Access to a Satellite Dish: EU says every individual must have that opportunity
Stephen
cables to, and removed, 10 satellite dishes used by leasholders last week,
without warning. They had been carefully situated at ground level to be as
unobtrusive as possible.
I have read elsewhere the following:
"Tell them to go away, you are having a dish":
EU statement:
"GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES - ARTICLES 28 AND
49 EC - CONCERNING THE USE OF SATELLITE DISHES"
"By virtue of the principles of the free movement of goods (Articles 28 to
30 EC) and the free movement of services (Articles 49 et seq. EC, as
interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human
Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to have access to a
satellite dish must have that opportunity."
"Architectural and urban planning concerns can be efficiently addressed
through measures which aim to minimise the visual impact of satellite dishes
without infringing the right to satellite reception of the individuals
concerned and without forcing them to pay excessive fees."
"ie - they can request that a dish is discreet, but cannot ban you from
having one."
Assuming this is correct, the clause in our leases about satellite dishes
must be wrong, if only because there is no alternative communal satellite
system, and unusually no cable TV service in this area.
When we replace our dishes, how can we best impress it upon the management
company that they cannot ban us from having a dish, and who is the best
person or organisation to approach to back us up on the issue?
![Brian Gregory [UK]'s profile photo](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a/default-user=s40-c)
Brian Gregory [UK]
news:%5pzp.1984$Am5....@newsfe05.ams2...
I would not replace the dishes but first research that statement a little
and then all of you send letters pointing out the statement and asking how
the management intend replace your lost access to satellite.
--
Brian Gregory. (In the UK)
n...@bgdsv.co.uk
To email me remove the letter vee.
charles
<ste...@sptv.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> An employee of the management company for my block of 150 flats cut the
> cables to, and removed, 10 satellite dishes used by leasholders last
> week, without warning. They had been carefully situated at ground level
> to be as unobtrusive as possible.
> I have read elsewhere the following: "Tell them to go away, you are
> having a dish": EU statement: "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FREE MOVEMENT OF
> GOODS AND SERVICES - ARTICLES 28 AND 49 EC - CONCERNING THE USE OF
> SATELLITE DISHES" "By virtue of the principles of the free movement of
> goods (Articles 28 to 30 EC) and the free movement of services (Articles
> 49 et seq. EC, as interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European
> Convention on Human Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to
> have access to a satellite dish must have that opportunity."
> "Architectural and urban planning concerns can be efficiently addressed
> through measures which aim to minimise the visual impact of satellite
> dishes without infringing the right to satellite reception of the
> individuals concerned and without forcing them to pay excessive fees."
> "ie - they can request that a dish is discreet, but cannot ban you from
> having one."
> Assuming this is correct, the clause in our leases about satellite dishes
> must be wrong, if only because there is no alternative communal satellite
> system, and unusually no cable TV service in this area.
the EU item is for the benefit of planners. It is is up to the owners of
property to make their own decisions. If they don't want dishes, that's
their decision. Mind you, some 40 years ago, magistrates in Exeter decided
that the local council, as housing providers, could not ban outside
aerials. If only the council had appealed, this would have become case law.
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16
Gary
damage to cut them down without notice. I suggest a visit to the police
or a solicitor is in order.
Mark Goodge
Agreed. Issuing a notice to leasholders to remove the dishes, with the
threat that the management company will take action themselves if they
aren't gone by a certain time, would be legal. But simply removing them is
criminal damage and, if the dishes haven't been returned to the owners,
theft. I would go to the police immediately.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
David Woolley
> Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to have access to a
> satellite dish must have that opportunity."
Having access to, is not the same as owning, or having the right to
install. To the extent that this even applies to landlords, or has been
ratified in the UK (the fact that it is not mentioned on the digitaluk
site, at the same time as warning against restrictions, suggests it may
not apply) this would be satisfied by a communal dish and IRS.
> "Architectural and urban planning concerns can be efficiently addressed
> through measures which aim to minimise the visual impact of satellite dishes
> without infringing the right to satellite reception of the individuals
> concerned and without forcing them to pay excessive fees."
At the planning level, this is already satisfied by making the
installation of up to two aerials per low rise block, subject to size
limits, a permitted development (four for higher rise). I don't know
how many blocks the 10 aerials, in this case, were spread over, and how
many terrestrial aerials already existed.
>
> When we replace our dishes, how can we best impress it upon the management
> company that they cannot ban us from having a dish, and who is the best
> person or organisation to approach to back us up on the issue?
Firstly, one important consideration. The purpose of this ruling is to
give all broadcasters full access to the market - EEC legislation is
about level playing fields for businesses - its about giving consumers
the right to be a market for businesses, not directly about benefits to
consumers. As such, when Sky bundles installation as a loss leader,
they are actually trying to defeat the aims of the EEC, because they are
trying to ensure that the consumer only uses Sky. (I wonder if the EEC
is considering outlawing this.)
The right way to go about this is to propose to fund an integrated
reception system that will serve all current and future leaseholders,
and probably cover as many satellite positions as reasonably possible
with current technology (about 4). Consider planning, maintenance, and
decommissioning costs.
Sky's advertising to landlords tends to be on the basis of give us a
ring and we will do the hard sell on the phone (i.e. you cannot find
proper Ts and Cs on their web site), so I'm not sure how far they can
bend their own rules, but officially, their blocks of flats service is
designed as only for Sky subscribers and tries to lock people into Sky.
It is possible that they would subsidise their proportion of a
comprehensive system, but that would probably be a local, commercial
decision.
As such, expect to have to pay the real, up front, cost of the
installation, and also to have to pay to give access to those people who
don't want to make use of that access in the short term. Also expect
rather few people to actually put their money where their mouth is.
We've had zero response to a consultation on DSO options, from those who
would have to pay.
It is worth noting that private landlords, including residents' managing
companies, generally have no authority to go beyond like for like when
funding from the service charges, and whilst social landlords often have
leases that allow service charges to pay for improvements, a lot of
resentment has been created by charging people would don't want an IRS
or its installation.
The only UK legislation that I am aware of that gives universal access
rights to telecoms services only applies to internal wiring, and has a
minimum lease requirement (2 years?).
David Woolley
>
> Agreed. Issuing a notice to leasholders to remove the dishes, with the
> threat that the management company will take action themselves if they
> aren't gone by a certain time, would be legal. But simply removing them is
> criminal damage and, if the dishes haven't been returned to the owners,
> theft. I would go to the police immediately.
Although expect the landlord to counter claim for criminal damage to the
building structure and for the costs of removal. In practice, the
damage to the satellite system is unlikely to exceed the single figures,
for a cut cable or removing self almalgamating tape. That to the wall
may not even be economically repairable.
In practice, though, I suspect that there was a warning. If 10 dishes
have accumulate, I suspect there have been many warnings.
Also, theft requires an element of dishonesty. As I understand it,
failing to return the dishes would be Conversion, a civil wrong.
IANAL
tony sayer
<cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
Ho Humm!... dear olde UK again and crap UK stylee management.
Why should a satellite dish be considered any less worthy than a Thelves
"bling" aerial?. Course over sur le continent it's just another way of
receiving TV..
And why didn't the "management" tell and consult with the flat dwellers
before they did this?.
After having a bit of experience with these outfits they IMHO are in the
same league as Car Parking Clampers;!.........
--
Tony Sayer
Richard Tobin
David Woolley <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>its about giving consumers
>the right to be a market for businesses, not directly about benefits to
>consumers.
And for the business of selling advertising, viewers are not even
the market - they're the product.
-- Richard
Bill Wright
> Stephen wrote:
>
>> Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to have access to a
>> satellite dish must have that opportunity."
>
> Having access to, is not the same as owning, or having the right to
> install. To the extent that this even applies to landlords, or has been
> ratified in the UK (the fact that it is not mentioned on the digitaluk
> site, at the same time as warning against restrictions, suggests it may
> not apply) this would be satisfied by a communal dish and IRS.
the foreign channels many immigrants want.
> The right way to go about this is to propose to fund an integrated
> reception system that will serve all current and future leaseholders,
> and probably cover as many satellite positions as reasonably possible
> with current technology (about 4). Consider planning, maintenance, and
> decommissioning costs.
The money isn't there to put a multisatellite system into a block with
only a minority of immigrants. The other residents won't hear of it.
So most management agents attempt to ban 28E dishes on the grounds that
the system provides the service (but often with only one feed) whilst
allowing the immigrant dishes to remain. Result: civil strife!
>
> Sky's advertising to landlords tends to be on the basis of give us a
> ring and we will do the hard sell on the phone (i.e. you cannot find
> proper Ts and Cs on their web site), so I'm not sure how far they can
> bend their own rules, but officially, their blocks of flats service is
> designed as only for Sky subscribers and tries to lock people into Sky.
> It is possible that they would subsidise their proportion of a
> comprehensive system, but that would probably be a local, commercial
> decision.
I've never encountered this. It would go against their monopolistic ideals.
Sky installs tend to have downleads to Sky subscribers only. There is
then often an excessive charge for connection if the person wants
Freesat. Locked wallboxes, warning notices, the lot!
>
> As such, expect to have to pay the real, up front, cost of the
> installation, and also to have to pay to give access to those people who
> don't want to make use of that access in the short term. Also expect
> rather few people to actually put their money where their mouth is.
> We've had zero response to a consultation on DSO options, from those who
> would have to pay.
Yes. Heads firmly in sand.
Bill
Robin
> When we replace our dishes, how can we best impress it upon the
> management company that they cannot ban us from having a dish, and
> who is the best person or organisation to approach to back us up on
> the issue?
You are quoting from a communication from the Commission in 2001. You
may have noticed since then that satellite dishes have *not* sprouted
over listed buildings, in conservation areas, etc etc. And that the
planning guidance still states that "For buildings 15 or more metres
high ....you do not need planning permission to install a dish or other
antenna on your property, as long as there will be no more than four
antennas on the building overall". See
http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/householdersguideantennas
I am not aware of any cases which would contradict that view. But you
could of course challenge it on the basis of one of the provisions
mentioned in the Commission's 2001 communication - especially if you
have deep pockets :)
--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com
Robin
> Maybe there was an infringement in having the dish but it is criminal
> damage to cut them down without notice. I suggest a visit to the
> police or a solicitor is in order.
If the dishes and cables were fixed to building then is it not possible
they became "landlord's fixtures" - ie the property of the landlord -
which, if not provided as part of the tenancy agreement/lease/etc, the
landlord was entitled to dispose of at will?
David Woolley
> David Woolley wrote:
> I've never encountered this. It would go against their monopolistic ideals.
> Sky installs tend to have downleads to Sky subscribers only. There is
> then often an excessive charge for connection if the person wants
> Freesat. Locked wallboxes, warning notices, the lot!
>
I thought that Sky said that ownership of their blocks of flats systems
passed to the freeholder. Am I confusing this with their full price
IRS installation service, or do they use special, non-commodity
equipment? I'd be surprised at the latter.
>> expect rather few people to actually put their money where their mouth
>> is. We've had zero response to a consultation on DSO options, from
>> those who would have to pay.
> Yes. Heads firmly in sand.
Basically, the demand for satellite is mainly from shorthold
sub-tenants. The leaseholders are either too old to care much about
what they don't already know, and don't understand the issues, or cable
users, or are buy to letters who are concerned about maximising short
term profits. I'm not even sure how many average Sky users are actually
aware that there is more than Sky branded 28E out there given the amount
of marketing that satellite = Sky. Even here, where there are at least
5 directions in a mile, I'm not sure that people in the flats understand
that.
David Woolley
>
> Also, theft requires an element of dishonesty. As I understand it,
> failing to return the dishes would be Conversion, a civil wrong.
Thinking about it, I seem to remember that new, as well as replacement,
fixtures and fittings become the property of the landlord, by default,
so it may well be that the landlord is disposing of their own property.
However, I would expect the dish to be returned to the person who
commissioned its fitting, in practice.
>
> IANAL
tim....
"Brian Gregory [UK]" <n...@bgdsv.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WYidnQut5LfVpVPQ...@giganews.com...
I would go to the police and make a report of criminal damage AND expect
them to act.
They may have a right to forbid you a sat dish (which they would need to
enforce through the courts), they DON'T have the right to damage your
property
tim
David Woolley
>
> They may have a right to forbid you a sat dish (which they would need to
> enforce through the courts), they DON'T have the right to damage your
> property
As both Robin and I have pointed out, the act of fixing it to the
building made it the landlord's property.
Also, in fixing it, they caused damage to the building, which is likely
to exceed any damage to the cable.
Bill Wright
> Bill Wright wrote:
>> David Woolley wrote:
>
>> I've never encountered this. It would go against their monopolistic
>> ideals.
>> Sky installs tend to have downleads to Sky subscribers only. There is
>> then often an excessive charge for connection if the person wants
>> Freesat. Locked wallboxes, warning notices, the lot!
>>
>
> I thought that Sky said that ownership of their blocks of flats systems
> passed to the freeholder. Am I confusing this with their full price IRS
> installation service, or do they use special, non-commodity equipment?
> I'd be surprised at the latter.
That's how it looks to me anyway, but I don't know anything about the
terms, conditions, and general legal framework.
> Basically, the demand for satellite is mainly from shorthold
> sub-tenants. The leaseholders are either too old to care much about
> what they don't already know, and don't understand the issues, or cable
> users, or are buy to letters who are concerned about maximising short
> term profits.
I think you're generalising a bit here, and as time goes on the
demographic of Sky subscribers seems to be ageing. Certainly it is now
becoming essential for sheltered schemes for the active elderly to have
Sky+ in every flat.
We find the uptake of Sky in upmarket flats is quite high. The attitude
of a lot is that the cost is insignificant so why not have it.
Freesat also seems to be doing well in flats of all types.
Bill
David Woolley
> Why should a satellite dish be considered any less worthy than a Thelves
> "bling" aerial?. Course over sur le continent it's just another way of
> receiving TV..
Typical older lease clauses say "external aerials", so do cover your
counter case. If current leases only cover satellites, it is mainly
because it is unusual for someone to add terrestrial aerials.
>
> And why didn't the "management" tell and consult with the flat dwellers
> before they did this?.
They did at the time the leaseholder agreed to the lease.
I wouldn't be surprised if there has been a long correspondence
reminding the leaseholders of the clause in the lease.
>
> After having a bit of experience with these outfits they IMHO are in the
> same league as Car Parking Clampers;!.........
Managing agents that enforce such covenants are likely to be working for
residents' management companies and therefore reflecting the wishes of
the owner occupiers. The only other likely reasons are that they are
bound by freehold covenants, or because uncontrolled installation would
inevitably, or already has, breached planning laws.
David Woolley
> I think you're generalising a bit here, and as time goes on the
I think I was actually doing the opposite, and describing one specific
real case.
In our case, overwhelmingly it is the shortholders who want Sky.
I have a feeling our correct DSO solution will be freesat, because of an
obstruction to the DTT path causing weather dependent deep fading and
wide variations across channels (its a complex structure that probably
covers 70% of the first fresnel zone by diameter, and has parts well
above that).
However I'm having trouble getting the person who acts as manager not to
give in to Sky if he can get Sky's minimum number of subscribers,
possibly leaving us with finding a DSO solution where there is already a
conflicting, possibly locked in, satellite installation.
Unfortunately, there are higher priorities for me than DSO at the
moment, and only limited spare time to deal with them.
Incidentally, the minimum age for a lot of retirement accommodation is
about 60. We have people a generation older than that.
J G Miller
> As both Robin and I have pointed out, the act of fixing it to the
> building made it the landlord's property.
This really is nonsense.
So when people move into an appartment and affix their lighting to
the cables protruding from the ceiling, that becomes the property
of the landlord?
> Also, in fixing it, they caused damage to the building, which is likely
> to exceed any damage to the cable.
Where did the original poster state anything attached to the building?
I see lots of people attaching satellite dishes to their balconies
and they do not become the property of the landlord nor do they
cause damage to the building.
David Woolley
> Where did the original poster state anything attached to the building?
It's somewhat implicit in the need to cut the cable to remove it.
Andy Burns
???
Robin
>> building made it the landlord's property.
>
> This really is nonsense.
You may well think so but the Courts of the UK think otherwise. The law
is complex and I have not had to look at it for 10 years now. But
broadly courts' two tests are (i) the method and degree of annexation
and
(ii) the object and purpose of annexation.. (i) is not conclusive but if
removal would cause serious damage to the building it is probably a
fixture (ii) is an objective test: eg is it meant to be a permanent
improvement to the property or just a temporary means to use the asset.
There are umpteen cases on this if you still doubt me. See eg TSB Bank
plc v. Botham, or Elitestone Ltd. v. Morris and Another.
> So when people move into an apartment and affix their lighting to
> the cables protruding from the ceiling, that becomes the property
> of the landlord?
>
Apply the tests above. Attaching lights to a *cable* (even with a
couple
of screws into the ceiling which will be covered by most other lights)
is not the same as attaching a satellite dish by bolts to the fabric of
the building. And doubt is removed because the courts have held that
ordinary lights are not fixtures. (And yes, it will be different if
they are eg clamped by u-bolts to a balcony. But I don't see many such
in this area (E London) where there are *vast* numbers of dishes fitted
by/for immigrants. I do see vast numbers fitted to the bricks by large
bolts - and a fair few cracked bricks.)
Charles Ellson
>>> As both Robin and I have pointed out, the act of fixing it to the
>>> building made it the landlord's property.
>>
ITYF that mainly applies WRT to something "fixed/set in the ground"
(e.g. a shed which is not merely sitting on the ground, a fence or
trees) rather than any thing attached to a building, the latter not
being so simple as described below.
>> This really is nonsense.
>
>You may well think so but the Courts of the UK think otherwise. The law
>is complex and I have not had to look at it for 10 years now. But
>broadly courts' two tests are (i) the method and degree of annexation
>and
>(ii) the object and purpose of annexation.. (i) is not conclusive but if
>removal would cause serious damage to the building it is probably a
>fixture (ii) is an objective test: eg is it meant to be a permanent
>improvement to the property or just a temporary means to use the asset.
>
>There are umpteen cases on this if you still doubt me. See eg TSB Bank
>plc v. Botham, or Elitestone Ltd. v. Morris and Another.
>
>> So when people move into an apartment and affix their lighting to
>> the cables protruding from the ceiling, that becomes the property
>> of the landlord?
>>
>Apply the tests above. Attaching lights to a *cable* (even with a
>couple
>of screws into the ceiling which will be covered by most other lights)
>is not the same as attaching a satellite dish by bolts to the fabric of
>the building. And doubt is removed because the courts have held that
>ordinary lights are not fixtures. (And yes, it will be different if
>they are eg clamped by u-bolts to a balcony. But I don't see many such
>in this area (E London) where there are *vast* numbers of dishes fitted
>by/for immigrants.
>
Not the natives watching the wank channels ?
Charles Ellson
IMU it would not be conversion as that would require the dishes to
have been willingly placed in the landlord's possession; this still
leaves the option of the tenants suing for the return of their goods
in the small claims court (and also alleging harrassment if this was
not in the landlord's power?). The only thing that might be standing
in the way of a theft offence is the lack of a demand for their
return; if that demand is ignored then it could help to destroy a
defence that the landlord though he was acting honestly.
IAANAL
Charles Ellson
>
>> Maybe there was an infringement in having the dish but it is criminal
>> damage to cut them down without notice. I suggest a visit to the
>> police or a solicitor is in order.
>
>If the dishes and cables were fixed to building then is it not possible
>they became "landlord's fixtures" - ie the property of the landlord -
>which, if not provided as part of the tenancy agreement/lease/etc, the
>landlord was entitled to dispose of at will?
>
Think gas and electric meters and other utility equipment which might
be attached to a building.
Charles Ellson
<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>Bill Wright wrote:
>> David Woolley wrote:
>
>> I've never encountered this. It would go against their monopolistic ideals.
>> Sky installs tend to have downleads to Sky subscribers only. There is
>> then often an excessive charge for connection if the person wants
>> Freesat. Locked wallboxes, warning notices, the lot!
>>
>
>I thought that Sky said that ownership of their blocks of flats systems
>passed to the freeholder.
>
Only if the freeholder willingly/consciously accepts ownership; a
landlord might only have given what amounts to a wayleave to avoid any
general responsibility for the system. If a system has been installed
without specific permission of an owner (which IMU will include those
such as long leaseholders deemed to be much the same for many
purposes) then it drops into "unsolicited/abandoned goods" territory
WRT to anything not contained within a flat.
<snip>
David Woolley
> Think gas and electric meters and other utility equipment which might
> be attached to a building.
They are fixed under specific contracts, which can override the default
position.
David Woolley
> On Sat, 14 May 2011 14:21:07 +0100, David Woolley
> <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>> I thought that Sky said that ownership of their blocks of flats systems
>> passed to the freeholder.
>>
> Only if the freeholder willingly/consciously accepts ownership; a
> landlord might only have given what amounts to a wayleave to avoid any
For clarity, I'm talking about their free except for the earth bonding
communal scheme for flats, not the installation of dishes for an
individual flat.
Charles Ellson
Assuming there is anything to be over-ridden.
After a bit of Googling it would seem that as the reason for fixing a
satellite dish is to enjoy its use (or rather the system of which it
is a part) rather than to "improve the land" then it is likely to be
treated as a chattel rather than a fixture/fitting if there is any
argument; the law on the matter does however seem to be lacking in
precision. Looking at e.g. a Law Society Form TA10, satellite dishes
are listed alongside televisions (something else commonly screwed to
the wall nowadays) and aerials as items whose status is optional (WRT
the form) in a sale of a house; the only electrical equipment
receiving specific mention of being left or a replacement being left
in lieu are light fittings and bulbs.
Robin
> (e.g. a shed which is not merely sitting on the ground, a fence or
> trees) rather than any thing attached to a building, the latter not
> being so simple as described below.
>
Can you please point me to what makes you say that? I ask as I have
checked briefly and cannot find anything in recent years which has
overturned the very longstanding law to the contrary: eg 2 leading cases
on fixtures involved tapestries and pictures fixed to walls.
Charles Ellson
<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 May 2011 14:21:07 +0100, David Woolley
>> <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>
>>> I thought that Sky said that ownership of their blocks of flats systems
>>> passed to the freeholder.
>>>
>> Only if the freeholder willingly/consciously accepts ownership; a
>> landlord might only have given what amounts to a wayleave to avoid any
>
>For clarity, I'm talking about their free except for the earth bonding
>communal scheme for flats, not the installation of dishes for an
>individual flat.
>
That is what I was considering. I was allowing for at least two
scenarios :-
1- The landlord gets the system installed in which case there is
probably not much doubt over ownership.
2- The tenants/whoever get the system installed with the
landlord/freeholder not involved in the purchase and not receiving
payment. Merely giving permission (assuming it has been sought) is not
acceptance of ownership.
In any case, as others have said or implied there is no general right
to take away another persons property without permission.
Charles Ellson
>> ITYF that mainly applies WRT to something "fixed/set in the ground"
>> (e.g. a shed which is not merely sitting on the ground, a fence or
>> trees) rather than any thing attached to a building, the latter not
>> being so simple as described below.
>>
>
>Can you please point me to what makes you say that?
>
AFAICT apart from buildings themselves there can be uncertainty over
whether fixing something to land renders it the property of the
landowner, it seems to be down to a combination of whether or not the
removal is detrimental to the land and if the "fixing" is merely to
prevent movement or unwanted removal. WRT to attachments to buildings
IMU there is the matter of whether or not something has become
functionally part of the building rather than merely
screwed/nailed/bolted to it.
From a criminal law POV, references to "real property" and the usual
inability to steal it seem to be exclusively to land and things
forming "part of the land" not to anything attached to a building.
>I ask as I have
>checked briefly and cannot find anything in recent years which has
>overturned the very longstanding law to the contrary: eg 2 leading cases
>on fixtures involved tapestries and pictures fixed to walls.
>
Criminal or civil cases ? WRT ordinary house sales such things
generally appear to need specific listing as included in the sale
before anyone can complain that they were missing when they moved in.
David Woolley
> On Sun, 15 May 2011 00:08:23 +0100, David Woolley
> <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Charles Ellson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 May 2011 14:21:07 +0100, David Woolley
>>> <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>>>> I thought that Sky said that ownership of their blocks of flats systems
>>>> passed to the freeholder.
>>>>
>>> Only if the freeholder willingly/consciously accepts ownership; a
>>> landlord might only have given what amounts to a wayleave to avoid any
>> For clarity, I'm talking about their free except for the earth bonding
>> communal scheme for flats, not the installation of dishes for an
>> individual flat.
>>
> That is what I was considering. I was allowing for at least two
> scenarios :-
> 1- The landlord gets the system installed in which case there is
> probably not much doubt over ownership.
> 2- The tenants/whoever get the system installed with the
> landlord/freeholder not involved in the purchase and not receiving
> payment. Merely giving permission (assuming it has been sought) is not
> acceptance of ownership.
>
> In any case, as others have said or implied there is no general right
> to take away another persons property without permission.
The ownership issue here is that of whether Sky own it, thus preventing
it being modified for non-Sky use. I believe their advertising says
that they will assign ownership as part of the deal, in the same way as
they assign ownership of individual dishes.
There are two threads here. One about unauthorised installations by
tenants, and one about whether Sky prevent loss leader communal systems
from being used for non-Sky purposes. This is the latter one.
tim....
"Robin" <s...@sig.sep> wrote in message
news:9MJzp.5738$Am5...@newsfe05.ams2...
Good god!
I would have thought that the method of fixing these items was such that
they could be removed from the walls, without actually unscrewing anything.
I would be amazed that such a fixing made it the LLs property.
tim
Brian Gaff
know what the dishes were. IE if Sky, then they should presumably have made
sure the site was OK legally or the customer should be told to do so.
Then there is the actual site of the dishes. If this is not on the property
where you or the customers are allowed to site aerials, you may have a
problem proving criminal damage if no permission was given. However it would
seem to me that at the very least some communications declaring the intent
to remove should have been sent first, and the dishes and associated
equipment given back to the customers who they were owned or rented by.
On masse, I think only after these things are settled in a satisfactory
way, can the whole thorny problem be tackled with the management of the
block.
I would imagine if all those wanting tv from sat got together a system
could be installed that would not produce huge numbers of dishes but still
provide a suitable service to all.
It could well be that the block owners have a local planning law to comply
with which makes the clause a required one. It needs research.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Robin" <s...@sig.sep> wrote in message
news:f6vzp.17865$IL2....@newsfe04.ams2...
David Woolley
> I personally feel that the problem here is not simple. firstly, we do not
> know what the dishes were. IE if Sky, then they should presumably have made
> sure the site was OK legally or the customer should be told to do so.
In this case, for the tenth dish, the others might have been seen as a
precedent, but we don't really understand how a legitimate installer
could have preceded in installing a dish on our blocks when it would
have been the only one.
> It could well be that the block owners have a local planning law to comply
> with which makes the clause a required one. It needs research.
I imagine it would be very difficult to find blocks where a dish per
flat would fall under the permitted developments. Letting one person
have a dish might deny one to a later requester.
tony sayer
<cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
Now I don't suppose an ordinary TV aerial has ever given rise to this
level of debate has it?.
I suppose its all to do with the good old brit class system , that makes
a Sky dish the spawn of Satan of the working class and I sadly think it
will long remain so;(....
Rather then a different means of receiving TV and Radio signals....
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
scribeth thus
>>
>> When we replace our dishes, how can we best impress it upon the
>> management company that they cannot ban us from having a dish, and
>> who is the best person or organisation to approach to back us up on
>> the issue?
>
>You are quoting from a communication from the Commission in 2001. You
>may have noticed since then that satellite dishes have *not* sprouted
>over listed buildings, in conservation areas, etc etc.
There are around 4 of them at Ely Cathedral, Satellite dishes that is.
Only thing is that they have been installed carefully and aren't that
noticeable. Yer average Bishop likes his telly like the rest of us;)...
BTW One of the is a 1.2 Metre channelmaster....
>And that the
>planning guidance still states that "For buildings 15 or more metres
>high ....you do not need planning permission to install a dish or other
>antenna on your property, as long as there will be no more than four
>antennas on the building overall". See
>http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/householdersguide
>antennas
>
>I am not aware of any cases which would contradict that view. But you
>could of course challenge it on the basis of one of the provisions
>mentioned in the Commission's 2001 communication - especially if you
>have deep pockets :)
--
Tony Sayer
Scott
<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>Mark Goodge wrote:
>
>>
>> Agreed. Issuing a notice to leasholders to remove the dishes, with the
>> threat that the management company will take action themselves if they
>> aren't gone by a certain time, would be legal. But simply removing them is
>> criminal damage and, if the dishes haven't been returned to the owners,
>> theft. I would go to the police immediately.
>
>Although expect the landlord to counter claim for criminal damage to the
> building structure and for the costs of removal. In practice, the
>damage to the satellite system is unlikely to exceed the single figures,
>for a cut cable or removing self almalgamating tape. That to the wall
>may not even be economically repairable.
>
>In practice, though, I suspect that there was a warning. If 10 dishes
>have accumulate, I suspect there have been many warnings.
>
>Also, theft requires an element of dishonesty. As I understand it,
>failing to return the dishes would be Conversion, a civil wrong.
Does the dish belong to Sky?. Is it sold or leased?
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
>In article <861us6dmsmvtlhe4o...@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson
><cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>On Sat, 14 May 2011 14:21:07 +0100, David Woolley
>><da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Bill Wright wrote:
>>>> David Woolley wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've never encountered this. It would go against their monopolistic ideals.
>>>> Sky installs tend to have downleads to Sky subscribers only. There is
>>>> then often an excessive charge for connection if the person wants
>>>> Freesat. Locked wallboxes, warning notices, the lot!
>>>>
>>>
>>>I thought that Sky said that ownership of their blocks of flats systems
>>>passed to the freeholder.
>>>
>>Only if the freeholder willingly/consciously accepts ownership; a
>>landlord might only have given what amounts to a wayleave to avoid any
>>general responsibility for the system. If a system has been installed
>>without specific permission of an owner (which IMU will include those
>>such as long leaseholders deemed to be much the same for many
>>purposes) then it drops into "unsolicited/abandoned goods" territory
>>WRT to anything not contained within a flat.
>><snip>
>
>
>Now I don't suppose an ordinary TV aerial has ever given rise to this
>level of debate has it?.
I wouldn't be so sure of that. It might have done before satellite TV
was introduced. The discussions would have been among lawyers and
propery owners rather than online, because there was no "online".
>
>I suppose its all to do with the good old brit class system , that makes
>a Sky dish the spawn of Satan of the working class and I sadly think it
>will long remain so;(....
>
I doubt whether it has anything to do with that.
>Rather then a different means of receiving TV and Radio signals....
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
David Woolley
> Bill Wright wrote:
>> David Woolley wrote:
>
>> I've never encountered this. It would go against their monopolistic
>> ideals.
>> Sky installs tend to have downleads to Sky subscribers only. There is
>> then often an excessive charge for connection if the person wants
>> Freesat. Locked wallboxes, warning notices, the lot!
>>
>
> I thought that Sky said that ownership of their blocks of flats systems
> installation service, or do they use special, non-commodity equipment?
> I'd be surprised at the latter.
Looking at their web site now, it does seem to say that they retain
ownership of the communal dish, and therefore lockin, at least for the
"free" offer. I'm not sure if I'm confusing this with their chargeable
IRS deals, or if they have changed the rules.
David Woolley
> Does the dish belong to Sky?. Is it sold or leased?
My understanding is that it is sold in return for your taking out a
minimum term contract. The same for the set top box.
http://www.sky.com/shop/terms-conditions/tv/
Says: "On installation the Digital Satellite System will become your
property", except software (and the subscription card is excepted
elsewhere).
It also says: "You are responsible for ensuring that all these
agreements and consents have been obtained before we install your
Digital Satellite Equipment.", having specifically mentioned landlord's
consents as a type that might be needed.
This appears not to be true for free communal dishes - presumably to
stop freesat use.
Charles Ellson
In the (very) old days tapestries and similar were the equivalent of
wallpaper. Without the opportunity of knowing the content of the
"leading cases" it isn't clear if the argument might have specifically
involved "fixtures" or was over what was understood to be part of a
sale.
Charles Ellson
<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
I've only got one thread which starts off with :-
"An employee of the management company for my block of 150 flats cut
the cables to, and removed, 10 satellite dishes used by leasholders
last week, without warning. They had been carefully situated at ground
level to be as unobtrusive as possible."
Charles Ellson
Ordinary television aerials tend to have rather less restriction from
the planning POV (and thus harder to be objected to) and are typically
not as easily removeable as these dishes seem to have been.
David Woolley
> I've only got one thread which starts off with :-
Sub thread topic drift is very common on Usenet. You have to look at
the ancestry of the particular article. A thread in the Usenet
engineering sense can contain more than one logical thread.
People can change sub-thread subjects, but that is fairly rare.
David Woolley
>>
> Ordinary television aerials tend to have rather less restriction from
> the planning POV (and thus harder to be objected to) and are typically
They are covered by the same permitted development rule as for
minidishes, and count against the same limit. If anything large numbers
of them on a block of flats would look worse than the same number of dishes.
I think the real reasons they don't cause so many issues is that blocks
of flats new enough for the aerials to be an issue for the lease
drafters tend to have perfectly good communal systems, and older blocks
would have no concept of a TV aerial to restrict.
My 1971 block has a covenant against external wireless and television
aerials, and it is that which applies to satellite dishes. There is no
specific restriction against satellite dishes because DSB wasn't an
issue at the time it was drafted.
> not as easily removeable as these dishes seem to have been.
The only thing that might make terrestial TV aerials more difficult to
remove is their height. In practice, though, height would not be a bar
to the landlord enforcing a covenant against dishes. If anything,
higher dishes are more likely to be removed, as they are more visible.
If anything, the issue here relates to difficulty of removal, i.e. the
need to cut the cable, rather than simply unscrew it from terminals
>
Paul D Smith
who your local Lib Dem one is, drop me a direct e-mail with your postcode.
You can then given then your quote and ask them to investigate the position
for you.
Paul D Smith.
"Stephen" <ste...@sptv.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:%5pzp.1984$Am5....@newsfe05.ams2...
> An employee of the management company for my block of 150 flats cut the
> cables to, and removed, 10 satellite dishes used by leasholders last week,
> without warning. They had been carefully situated at ground level to be as
> unobtrusive as possible.
>
> I have read elsewhere the following:
> "Tell them to go away, you are having a dish":
> EU statement:
> "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FREE MOVEMENT OF GOODS AND SERVICES - ARTICLES 28
> AND
> 49 EC - CONCERNING THE USE OF SATELLITE DISHES"
> "By virtue of the principles of the free movement of goods (Articles 28 to
> 30 EC) and the free movement of services (Articles 49 et seq. EC, as
> interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human
> Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to have access to a
> satellite dish must have that opportunity."
> "Architectural and urban planning concerns can be efficiently addressed
> through measures which aim to minimise the visual impact of satellite
> dishes
> without infringing the right to satellite reception of the individuals
> concerned and without forcing them to pay excessive fees."
> "ie - they can request that a dish is discreet, but cannot ban you from
> having one."
>
> Assuming this is correct, the clause in our leases about satellite dishes
> must be wrong, if only because there is no alternative communal satellite
> system, and unusually no cable TV service in this area.
Albert Ross
<cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Ordinary television aerials tend to have rather less restriction from
>the planning POV (and thus harder to be objected to) and are typically
>not as easily removeable as these dishes seem to have been.
Not necessarily, our freehold properties have a whole bunch of
covenants imposed against having more than one aerial and also
restrictions on things like height of fences, possession of sheds,
caravans or fairground equipment (!) to name but a few.
However since the builders went out of business decades ago and the
council aren't interested, no-one actually cares or applies these
rules - but they could if they wanted to.
Max Demian
news:iqqiib$1hq$1...@dont-email.me...
Demon's 'Turnpike' newsreader software allowed (allows?) you to split a
thread for ease of reading.
--
Max Demian
Charles Ellson
<da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>Charles Ellson wrote:
>
>>>
>> Ordinary television aerials tend to have rather less restriction from
>> the planning POV (and thus harder to be objected to) and are typically
>
>They are covered by the same permitted development rule as for
>minidishes, and count against the same limit.
>
They might be but in practice television aerials do not normally
attract the same attention from planning officers or the local
self-appointed guardians of the local view despite a tendency to be
more prominent on the immediate skyline. Many will also be exempt just
because they aren't big enough. I am also willing to bet that the vast
majority of 15/18/more-element aerials over 1m long have never
involved as much as a casual query to the local planning office.
>If anything large numbers
>of them on a block of flats would look worse than the same number of dishes.
>
>I think the real reasons they don't cause so many issues is that blocks
>of flats new enough for the aerials to be an issue for the lease
>drafters tend to have perfectly good communal systems, and older blocks
>would have no concept of a TV aerial to restrict.
>
There is also the likelihood that many will have been up so long that
objections are time-barred.
>My 1971 block has a covenant against external wireless and television
>aerials, and it is that which applies to satellite dishes. There is no
>specific restriction against satellite dishes because DSB wasn't an
>issue at the time it was drafted.
>
>> not as easily removeable as these dishes seem to have been.
>
>The only thing that might make terrestial TV aerials more difficult to
>remove is their height. In practice, though, height would not be a bar
>to the landlord enforcing a covenant against dishes.
>
>If anything,
>higher dishes are more likely to be removed, as they are more visible.
>
That depends on who is looking and where from. In many cases it might
not be the appearance that matters but what it is fixed to and how it
is fixed.
Charles Ellson
<spam@dev_null.com.invalid> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 May 2011 02:26:53 +0100, Charles Ellson
><cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Ordinary television aerials tend to have rather less restriction from
>>the planning POV (and thus harder to be objected to) and are typically
>>not as easily removeable as these dishes seem to have been.
>
>Not necessarily, our freehold properties have a whole bunch of
>covenants imposed against having more than one aerial and also
>restrictions on things like height of fences, possession of sheds,
>caravans or fairground equipment (!) to name but a few.
>
The last three items seem to be part of a common list found in title
deeds whose general effect is to ensure that the site is used for the
building of a house and nothing else; other typical wordings seem to
prevent a developer from using one site as a source of materials for
other sites, e.g. from mine :-
"No gravel sand earth or other material shall be excavated from any
plot except for the purpose of foundations and for use in buildings on
such plot....."
>However since the builders went out of business decades ago and the
>council aren't interested, no-one actually cares or applies these
>rules - but they could if they wanted to.
>
IMU the enforcements of covenants where one or both of the original
parties is no longer involved has become rather more difficult in
recent years. e.g. :-
http://www.propertylawuk.net/propertytransactionspositive.html
tony sayer
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> scribeth thus
Well having been in that "biz" waay back in the 60's the only problems I
recall were the council being rather awkward if you wanted to put
anything on a chimney stack, and of course in those days the TV aerials
at the time were huge affairs compared to a minidish...
>
>>
>>I suppose its all to do with the good old brit class system , that makes
>>a Sky dish the spawn of Satan of the working class and I sadly think it
>>will long remain so;(....
>>
>I doubt whether it has anything to do with that.
Dunno.. One of our neighbours is a hospital consultant was impressed at
some of the Jazz and classical stations I could receiver via satellite
from Europe..
How do you receive those?, need some special sort of aerial as I'd sure
like to listen to that, make a change from Radio 3 ..
You just need a dish sez I..
Dish!.. Ah!, one of those Sky dish things?, OK well, best not be doing
with one of those eh, it'd spoil the look of the house for a start..
Well you can do like what I've done put it up the corner of the garden
where you can't see it..
Ah well OK ,I'll think about it then .. That was Three years ago still
no further forward...
>
>>Rather then a different means of receiving TV and Radio signals....
>
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
Why should that be, just one lump of plastic and metal compared to
another lump of plastic and metal?....
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
.demon.invalid> scribeth thus
So its all down to the relative ease of removal then?...
--
Tony Sayer
tony sayer
<cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>On Mon, 16 May 2011 08:32:14 +0100, David Woolley
><da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>
>>Charles Ellson wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> Ordinary television aerials tend to have rather less restriction from
>>> the planning POV (and thus harder to be objected to) and are typically
>>
>>They are covered by the same permitted development rule as for
>>minidishes, and count against the same limit.
>>
>They might be but in practice television aerials do not normally
>attract the same attention from planning officers or the local
>self-appointed guardians of the local view despite a tendency to be
>more prominent on the immediate skyline.
Why should that be so?. I can see several over sized chimney mounted
Thelves bling arrays here ...
>Many will also be exempt just
>because they aren't big enough. I am also willing to bet that the vast
>majority of 15/18/more-element aerials over 1m long have never
>involved as much as a casual query to the local planning office.
Nope, never....
Mr Wright care to comment on this?...
--
Tony Sayer
David Woolley
>>
>> If anything, the issue here relates to difficulty of removal, i.e. the
>> need to cut the cable, rather than simply unscrew it from terminals
>>
>
> So its all down to the relative ease of removal then?...
I'm not sure if you understood my point. Someone was suggesting that
dishes get removed because they are easier to remove than yagis etc. I
was challenging that and suggesting there wasn't really any difference
and then adding that the whole argument about criminal damage that one
camp is raising is based on the idea that removal is sufficiently
difficult that you can't do it without damaging the dish.
Charles Ellson
wrote:
>In article <vfe3t6dhg0kdjutte...@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson
><cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>On Mon, 16 May 2011 08:32:14 +0100, David Woolley
>><da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Ordinary television aerials tend to have rather less restriction from
>>>> the planning POV (and thus harder to be objected to) and are typically
>>>
>>>They are covered by the same permitted development rule as for
>>>minidishes, and count against the same limit.
>>>
>>They might be but in practice television aerials do not normally
>>attract the same attention from planning officers or the local
>>self-appointed guardians of the local view despite a tendency to be
>>more prominent on the immediate skyline.
>
>Why should that be so?. I can see several over sized chimney mounted
>Thelves bling arrays here ...
>
Maybe a hangover from the days of even bigger Band 1 aerials ? They
had effectively become a normal part of the scenery long ago (possibly
before specific mention of receiving aerials in planning
legislation?). Satellite dishes OTOH do not look the same and in many
areas would have been previously seen as "bringing down the
neighbourhood" by the local Hyacinth Buckets.
charles
Charles Ellson <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
[Snip]
> >
> Maybe a hangover from the days of even bigger Band 1 aerials ? They
> had effectively become a normal part of the scenery long ago (possibly
> before specific mention of receiving aerials in planning
> legislation?). Satellite dishes OTOH do not look the same and in many
> areas would have been previously seen as "bringing down the
> neighbourhood" by the local Hyacinth Buckets.
well, they'd only keep coal in them ....
--
From KT24
Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16
Charles Ellson
:-))
Jim
> On Tue, 17 May 2011 09:05:18 +0100, tony sayer<to...@bancom.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> In article<vfe3t6dhg0kdjutte...@4ax.com>, Charles Ellson
>> <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>> On Mon, 16 May 2011 08:32:14 +0100, David Woolley
>>> <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Charles Ellson wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> Ordinary television aerials tend to have rather less restriction from
>>>>> the planning POV (and thus harder to be objected to) and are typically
>>>>
>>>> They are covered by the same permitted development rule as for
>>>> minidishes, and count against the same limit.
>>>>
>>> They might be but in practice television aerials do not normally
>>> attract the same attention from planning officers or the local
>>> self-appointed guardians of the local view despite a tendency to be
>>> more prominent on the immediate skyline.
>>
>> Why should that be so?. I can see several over sized chimney mounted
>> Thelves bling arrays here ...
>>
> Maybe a hangover from the days of even bigger Band 1 aerials ? They
> had effectively become a normal part of the scenery long ago (possibly
> before specific mention of receiving aerials in planning
> legislation?). Satellite dishes OTOH do not look the same and in many
> areas would have been previously seen as "bringing down the
> neighbourhood" by the local Hyacinth Buckets.
>
The skyline isn't really the issue. Dishes are most
often mounted on the south face of a property. Random
dishes on a terrace or row of houses make the area
look awful, especially now that almost every
house/flat has one in some areas. You don't need to
be a Hyacinth to see how that would affect values.
I'm not surprised the OPs landlord took action to
protect his investment, though a more positive
response would have been to help with installation of
a communal system.
If the dishes were roof-mounted, they'd be far less
visible. Unlike UHF aerials, they don't need to be
above the sky-line and could be mounted against slates
or tiles with appropriate colouring.
J G Miller
> Random dishes on a terrace or row of houses make the area look awful
If UHF antennas were mounted in the same positions, they would look
equally awful.
It all comes down to how thoughtful the people installing the dish are
in terms of placement.
> If the dishes were roof-mounted, they'd be far less visible.
Properly managed new multi-dwelling developments do indeed have dishes
roof mounted so that they do not spoil the profile of the building
and provide residents with multi-satellite reception.
Albert Ross
<cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>On Mon, 16 May 2011 12:45:50 +0100, Albert Ross
><spam@dev_null.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 May 2011 02:26:53 +0100, Charles Ellson
>><cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Ordinary television aerials tend to have rather less restriction from
>>>the planning POV (and thus harder to be objected to) and are typically
>>>not as easily removeable as these dishes seem to have been.
>>
>>Not necessarily, our freehold properties have a whole bunch of
>>covenants imposed against having more than one aerial and also
>>restrictions on things like height of fences, possession of sheds,
>>caravans or fairground equipment (!) to name but a few.
>>
>The last three items seem to be part of a common list found in title
>deeds whose general effect is to ensure that the site is used for the
>building of a house and nothing else; other typical wordings seem to
>prevent a developer from using one site as a source of materials for
>other sites, e.g. from mine :-
>"No gravel sand earth or other material shall be excavated from any
>plot except for the purpose of foundations and for use in buildings on
>such plot....."
Yeah just about everyone has a garden shed and neighbours with kids
have a trampoline.
>>However since the builders went out of business decades ago and the
>>council aren't interested, no-one actually cares or applies these
>>rules - but they could if they wanted to.
>>
>IMU the enforcements of covenants where one or both of the original
>parties is no longer involved has become rather more difficult in
>recent years. e.g. :-
>http://www.propertylawuk.net/propertytransactionspositive.html
Interesting.
The council can also be a pain when they choose to be. One neighbour
bought a house complete with horrendous Leylandii hedge which was
encroaching all over the pavement and he was immediately served with
an enforcement notice.
When he wrote back and informed them he was going to take the thing
down anyway once he had amassed sufficient dynamite, they made him
jump through all kinds of further hoops regarding what fencing he
intended to replace it with and exactly what shrubs he was intending
to plant, No-one else seems to have been treated like this. Oh wait,
there was some hassle about a tree house, and someone else putting
solar panels on their roof, but generally they rubber stamp things
like attic conversions, extensions etc.
Don't recall any objections to dishes, or to Televes etc.
monstrosities either.
Dave Wade
news:8o6ft6lqdfuavhc2e...@4ax.com...
Not sure why they bothered. Fence or wall has a maximum height but behind
that's about it.
> Oh wait,
> there was some hassle about a tree house, and someone else putting
> solar panels on their roof, but generally they rubber stamp things
> like attic conversions, extensions etc.
>
Having done both the council don't actually have much choice with extensions
and attic conversions. Provided they fall within the bounds of permitted
development and you are not in a conservation area then all you have to do
is conform to building regs and they can't object.
> Don't recall any objections to dishes, or to Televes etc.
> monstrosities either.
Again you are allowed on TV antenna or dish (conservation area excepted).
More and you need permission. What locally gets my goat is the mast you can
see here:-
or perhaps
British Gas said if wasn't built they would have to close the local office
so the council reluctantly approved it. About a year later British closed
the office but the eyesore of a tower that's visible for miles is still
there. As usual one rule for the workers and one for the bosses....
Davey
See 'dynamite' as mentioned in a previous message....
In a perfect world, the council would have imposed a requirement to
remove the tower if the office were ever closed.....pigs might fly, too.
--
Davey.
David Woolley
> Again you are allowed on TV antenna or dish (conservation area
> excepted). More and you need permission. What locally gets my goat is
> the mast you can see here:-
The situation is a bit different for flats. The permitted aerials limit
is applied for the whole block, not individual flats. That means, for
low rise block a maximum of two flats could have smallish dishes, and
for higher blocks, a maximum of four. Obviously operating this on a
first come first served basis is unfair to later tenants, so even if
there are no freehold restrictions, managers can't fairly let some
people have dishes, because that would mean denying others.
Mark Carver
> On Wednesday, May 18th, 2011 at 09:40:46h +0100, Jim wrote:
>
>> Random dishes on a terrace or row of houses make the area look awful
>
> If UHF antennas were mounted in the same positions, they would look
> equally awful.
They are in many places, and yes, they do look awful
Or if you're paranoid :-
--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
Dave Wade
"Davey" <da...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:ir8ic5$tj3$1...@n102.xanadu-bbs.net...
They would probably have said the hut at the bottom of mast was the
office....
> --
> Davey.
Dave Wade
"David Woolley" <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote in message
news:ir8ji5$v67$1...@dont-email.me...
So not the council bveing arsy, the flat managers...
Steve Terry
> On 17/05/2011 23:08, Charles Ellson wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 May 2011 09:05:18 +0100, tony sayer<to...@bancom.co.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article<vfe3t6dhg0kdjutte...@4ax.com>, Charles
>>> Ellson <cha...@ellson.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
>>>> On Mon, 16 May 2011 08:32:14 +0100, David Woolley
>>>> <da...@ex.djwhome.demon.invalid> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Charles Ellson wrote:
> The skyline isn't really the issue. Dishes are most
> often mounted on the south face of a property.
>
to have trouble receiving anything.
Steve Terry
--
Get a free GiffGaff PAYG Sim and £5 bonus after activation at:
http://giffgaff.com/orders/affiliate/gfourwwk
David Woolley
Normally the drafters of the lease, or the drafters of the freehold
conveyance. However, from a pure planning point of view, it remains a
fact that the fairest policy is likely to be to refuse all, rather than
refuse the third, fourth, fifth, and sixth (and the second, if that
block already has the terrestrial communal aerials).
Charles Ellson
They might (in England and Wales) have to do the latter if the first,
second etc. dishes have been up for more than four years making them
time-barred from enforcement.
J G Miller
> If they aren't mounted on the south face of a property, one tends to
> have trouble receiving anything.
All depends if you are north or south of the equator ;)
But in the northern hemisphere a dish could be mounted on the north face
of a property so long as it is facing south and eg by means of a tall
pole, is able to see over the top of the property.
Davey
And that would incur the wrath of the local population.
--
Davey.
J G Miller
> And that would incur the wrath of the local population.
Not necessarily, especially if this resulted in the dish
being at the rear of the property, and thus effectively
hidden, instead of on the front of it.
Kennedy McEwen
<dave....@gmail.com> writes
>
>What locally gets my goat is the mast you can see here:-
>
>
Is it the "(c) Google 2009" logo half way up that makes it look so bad,
coz the top's quite diffuse. ;-)
--
Kennedy
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)
Albert Ross
wrote:
>http://tinyurl.com/gasmast
>
>British Gas said if wasn't built they would have to close the local office
>so the council reluctantly approved it. About a year later British closed
>the office but the eyesore of a tower that's visible for miles is still
>there. As usual one rule for the workers and one for the bosses....
>
I've seen some private towers not unlike that back in the days of VHF
radio and TV, with a sodding great H aerial and dipole on them
Anti-Spam
>>>> having a dish": EU statement: "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FREE MOVEMENT OF
>>>> GOODS AND SERVICES - ARTICLES 28 AND 49 EC - CONCERNING THE USE OF
>>>> SATELLITE DISHES" "By virtue of the principles of the free movement of
>>>> goods (Articles 28 to 30 EC) and the free movement of services (Articles
>>>> 49 et seq. EC, as interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European
>>>> Convention on Human Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to
>>>> have access to a satellite dish must have that opportunity."
>>>> "Architectural and urban planning concerns can be efficiently addressed
>>>> through measures which aim to minimise the visual impact of satellite
>>>> dishes without infringing the right to satellite reception of the
>>>> individuals concerned and without forcing them to pay excessive fees."
>>>> "ie - they can request that a dish is discreet, but cannot ban you from
>>>> having one."
Could anybody please tell me where I might find an official web site
or document, where the above statement is made. It would help a few of
my customers,who are not allowed to have a dish on their complex.
TIA
Mark in Spain
Peter Crosland
news:3bpqc7t7q5oltqpf5...@4ax.com...
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52001DC0351:EN:HTML
Peter Crosland
Mark Goodge
typed:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52001DC0351:EN:NOT
Short commentary:
http://merlin.obs.coe.int/iris/2001/8/article6.en.html
See also:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmcumeds/650/5122017.htm
However, it's only a statement of intent (in technical terms, a
Communication of the European Commission), and has no legal force
whatsoever. So, while it might have some power when arguing with a local
planning authority, it is not binding on landlords who refuse permission
for tenants to have dishes on rented properties. In particular, it simply
isn't true to say that they (whoever "they" may be) "cannot ban you from
having one", as, under current UK law, they most certainly can. And, unless
and until the Communication is incorporated into EU law, they will continue
to be able to.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Peter Duncanson
Rights (not an EU body):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2023359/Having-satellite-dish-human-right-says-European-court.html
This has been dealt with in guidance from the UK's Equality and Human
Rights Commission. On page 20 of this document (pdf):
http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/humanrights/human_rights_at_home.pdf
The terms and conditions of the tenancy,
or their enforcement, may give rise to
issues under other Convention Rights.
Example: A social housing provider's
standard terms of tenancy prevent the
erection of any satellite dish or aerial
on the exterior of the home. A disabled
tenant is only able to engage in her
particular religious community if she is
able to receive transmissions of specific
religious services held overseas which
are exclusively available by satellite.
The term of the tenancy agreement,
and most particularly its enforcement,
may amount to an unlawful breach of
her human right to freedom of religion
under Article 9 (see Appendix 1).
This is not a general right to have a satellite dish.
In the same way a housing provider can ban the keeping of animals by
tenants but exceptions must be made for "guide dogs or hearing dogs".
[Also on page 20]
--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
J G Miller
> Could anybody please tell me where I might find an official web site or
> document, where the above statement is made.
which is ideal for find exact text matches?
<http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=i686&q=ARTICLES+28+AND+49+EC+-+CONCERNING+THE+USE++OF+SATELLITE+DISHES&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8#sclient=psy-ab&hl=en&client=safari&rls=i686&biw=1582&bih=876&source=hp&q=%22ARTICLES+28+AND+49+EC+-+CONCERNING+THE+USE++OF+SATELLITE+DISHES%22&pbx=1&oq=%22ARTICLES+28+AND+49+EC+-+CONCERNING+THE+USE++OF+SATELLITE+DISHES>
Vass
"Mark Goodge" wrote in message
news:p3lss6l16ccsvsmri...@news.markshouse.net...
>>> I have read elsewhere the following: "Tell them to go away, you are
>>> having a dish": EU statement: "GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF FREE MOVEMENT OF
>>> GOODS AND SERVICES - ARTICLES 28 AND 49 EC - CONCERNING THE USE OF
>>> SATELLITE DISHES" "By virtue of the principles of the free movement of
>>> goods (Articles 28 to 30 EC) and the free movement of services (Articles
>>> 49 et seq. EC, as interpreted in the light of Article 10 of the European
>>> Convention on Human Rights), as a rule, every individual who wishes to
>>> have access to a satellite dish must have that opportunity."
--
Vass
Rick
"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:jaju99$h1p$1...@dont-email.me...
J G Miller
> Or even.. http://tinyurl.com/csuvrbl
The security problem with Tiny URLs is not know where you are going
to end up, such as a popup trojan infested web site.
Dave Plowman (News)
> Could anybody please tell me where I might find an official web site
> or document, where the above statement is made. It would help a few of
> my customers,who are not allowed to have a dish on their complex.
> TIA
> Mark in Spain
permission or whatever) that effectively prevented reception of 'UK'
satellites?
--
*Succeed, in spite of management *
Dave Plowman da...@davenoise.co.uk London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.
Mark Goodge
building. That is, it is merely an opinion, and has no legal force
whatsoever in either EU or UK law.
tony sayer
<ma...@XXREMOVEXXdoubleyolk.co.uk> scribeth thus
did well to hide them!...
--
Tony Sayer
Charles Ellson
wrote:
Max Demian
the full URL of any tinyurl links you click on subsequently (for the browser
session unless you enable cookies for the site).
--
Max Demian
Andy Burns
> "J G Miller"<mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote:
>
>> The security problem with Tiny URLs is not know where you are going
>> to end up, such as a popup trojan infested web site.
>
> Go to http://tinyurl.com/ and enable the preview feature: then you are shown
> the full URL of any tinyurl links you click on subsequently
first get bounced via one or more tracking sites that could also be
infected with malware ... before eventually landing at the URL shown in
the preview.
Andy Burns
the preview you *do* go direct to the promised link, but if you don't
use the preview, not only do you end up at the unknown site, you first
get bounced theough multiple tracking/affiliate sites ...
Vincent
Vincent
J G Miller
> In Spain houses for expats are built without planning permission.
But do houses built without planning permission later on get demolished
as has been the case in Vlaanderen?
Anti-Spam
<da...@davenoise.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <3bpqc7t7q5oltqpf5...@4ax.com>,
> Anti-Spam <An...@Spam.com> wrote:
>> Could anybody please tell me where I might find an official web site
>> or document, where the above statement is made. It would help a few of
>> my customers,who are not allowed to have a dish on their complex.
>> TIA
>> Mark in Spain
>
>I understood there was a limit on the dish size in Spain (without planning
>permission or whatever) that effectively prevented reception of 'UK'
>satellites?
What is the size limit?
Dave Plowman (News)
> >I understood there was a limit on the dish size in Spain (without
> >planning permission or whatever) that effectively prevented reception
> >of 'UK' satellites?
> Not heard that before, do you know where that infomation came from?
> What is the size limit?
it could be a local regulation.
--
*Don't squat with your spurs on *