Is 'no satellite dish clause' unfair/illegal?

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!
 
Is the homeless guy outside Burger King paying burger king €1000 a year for the privledge?
Hardly comparing like with like there!!
 
colm said:
Is the homeless guy outside Burger King paying burger king €1000 a year for the privledge?
Hardly comparing like with like there!!
Click to expand...

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

And that shows a implied term in your contract :confused:

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
 
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
 
Sunny said:
And that shows a implied term in your contract :confused:

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.
Click to expand...

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!
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
Click to expand...

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

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

This thread is stupid now.
 
"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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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

mf
 
I have actually contacted Amnesty International. They are taking this case very seriously.
 
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
 
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
Click to expand...

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