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

[Complainer]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[liaconn]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.