe environment. I would argue that this right will in many respects supersede the competing rights of others, eg the right to peace & quiet, or the right to drive one's car at 30+ mph within the estate.


 
How does other people's right to peace and quiet deprive children of their rights?? Yes, children have a right to a safe environment with no cars speeding around or parked illegally in dangerous spots and that would be the law anyway. However, changing the rule to say kids can now skateboard in common areas or whatever is different.


----------



## shesells

T McGibney said:


> No rule is going to prevent children from occasionally walking onto roads, unbeknownst to their parents or guardians. Of course all toddlers and small children must be supervised at all times but its unrealistic to expect that such incidents will never, ever happen, even where children are being properly supervised.



In this case - it wasn't just that the toddler was in the road, it was the length of time that elapsed before an adult even noticed.

We have a small playground in our development and I have been amazed at the number of times very very young children have been left out there alone - expecting that "someone" will keep an eye on them. Only a parent can be responsible for their children. Some residents want the playground removed and it's something that may be considered down the line, would drastically reduce our insurance premium and maintenance costs.

Should add that we have a HUGE park with an amazing playground less than 5 mins walk away...but parents couldn't abandon their kids down there.


----------



## T McGibney

Gekko said:


> Yes, and surely by banning children from playing in common areas, imposing speed limits and putting in speed ramps, a management company shouldn't then be exposed to potential legal action in the event that an 18 month old toddler playing football on a road is run over by another resident?



Well, if a safety statement doesnt address all meaningful risks, it is deficient and it will expose the management company in the event of an incident arising. Putting up 'No Kids Here!' signs will not stop toddlers rambling around the place.


----------



## T McGibney

liaconn said:


> How does other people's right to peace and quiet deprive children of their rights?? Yes, children have a right to a safe environment with no cars speeding around or parked illegally in dangerous spots and that would be the law anyway. However, changing the rule to say kids can now skateboard in common areas or whatever is different.



Who mentioned skateboarding?


----------



## zenga

Just see this has sparked peoples imagination. First of all "the management company" is the owners....so looking to put up signage, speed ramps etc all comes at the cost of the owners living in the developemet, try getting agreement on that!

Secondly this is one of the biggest problems with living in a communal developement. People have different needs, views etc depending on what stage they are at in life. I work in this area and this is one of the most frustrating problems that arise. Just to give you a flavour of some of the calls that we recieve

1. An owner rings in regarding the tenants living in the apartment above her. They have a new born infant and they want the management company to send them a letter about noise disturbance

2. An owner in another developement rang us at approx 2.30 in the afternoon complaining about children playing in the common area outside her house

3. An owner rang us recently about an ice cream van that calls to the developement (the roads in and around the developement are owned by the council) and wants us to stop the ice cream van coming into the developement.

These issues are a minefield.

On the issue of kids playing outside. 

First issue. You will have someone speeding at 30 mph through the developement, might not be every day but some idiot will regardless of all the signage in the world and as the roads are generally private property they cant be taken to court for speeding! 

Second Issue. You will have irresponsible parents, forget about putting up signs saying parental supervision at all times, it simply doesnt work, Kids are going to go outside and run around. 

Third Issue. People want different things, parents want somewhere for their kids to go and play thats close by...ie the common area. Other owners want peace and quiet and dont want kids going around damaging the common area....There is basicly no solution to this one. It would be impossible to stop the children from playing in the common areas and secondly they have a right to be their as it is a public area!!


----------



## sustanon

Why would anyone in their right mind want to live in complexes with management companies? Don't people put personal freedoms high on their priority list anymore?


----------



## liaconn

T McGibney said:


> Who mentioned skateboarding?


 
It was an example of how it would be unfair to change certain rules simply to make a complex family friendly.


----------



## liaconn

sustanon said:


> Why would anyone in their right mind want to live in complexes with management companies? Don't people put personal freedoms high on their priority list anymore?


  Sometimes its the only place people could afford in their area of choice. 
I live in an apartment so there has to be a management company.


----------



## liaconn

zenga said:


> Just see this has sparked peoples imagination. First of all "the management company" is the owners....so looking to put up signage, speed ramps etc all comes at the cost of the owners living in the developemet, try getting agreement on that!
> 
> Secondly this is one of the biggest problems with living in a communal developement. People have different needs, views etc depending on what stage they are at in life. I work in this area and this is one of the most frustrating problems that arise. Just to give you a flavour of some of the calls that we recieve
> 
> 1. An owner rings in regarding the tenants living in the apartment above her. They have a new born infant and they want the management company to send them a letter about noise disturbance
> 
> 2. An owner in another developement rang us at approx 2.30 in the afternoon complaining about children playing in the common area outside her house
> 
> 3. An owner rang us recently about an ice cream van that calls to the developement (the roads in and around the developement are owned by the council) and wants us to stop the ice cream van coming into the developement.


 
First Issue: I can see how that could be annoying, but its a risk you take when you buy an apartment. A lot of that is due to very poor regulations re sound proofing which really should be addressed.

Second Issue: There is a huge green about ten yards from my apartment yet gangs of kids will congregate right underneath my sitting room, shouting and roaring and kicking footballs into the flower beds. I find that annoying, but have not ever made a complaint to the management company. Depending on the circumstances, however, I wouldn't necessarily judge someone for complaining. The kids could be causing damage, or climbing up on boundary walls, or making an unreasonable level of noise or some such, so its hard to judge in isolation.

Third issue: I can't see the problem there unless the ice cream van was coming around very early or very late with jingly music playing.


----------



## shesells

liaconn said:


> The kids could be causing damage, or climbing up on boundary walls or some such, so its hard to judge in isolation.



In a neighbouring development kids caused €15,000 worth of damage to the gardens within 3 months of the development being populated. If I was an owner in that cluster, I would NOT have been happy with having to subsidise this. Not sure what they did in the end, I know that almost all of that cluster is rented so the tenants didn't care what damage their kids did to the gardens. Must look into it again.


----------



## Gekko

zenga said:


> 1. An owner rings in regarding the tenants living in the apartment above her. They have a new born infant and they want the management company to send them a letter about noise disturbance
> 
> 2. An owner in another developement rang us at approx 2.30 in the afternoon complaining about children playing in the common area outside her house
> 
> 3. An owner rang us recently about an ice cream van that calls to the developement (the roads in and around the developement are owned by the council) and wants us to stop the ice cream van coming into the developement


 
Issue 1:   The person making the complaint is an idiot.

Issue 2:   The children should not be allowed to play in the common areas.

Issue 3:   The person making the complaint is an idiot.


----------



## T McGibney

liaconn said:


> It was an example of how it would be unfair to change certain rules simply to make a complex family friendly.



Skateboarding is hardly a family friendly activity? It is also banned in many public parks, for good reason.


----------



## liaconn

T McGibney said:


> Skateboarding is hardly a family friendly activity? It is also banned in many public parks, for good reason.


 
Okay then, cycle in common areas, play football in common areas, whatever.....


----------



## T McGibney

Sign in downtown square of a small Kansas town: 'No ball playing. No pets. No bicycle riding. No loitering. Remember, this is _your_ park!'


----------



## Magpie

Why shouldn't the children be allowed to play in common areas? It is their home as much as it is those complaining, the families who live there have a right to a family life, and children have the right to play. 

Rules and common sense go a long way in these matters. In our development we have rules about the times children are allowed in common areas (not too early and not too late, later on Sundays etc), they must be supervised and any damage is recoverable from the parents of the children. 

Compromise is the name of the game.


----------



## liaconn

Magpie said:


> *Why shouldn't the children be allowed to play in common areas? It is their home as much as it is those complaining, the families who live there have a right to a family life, and children have the right to play. *
> 
> Rules and common sense go a long way in these matters. In our development we have rules about the times children are allowed in common areas (not too early and not too late, later on Sundays etc), they must be supervised and any damage is recoverable from the parents of the children.
> 
> Compromise is the name of the game.


 
Of course they have a right to play. But it's not black and white. If children are playing in common areas where they're damaging property, or running out in front of cars, other residents have a right to complain. Or if kids are ignoring the playground, park or green provided for them and prefer to hang around in front of someone's house or apartment in big noisy gangs then you can understand why a resident might find that irritating.


----------



## zenga

liaconn said:


> First Issue: I can see how that could be annoying, but its a risk you take when you buy an apartment. A lot of that is due to very poor regulations re sound proofing which really should be addressed.
> 
> Second Issue: There is a huge green about ten yards from my apartment yet gangs of kids will congregate right underneath my sitting room, shouting and roaring and kicking footballs into the flower beds. I find that annoying, but have not ever made a complaint to the management company. Depending on the circumstances, however, I wouldn't necessarily judge someone for complaining. The kids could be causing damage, or climbing up on boundary walls, or making an unreasonable level of noise or some such, so its hard to judge in isolation.
> 
> Third issue: I can't see the problem there unless the ice cream van was coming around very early or very late with jingly music playing.


 

The biggest point I was trying to make is it is IMPOSSIBLE to regulate where kids play / congregate. Sure you can put up signs but I can tell you now they will not work. Another thing people suggest is somehow to fine the parents, first of all its not legal, secondly how do you prove that someones child was in a certain place at a certain time?? The say so of neighbours is not sufficient.

On all these issues, my point is that in issue number 1 & issue number 3, the owners ring us about these issues about 2-3 times a week, often threaten legal action against the management company and throw out the usual lines "what am i paying my management fee for" etc!! People need to speak with their neighbours!!!!!!!


----------



## liaconn

zenga said:


> The biggest point I was trying to make is it is IMPOSSIBLE to regulate where kids play / congregate. Sure you can put up signs but I can tell you now they will not work. Another thing people suggest is somehow to fine the parents, first of all its not legal, secondly how do you prove that someones child was in a certain place at a certain time?? The say so of neighbours is not sufficient.
> 
> On all these issues, my point is that in issue number 1 & issue number 3, the owners ring us about these issues about 2-3 times a week, often threaten legal action against the management company and throw out the usual lines "what am i paying my management fee for" etc!! People need to speak with their neighbours!!!!!!!


 
I know. That's why I'd never complain to the management company about kids hanging around outside my apartment unless they were actually doing damage or trying to gain access to places they'd no right to be. I am just saying that there are circumstances where it might be appropriate to complain. I once had to ask the management company if a car park at the back of my apartment, which is not used at night time, could be made inaccessible by a locked gate or some such because kids were using it to climb up a high wall and gain access to the roof right outside my kitchen/diner.  It was extremely dangerous for them and a big security risk for me. So in a case like that it would be appropriate to ask the management co to take some responsibility and action.


----------



## gimp

So a child playing a game of chess with their friend on a table in a public area is somehow in breach of the rules ask them to "define playing" and tell them to take a hike. Tell them she was not playing and ask them to prove otherwise. Make a similar complaint when you see an older person out walking or doing stretches. Also probably discrimination to say an older person can play and a child can not. God this brings up some great ideas  
obviously if your child is playing football against the wall it might be frowned on  but i get from your post you are pretty level headed on these things


----------



## One

Luigi, how did you get on? Did you make any progress with this?


----------



## LittlePiggy

Apologies if I have completely missed the point, but there has been a lot of talk about taking measures in apartment blocks and managed estates to avoid accidents and therefore possible legal action.

I understand the desire to decrease risk to property and children, but is the legal threat not covered by public liability insurance?


----------



## jdwex

LittlePiggy said:


> I understand the desire to decrease risk to property and children, but is the legal threat not covered by public liability insurance?



Once a claim is made, the cost of cover and/or the excess goes up


----------

