It would be different if your installer broke a window with the ladder or something. Then you have the landlord get an estimate from his window guy for repairing it and as long as it’s not outrageous you pay it or send it to your insurance company. But if you did a professional installation, his issue is with the tenant. If the tenant wants it de-installed, do a professional de-install, i.e. leave the J-pipe foot on the roof and caulk the hole the cable went through. If the landlord wants new shingles and siding, he should take that up with the tenant, or have his roofer and siding guy fix it and take it out of the tenant’s damage deposit.
From: Sean Heskett Sent: Tuesday, March 17, 2015 10:41 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [AFMUG] Angry landlord over Roof mount antenna But what you stated Travis is a landlord/tenant relationship. The ISP has no contractual or legal obligation to the landlord. If your tenant installs an antenna are you going to go after the ISP? What legal standing do you have with the ISP? No, you would go after the tenant for damages to your property that they caused. 2 cents On Tuesday, March 17, 2015, Travis Johnson <[email protected]> wrote: As a previous WISP and now a landlord, I can tell you that I do not allow external antennas to be mounted on any of my properties without written approval, and one of my people there to supervise the installation. You can claim OTARD or FCC or whatever other rules you want, but the landlord is king when it comes to these kind of issues. We can "motivate" the tenant in other ways. It's not worth having a tenant do thousands of dollars of damage to a property so they can have internet. Painting an inside wall or hanging a TV is completely different than drilling holes in a roof or siding. At the end of the day, the landlord is still the property owner and has all power with that property. Travis On 3/17/2015 8:54 AM, Jeremy wrote: 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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> wrote: I agree. Landlord/tenant/security deposit issue. Sent from my iPhone On Mar 17, 2015, at 9:41 AM, CARL PETERSON <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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.netOn 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" javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]'); Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 11:10pm To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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" javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]'); Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 10:45pm To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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" javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]'); Sent: Monday, March 16, 2015 9:24pm To: javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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 <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[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
