J G Miller wrote:

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.

David Woolley wrote:

J G Miller wrote:

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.

???

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.

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.)

--
Robin
PM may be sent to rbw0{at}hotmail{dot}com

On Sat, 14 May 2011 21:51:29 +0100, "Robin" wrote:

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 ?

I do see vast numbers fitted to the bricks by large
bolts - and a fair few cracked bricks.)

On Sat, 14 May 2011 11:29:43 +0100, David Woolley
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.
IANAL

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

On Sat, 14 May 2011 14:16:50 +0100, "Robin" wrote:


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.

On Sat, 14 May 2011 14:21:07 +0100, David Woolley
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

Charles Ellson wrote:

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.

Charles Ellson wrote:
On Sat, 14 May 2011 14:21:07 +0100, David Woolley
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.

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

On Sat, 14 May 2011 23:59:18 +0100, David Woolley
wrote:

Charles Ellson wrote:

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.

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.