Payment for a Remote for a Shared Electric Gate
This question and answer were automatically translated using our trained AI and have not yet been reviewed by a qualified rabbi. Please treat this translation with caution.
Go to original →
Question
Kavod HaRav,
In our building, the house committee installed an electric gate for the shared parking lot, claiming that there was a majority of tenants in favor (although there is room to clarify whether there is indeed a clear majority).
The gate is operated mainly by making a phone call to the system, but our cellular reception is weak, and quite often the gate does not open. There is an option to use a remote control, but the house committee is demanding an additional payment of 80 NIS for each remote.
The house committee claims that the remote is an extra convenience, and therefore any tenant who wants a remote must pay for it separately. We argue that since the phone system does not function reliably for us, the remote is a basic means for proper use of the shared parking, and therefore it would be appropriate for it to be included in the shared expenses of the building.
The questions:
1. May the house committee require the tenants to pay extra for the remote, or should the remote be regarded as part of the basic cost of the electric gate system?
2. Does the fact that the phone system does not function properly for some of the tenants change the halachic ruling?
3. Does it have any halachic significance that the majority on which the house committee relies is not clear?
Thank you very much.
In our building, the house committee installed an electric gate for the shared parking lot, claiming that there was a majority of tenants in favor (although there is room to clarify whether there is indeed a clear majority).
The gate is operated mainly by making a phone call to the system, but our cellular reception is weak, and quite often the gate does not open. There is an option to use a remote control, but the house committee is demanding an additional payment of 80 NIS for each remote.
The house committee claims that the remote is an extra convenience, and therefore any tenant who wants a remote must pay for it separately. We argue that since the phone system does not function reliably for us, the remote is a basic means for proper use of the shared parking, and therefore it would be appropriate for it to be included in the shared expenses of the building.
The questions:
1. May the house committee require the tenants to pay extra for the remote, or should the remote be regarded as part of the basic cost of the electric gate system?
2. Does the fact that the phone system does not function properly for some of the tenants change the halachic ruling?
3. Does it have any halachic significance that the majority on which the house committee relies is not clear?
Thank you very much.
Answer
Shalom uVracha
Of course, first one must clarify whether there is indeed a majority in favor of installing the gate. The committee has no right to do anything without the consent of the majority of the tenants.
If there is a majority, and the discussion is only about the remote:
If the reception problem is personal, only for you, you must pay for the remote (or change your cellular provider).
However, if this is a place where everyone has a reception problem, or a problematic location such as an underground parking lot, etc. – the payment for the remote falls on the house committee.
(This is meant as guidance and not as a final ruling, since in a monetary dispute between two parties, one must hear the claims of both sides).
Comments
Have an additional question on this topic or need clarification? Leave your comment below. (Please note that the comment will not be published but will be sent directly to the answering Rabbi for review and a private response)
