I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue. Sent from my iPhone
> On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON <[email protected]> wrote: > > > This issue isn’t about OTARD. It is an issue between the tenant and the > landlord and you should make this very clear to the landlord. If the tenant > called a painter to paint the living room, or Best Buy to mount a TV on the > wall etc, I highly doubt the landlord would be going after the painter or > Best Buy. This situation is no different. > > If you did crap work and damaged something, thats a different matter, but if > you did exactly what the tenant requested and didn’t screw anything else up, > then it is an issue between the tenant and the landlord. The Tenant is > responsible for the property and has a right to utilize the property but that > isn’t your fight, it is the tenants fight and I wouldn’t even get involved. > > > >> On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:19 AM, Rory McCann <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> If the landlord owns the property, they should ultimately have the final >> say. If the tenant did indeed lie/withhold the information in this case, >> bye-bye deposit. >> >> I get the OTARD argument, but I can guarantee if I was renting a townhouse >> and a tenant didn't ask for permission to mount something to the roof and >> drill holes, not only would the antenna be coming down but they'd either be >> fixing it or out on their asses sans deposit. It would definitely be part of >> the lease agreement. >> >> Personally, I'm of the group that believes you catch more flies with honey >> than vinegar so I would work with the landlord to make it right. If you >> handle things properly, you may actually end up gaining business - >> especially if he/she has other properties and is satisfied with how you >> resolved the issue. I'm betting they are just pissed right now about it and >> will cool off to a more reasonable level in the next few days. >> Rory McCann >> MKAP Technology Solutions >> Web: www.mkap.net >>> On 3/17/2015 5:56 AM, John Woodfield wrote: >>> I guess that still depends on the situation. If the landlord is getting >>> kickbacks from the cable company for having service in an MDU I call BS. If >>> the landlord allows a satellite for TV but not an antenna for Internet I >>> call BS. It all depends on the situation. >>> >>> >>> >>> John Woodfield, President >>> Delmarva WiFi Inc. >>> 410-870-WiFi >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna >>> >>> Maybe all governments speak from both sides of their mouth. In this case I >>> think there's a good reason for it, they say "Landlords, you cannot >>> prohibit tenants from having an antenna." They're not saying, "Landlords, >>> you must let John and Adam drill holes in your house", because they >>> straight up can't make a mandate like that. >>> >>> If you *can* force the landlord to accept your antenna being on their >>> building against their will, would you really want to? You gain >>> $30-50/month, but also make a permanent enemy. IMO, better to just defuse >>> the anger as best you can and fix the damage. >>> >>> So like everything else they are talking out both sides of their mouth. The >>> problem becomes, how much aggravation does the landlord want to go through >>> as the burden of proof undisputedly lies with them. >>> >>> >>> >>> John Woodfield, President >>> Delmarva WiFi Inc. >>> 410-870-WiFi >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:45pm >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna >>> >>> I've been going by the FCC Q&A posted here: >>> http://www.fcc.gov/guides/over-air-reception-devices-rule#QA >>> >>> Highlighting added by me >>> >>> Q: If I live in a condominium or an apartment building, does this rule >>> apply to me? >>> A: The rule applies to antenna users who live in a multiple dwelling unit >>> building, such as a condominium or apartment building, if the antenna user >>> has an exclusive use area in which to install the antenna. "Exclusive use" >>> means an area of the property that only you, and persons you permit, may >>> enter and use to the exclusion of other residents. For example, your >>> condominium or apartment may include a balcony, terrace, deck or patio that >>> only you can use, and the rule applies to these areas. The rule does not >>> apply to common areas, such as the roof, the hallways, >>> the walkways or the exterior walls of a condominium or apartment building. >>> Restrictions on antennas installed in these common areas are not covered by >>> the Commission's rule. For example, the rule would not apply to >>> restrictions that prevent drilling through the exterior wall of a >>> condominium or rental unit and thus restrictions may prohibit installation >>> that requires such drilling. >>> >>> >>> Don't think so. The rules are clear that permitted restrictions have to be >>> "reasonable" and if there is a "conflict" the burden of proof is on the >>> landlord. >>> >>> Further, restrictions cannot violate the impairment clause in section 2.2 >>> i.e. may not unreasonable delay or increase costs, or preclude reception or >>> transmission of an acceptable quality signal. >>> >>> This article, written by an attorney, addresses most of the misconceptions >>> that have been voiced here >>> >>> http://www.wba-law.com/Unique_Practice_Areas/Homeowners_Associations/ >>> >>> John >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: "Adam Moffett" <[email protected]> >>> Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:24pm >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna >>> >>> OTARD says the landlord can't tell you not to put an antenna on the house. >>> The landlord absolutely *can* tell you not to put holes in his property. >>> The FCC website on the topic spells this out pretty clearly. >>> >>> I.E.: OTARD protects you if you can manage to install without any >>> penetrations. This is why you'll see apartment complexes with dishes >>> clamped on the deck railings and they make flat coax to go in through a >>> window. >>> >>> OTARD rules cover it. >>> It's s town home so you can mount anywhere on their portion of the building >>> including the roof. >>> If he has an issue with the cable and holes he needs to talk to the renter. >>> You could also let him know that quality internet service makes his >>> property more rentable. >>> >>> >>>> On Monday, March 16, 2015, Darin Steffl <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> Hey all, >>>> So I got an angry call from a owner of a townhouse who rents it out to one >>>> of our new internet customers. We were never made aware the home was a >>>> rental in any way. Our techs always ask permission on where to mount the >>>> dish and bring in the wire and they were given approval to mount the dish >>>> on the roof and drill a hole for the wire. If it was a rental, we would >>>> have talked to the landlord. >>>> The home owner now wants us to remove the dish, cable, and holes and >>>> restore everything to original condition. He wants new siding, new >>>> shingles, the whole works. >>>> I don't exactly know how I should handle this situation. We won't be >>>> pulling the mount off the roof because it is sealed if we leave it there. >>>> We can't move the dish because the signal is only good there. Do we have >>>> any sort of protection from OTARD or anything that allows us to keep >>>> things in place since we were given permission from the tenant? >>>> Ideas or ways to handle this smoothly? We are not going to pay for new >>>> siding or roofing when we were given permission to install. If anything, >>>> the tenant would be responsible since we did the work on their behalf. >>>> -- >>>> Darin Steffl >>>> Minnesota WiFi >>>> www.mnwifi.com >>>> 507-634-WiFi >>>> Like us on Facebook >
