Is 'no satellite dish clause' unfair/illegal?

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

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,
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.
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

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.
 

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.
 
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.



 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register