Is 'no satellite dish clause' unfair/illegal?

"No, we are talking about the basic right to choose, right of choice. "

The choice is made when you decide whether or not to buy an apartment in a development which has a 'no dishes' rule.


'I have to repeat it's perfectly fine to say no dishes allowed, but an adequate alternative must be provided.'

No it mustn't.

'Satellite TV is a service like any other.'

No it isnt'.

'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.'

Actually, if some nutcase wants to offer 'no electricity' apartments for sale, and if he sets up the management company accordingly, and if he finds people daft enought to buy them, then there is no reason why this could not be enforced. That is the essence of freedom of contract.

What is missing from all of the thinking in the pro-dish posts is that freedom of contract is a two way street. If, within the bounds of the law, I want to set up an apartment scheme which bans cars, which bans dogs, which bans music after 10.00 p.m., which bans wooden floors, etc. etc. I am free to do so. Apartment purchasers are free to contract with me in those terms. If people buy apartments in the development on those terms, then they are bound by those terms.


'Management companies seem to think they can provide services on the basis of vested interest ruling out all others. '

The Management Company is not a 'vested interest' and it does not exist to serve a 'vested interest' other than the communal interest of the apartment owners.


'The EU has decided otherwise.'

Actually it hasn't.

I am astonished that this discussion has provoked so much interest. In other European countries, they frequently have all sorts of rules in apartment developments which we would probably find ridiculously onerous, but they have been living in apartments for a lot longer than we have.

The botton line here is that if you buy into an apartment or a managed development, you rally should take a look at the rules of the community (even though, as already stated, many are but rarely enforced) before going ahead with your purchase.

I would be concerned that anyone reading some of the contributions to this discussion would come away with the belief that they could purchase an apartment in the mistaken belief that the 'no-dishes' rule (or indeed any other rule in the scheme) could not be enforced. Certainly, this being Ireland, it probably won't be enforced, but that is a different thing altogether.
 
The same position applies to houses, where the buyer owns it lock stock and barrel?
 
Mob,

if the nutcase decided to build an apartment block with no electricity, then he has to specify that there will be no electricity in the apartments, and then on that basis you can contract.

In case of satellite dishes, it states that no aerial or satellite dishes allowed. That's fine. Contract never specified anything in relation to satellite services, so I entered the contract implying that when I move into this 'sophisticated', 'state of art', 'new generation' apartment I will have a socket (and there are another two sets of sockets apart from NTL) through which I can receive signal from satellite dish, for instance via communal dish). That's why I agreed to no satellite dish rule.

Then I erected a dish (since there was no even NTL for the first two months), and at the same time I realised that my sophisticated, state of art, modern lifestyle apartment (as advertised) is not as sophisticated...And then I fought the management company and am fighting to this day.

Contract never said that the NTL will be the only provider, if I were even to get Magnet in, they would not do it.

When you mention the freedom of contract, it is as free as long as it does not contavenes the law. Irish Law talks about planning permission for the satellite dishes over certain size ( I think it is one meter diameter). Mob, I offered and invited my management company to take me to court for this breach of contract, and told them let's see if the judge thinks it is fair, does it actually prevent you from receiving services, why did the EU actually issue its communication, why did FCC in the States put out of force no dish rule.

No court is fond of these management companies as they are still not regulated by law, imposed by developers who are in much stronger bargaining position when contracting with 'people'.

Then if their arguments for no dish rule are of aesthetic nature, then how come the houses in the same development can have their dishes? Does that not take away from the appearance of the area already? If their arguments are in terms of structural damage, then dishes should not be attached to external walls. There is much wider context in terms of this ban, it is not as black and white as some would like to present
 
Taking the argument that a contract is a contract & the owner agreed to this when purchasing the property. Can this rule ever be changed?
Is it a case of majority rules?
Or is it a case of who the builders done the deal with?
 
None of the contract stuff answer the planning question. If it is a case that the erection of satellite dishes is contrary to the planning permission given (as is common in Dublin City) to build the apartment block, then the contract is academic.
 

Above is from the Dept of Environment Guidelines for Planning Authorities.
 
This is the obvious solution. But it doesn't help the delelopers do their deals with other providers.
 
How many times do people need to hear that they do not own anything outside their own apartment?! Not the balcony, not the outer walls, not the windows on the outside!!!
 
Mick31 said:
Mob,
Then if their arguments for no dish rule are of aesthetic nature, then how come the houses in the same development can have their dishes?
Click to expand...

Because the people in the houses own their external walls and people in apartments dont.
 
Are you saying that if I attached a bit longer pole onto the inside wall and let the dish stick out in the air, that management company would ask you to remove it?
As the Dept of Environment said, developers should be encouraged to install communal dishes, and that's the problem solved. Very simple, isn't it?
 

Again, it's not really up to the developers...it's up to SKY to be more proactive in bidding for exclusivity in these complexes. What happens is the builder offer the opportunity to NTL/Smart/SKY/Chorus/whoever to wire for television services. The TV provider pays for this. In the past SKY have not been as willing as others to engage in these arrangements but according to their chief on The Last Word the other night they will be looking at this more often in the future.
 
John Rambo,

why SKY?

I don't care about the SKY. There is so many channels on the satellite and many of them are Free-to-Air. Access to satellite does not mean access exclusively to SKY.

Buildings should be wired by developers, and then up to you what you want to take. I personally watch programmes on Hot Bird satellite, they are free once you have a satellite receiver
 

Again, our contracts say nothing inside that's visible from the outside. Primarily refers to clothes horses in windows but would apply here.

Installing communal dishes would not retrospectively solve the issue for you Mick - so why the fascination with them?
 
Shesells,

what on earth makes you think that communal dish would not solve this issue??? As you see I put 3 question marks.

Is there something that little dish can do, and a large dish could not?
 
It's not up to Sky. It is up to those purchasing in these developments to ensure that the conditions suit them before purchase. While builders would not have negotiated on these terms in the past, buyers are in a strong position to negotiate with builders these days.
 
Thanks Complainer.

You are spot on there.

When I was buying an apartment, it was take it or be priced out of market situation. Only weeks later, the price went up by another 25k. Of course, you would agree to anything presented to you in those circumstances.
It's like high unemployment in which you accept any job, which doesn't mean you agree with it. In such circumstances they can offer you a job contract with 5 days annual leave and you accept it because you have to. Then you 'discover' that you are actually entitled to minimum 20, and when you want to use them, your employer says you are not allowed since you agreed and signed the contract. The context is very important when it comes to any contract, and any Court takes this into consideration.

Colm you are right when you say I was referring to other satellites. One dish can pick up few satellites while being in the same position so I don't know what shesells is talking about.

She is right when she says that contracts even specify that you can't put anything even inside that could be visible from outside (clothes rack, sat dish...), and yet the houses in the same complex can put dish outside...It's ridiculous.

What happens if owners actually agree and dismantle the management company and let the City Council do the maintenance? Who owns the external walls then?
 
What happens if owners actually agree and dismantle the management company and let the City Council do the maintenance? Who owns the external walls then?
Click to expand...

City Council will never do and are not permitted to do maintenance on a private apartment blocks. If you've nobody maintaining the fabic of the buildings, then in time it will fall into disrepair.
 
Is there a law that says that they are not permitted?

Nevertheless, who owns the external walls once there is no management company?
 
John Rambo said:
How many times do people need to hear that they do not own anything outside their own apartment?! Not the balcony, not the outer walls, not the windows on the outside!!!
Click to expand...

Sorry if this is slightly off topic but does this mean the management company are responsible for cleaning my windows (on the outside) of my apartment?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register