Well the landlord cannot prevent the tenant from getting water and power. We are a utility now, right?
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:48 AM, John Woodfield <[email protected]> wrote: > 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]> <[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]> <[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]> <[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 >> <http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi> Like us on Facebook >> <http://www.facebook.com/minnesotawifi> >> > > >
