Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

Our scaffolding blocking neighbours sky dish

195 replies

WaxyBean · 29/03/2017 19:15

We had scaffolding put up in front of our house today ahead of building works starting Friday and likely lasting 6-8 weeks.

Unfortunately this has blocked the neighbours sky signal - not something we had anticipated happening. I became aware of this late this afternoon after the neighbour insisted that our nanny call me at work to sort this.

Since then I have have had the scaffolders back out to see if anything can be moved to improve the signal - it can't. And I have arranged for her dish to be moved onto our scaffolding for the duration of the works - this will be done late Friday/early Saturday as this is the earliest the recommended engineer can be available.

Neighbour says this is unacceptable and her sky needs to be back by tomorrow. Whilst I sympathise I feel have done everything I can to solve this. Her lack of sky is not my biggest priority and I have spent a considerable amount of time today trying to solve this.

So MNers - who is being unreasonable here?

OP posts:
Dontactlikeyouknowme · 30/03/2017 14:23

If I pay for a service and that service is not available due to a neighbours actions. Then yes,I would expect that neighbour to rectify that asap.

5moreminutes · 30/03/2017 14:31

She has a legal right to quiet enjoyment of her property - whether that includes not having an existing service removed by her neighbor could be argued both ways.

You can't just do whatever you want because you own some land and the impact your actions have on others play a part in whether something is legal.

However both the op and her neighbor sound like the kind of selfish people nobody would want to live next door to judging by the drip feeds.

oblada · 30/03/2017 14:34

dontact - on what basis though? Are we not a bit quick to blame/sue someone rather than deal with the situation? If it was not the (temporary) scaffolding which was affecting the signal but simply the position of the building extension would you expect them to sort out the problem or would you simply contact your provider for THEM to sort it out? If someone can show me the basis on which someone would be liable for their (lawful) actions (on their own land) affecting a neighbour's Sky signal then fine but to me it seems very simplistic to think that anyone would have a legal right to their Sky signal in this context.

mollyminniemo · 30/03/2017 14:37

Sky usually charge to come out and sort issues though, mad as it seems as you pay a monthly charge to receive their service- so if something is faulty- be it signal/dish/remote- they still charge you to fix a problem relating to their products to continue enjoying a service you are already paying them for.

oblada · 30/03/2017 14:37

I would be very surprised if this went into the category of affecting her quiet enjoyment of her property...but then I have not looked it up. I would personally be quite happy if my neighbour was as accommodating as the OP in such a situation (I would have probably simply turned to my provider for them to sort it out and accepted the costs), things happen, its life.

silkpyjamasallday · 30/03/2017 14:48

YANBU you've tried to rectify the problem, if she can't survive without the luxury that is sky tv for a few days then she is obviously a pretty dull and unreasonable person! Read a book or go for a walk ffs, our tv hasn't worked since we moved in 6 months ago, I haven't missed it so haven't bothered to get it sorted out. Maybe offer a month of Netflix/amazon but she could get the trial herself for free and the problem will presumably be sorted by then.

5moreminutes · 30/03/2017 14:57

It is funny that on threads where a child's half hour of music practice or trampoline jumping puts a neighbor off watching the TV the child's parent is always unreasonable according to MN, but on a thread where a home owner wants to carry out extensive building work and actually removes television reception for a period of days this is totally reasonable and the neighbor should suck it up and do something else, perhaps go for a walk or read a book. The neighbor should also suck up any costs that someone else adding value to their own property and inconveniencing them create.

As I say they sound as bad as each other, and I acknowledge MN is not a hive mind, but doesn't this smack if double standards?

Dontactlikeyouknowme · 30/03/2017 15:01

Telling her to read a book is not the bloody point. How about i come and take all your books away or your shoes?

KoalaDownUnder · 30/03/2017 15:02

She has a legal right to quiet enjoyment of her property - whether that includes not having an existing service removed by her neighbor could be argued both ways.

It really couldn't. You don't understand what quiet enjoyment means.

Collaborate · 30/03/2017 15:08

This>>>>> If it was not the (temporary) scaffolding which was affecting the signal but simply the position of the building extension would you expect them to sort out the problem or would you simply contact your provider for THEM to sort it out? If someone can show me the basis on which someone would be liable for their (lawful) actions (on their own land) affecting a neighbour's Sky signal then fine but to me it seems very simplistic to think that anyone would have a legal right to their Sky signal in this context.
Is spot on.

southall · 30/03/2017 15:11

Your neighbours sky signal is travelling across your property space.

That is her bad luck. Not yours.

She will just have to lump it.

You dont have to stop doing lawful things on your property just because
it will block her sky signal. You would be with in your rights to plant a tree that permanently blocks her signal.

You are being way more than reasonable.

It is her responsibility to have the dish moved, not yours.

I wouldn't have come running home from work.

If she still demands immediate action from you i would tell you aren't going to help her at all.

PuppyMonkey · 30/03/2017 15:13

I have nothing at all to add on the scaffolding issue, I simply cannot get over the poster paying £150 a month for SKY TV. Shock Shock Shock

Applebite · 30/03/2017 15:16

*She has a legal right to quiet enjoyment of her property - whether that includes not having an existing service removed by her neighbor could be argued both ways.

It really couldn't. You don't understand what quiet enjoyment means.*

THIS!

The law/Courts recognise that people have a right to develop their property. Provided that they act reasonably in doing so, yes absolutely neighbours have to suck it up. That's life. If you don't like it, go and live somewhere without any neighbours.

Acting unreasonably would include things like drilling at all hours; starting work at 6am or continuing beyond 5pm; builders leaving rubbish everywhere, etc etc. If the building work is carried out considerately, then it is not a nuisance or a trespass.

There are cases where commercial tenants have had real difficulties trading because of landlord works; they still didn't get anywhere, so long as the landlord acted reasonably.

In this case, temporary disruption of a satellite dish is going to be worth what, at the most £100 a month? And if you're moving the dish, she's looking at a few days' disruption.

However, if you want to be generous, which personally I would be given that you have to live next door to her, I would be inclined to go with something like the Netflix solution suggested above.

Applebite · 30/03/2017 15:19

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter_v_Canary_Wharf_Ltd

kali110 · 30/03/2017 15:45

Buy her a couple of books. She watches to much TV anyway
Wow how judgemental are you?Hmm
I read all the time.
I read whilst i'm watching the tv.
Does that make me better than the neighbour? Confused ( no obviously)
Oh and i also have bad health problems so i would be beyond pissed if this happened to me.
I also use the tv to listen to music.

Someone said she could watch her sky recordings, but can she?
( don't have sky but virgin,) if that's acting up we can't watch out recordings, is sky different?

Collaborate · 30/03/2017 16:14

Ah but, Applebite, we've had enough of experts don't you know? There have been enough lay people on here confidently asserting the rights of neighbours to a sky signal to overrule the mere House of Lords!!

Applebite · 30/03/2017 16:22

Ah sorry, I should have realised there were higher authorities!!

oblada · 30/03/2017 16:27

It's amazing what people get 'very pissed off' about nowadays, really need to get some perspective here and stop being at war with the world over (overall) minor inconveniences (and stop looking for a culprit/someone to blame or hand over money). Of course everyone's situation is different and the TV may be v important for some ppl but still it is still only the TV... And we're only talking a couple of days...

hmcAsWas · 30/03/2017 16:28

In your neighbours situation my starting point would be to be pissed off at the interruption to my Sky, but if you came back to me and said that the engineer is going to move the Sky dish late Friday / early Saturday I would be mollified and quite appreciative. Any missed tv could be watched on catch up ....

I think she is being a tad unreasonable

5moreminutes · 30/03/2017 16:35

Nobody has said anything about being "tired of experts" - that's a strange isn't it?

Ok i accept that legally the disruption of a service to someone else's home doesn't count as affecting their quiet enjoyment of their home, but in a non legal, logical sense it does! You quietly enjoy something and your neighbor stops you doing so by disrupting your signal doing something which benefits them but affects you only negatively...

JacquesHammer · 30/03/2017 16:39

I would be massively annoyed I am afraid. I watch TV twice a week for 1.5 hours each day. If i couldn't I would be really irritated and to be honest would be expecting you to sort an independent contractor sooner to sort out the issue.

JacquesHammer · 30/03/2017 16:39

Oh and as for reading I have read 123 books so far this year so I think I have that covered Grin

comingintomyown · 30/03/2017 16:47

Actually I would be annoyed too but appeased by your efforts to rectify the situation.

I'm thinking though if a key episode of something wasn't recorded I'd be fed up and I'm also thinking I'm too invested in my flipping TV !

BoomBoomsCousin · 30/03/2017 17:16

5moreminutes I think what people forget in this sort of situation is that the Sky signal receiver has been relying on the OP not using the full rights of their property for all the time they've had the Sky receiver in that location.

It's annoying to have things change on you and I appreciate most people would be annoyed (I'm sure I would), but it isn't the OP's fault nor their responsibility. Future changes by a neigbour is one of the things to consider when having something like a satellite dish positioned. It may have been easier to have it lower and pointing over the OP's property, but do you think they have the right to add additional expense to your OP's development plans so they can put their satellite dish wherever they please? And what if it wasn't just an easily moveable Sky dish? What if as well as Sky, they had some super high tech receiver for something else that required expensive alignment to be repositioned? Would they have the right to force the OP to pay thousands just because they have expensive work/entertainment requirements and didn't consider that the OP might want to develop (or just maintain) their own property at some point?

The OP is being neighbourly - which is generally a very good idea - by offering to relocate the dish. But being pissed at her for not moving fast enough instead of appreciating her efforts to make up for something that isn't her responsibility is really entitled.

FrancisCrawford · 30/03/2017 17:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.