Is 'no satellite dish clause' unfair/illegal?

Forza are you for real :confused:

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

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!
 
sorin said:
the satellite dish was on the roof on a special postament, not wall erected.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 ?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top