How JustAnswer Works:
  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site. Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.
Ask UK-Justice Your Own Question
UK-Justice, Barrister
Category: Law
Satisfied Customers: 16193
Experience:  Called to the Bar in 2007
Type Your Law Question Here...
UK-Justice is online now

I live in an apartment with many lease restrcitions which have

This answer was rated:

I live in an apartment with many lease restrcitions which have been in breach for many years. Notice has been given that one lease restrcition is being enforced while none of the others are. Is this legally enforecable?
Thanks for your question, I will do whatever I can to help you. Please remember to rate my answer SMILEY FACE OR ABOVE.

How many years?

Are they minor breaches or material.
Customer: replied 5 years ago.
Hi, thanks for your help. A bit more info as follows:
The lease restriction being imposed is 'no satellite dishes are allowed' there are 2 remaining on the building, including mine - a small one which has been there for 10 years. Other lease restrictions not being imposed include 'no changes to the balcony' however several apartments have made major changes eg installed decking and a fixed stone table and flower pots. 'Only Carpets on all internal flooring' is also not imposed as the majority have wooden flooring etc etc
My thought is that the directors of the management company need to first review and revise the 20 year old lease restrictions, have this approved by shareholders at the AGM and then enforce all the agreed lease restrictions instead of attempting to enforce one of the existing lease restriction to the exclusion of the others? Regards Claire
There are 2 ways to do this.

A. Force an EGM by giving notice and then vote for the proposals

B. Ignore this threat.

Although you are in breach, the law recognises that someone may overlook the breach.

As the dish has been there for 10 years then a court is likely to view that they have known about it, although there is a breach they have affirmed (accepted) that breach by not doing anything.

If they know about other breaches and are not doing anything about this, the position of affirmation is confirmed.

So no I do not think they have any weight in law for this single matter.

I hope this helps.

Please remember to click *** OK SERVICE *** or above so that I am credited for my time. The question does not close and you can ask follow ups.

Important: If you feel the need to rate as one of the lower two scores, it counts as negative feedback so please reply to me via the REPLY with any further questions you may have. I will be happy to assist you further.
UK-Justice and 2 other Law Specialists are ready to help you
Customer: replied 5 years ago.



Hi again,


I'd be grateful for some more advice.


Some more information relevant to this case is:


In last years AGM it was recorded that satellite dishes on the building are in breach of lease restrictions. It was also recorded that all satellite dishes must be removed within 14 days of the date of the meeting (June '12). There was no resolution to agree this. I was in the meeting and did not agree this statement should be made but the other directors have supported it in subsequent correspondence. The minutes have not been approved.



Can you advise if this changes things?


Also, because the dish has been up for 10 years can a resolution this long after the 'affirmation' require removal?


Other lease restrictions continue to be in breach i.e. affirmed.


Also, are you aware of a ruling from the ECHR on satellite dishes as follows?

"A test case (23883/06) where Swedish tenants were evicted because of their use of a satellite dish has been ruled as a violation of the applicant’s human rights under Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) in that they were not allowed to receive satellite signals. The Court ruling has effectively established that the possession and use of a satellite dish for the purposes of exercising one’s right to freedom of information is a human right."


I do not want to remove the dish because my tenants need a better level of service/infomation than what is available from the buildings own sky dish.


So I want to know if this ruling is something I could use to emphasise enforeced removal is not legal?






Again they have waited some time

The answer does not change
I'm just following up with you to see how everything is going. Did my answer help?