HOA Paperwork Requirement for Roof Install

[djiddy]

I recently ordered a DirecTV installation on the roof of my Chicago townhouse. My HOA allows roof installs. The only requirement is that the installer must provide proof that they are licensed, bonded, and insured PRIOR to installation. Without this proof, the management company will not allow the installer to access the roof. The installer's proof of insurance must show the name of our HOA and our HOA management company as insured. My HOA management company says this is a pretty standard request for condos in Chicago.

Unfortunately, DirecTV said they will not be able to tell me who the installer is until the day of the installation. Which means that I won't be able to provide the HOA management company with proof of insurance prior to the installation. Is there a way to get DirecTV to schedule my installation with a particular installer in advance so I can coordinate getting the required paperwork? My conversations with DirecTV customer service have been fruitless but I am hoping that there might be a way.

Thanks in advance for any advice!

[Shades228]

I recently ordered a DirecTV installation on the roof of my Chicago townhouse. My HOA allows roof installs. The only requirement is that the installer must provide proof that they are licensed, bonded, and insured PRIOR to installation. Without this proof, the management company will not allow the installer to access the roof. The installer's proof of insurance must show the name of our HOA and our HOA management company as insured. My HOA management company says this is a pretty standard request for condos in Chicago.

Unfortunately, DirecTV said they will not be able to tell me who the installer is until the day of the installation. Which means that I won't be able to provide the HOA management company with proof of insurance prior to the installation. Is there a way to get DirecTV to schedule my installation with a particular installer in advance so I can coordinate getting the required paperwork? My conversations with DirecTV customer service have been fruitless but I am hoping that there might be a way.

Thanks in advance for any advice!

Technicians should be able to provide the documentation or provide you the way to get it.

[djiddy]

Thanks,

I guess I just want to avoid getting charged for scheduling a second installation appointment. If I don't get the paperwork in advance, the technician will not be allowed on the roof. It takes a couple of days for the management company to approve the insurance paperwork, plus the technician has to add our HOA to his insurance. Is there any way to get DirecTV to assign a specific technician prior to the installation so I can get the required paperwork from the technician in advance?

[jdspencer]

I would call DirecTV and TELL them that they need to provide the required paperwork or they will lose you as a customer. I don't see why they can't assign an installation company before hand. Or maybe DirecTV can provide paperwork for all of the installation companies they use.

[or270]

plus the technician has to add our HOA to his insurance.

I do not see this happening. Are there any Directv dishes already on the roof maybe there is a company that is already setup with HOA, as far as the paperwork goes.

[jdspencer]

Good idea. Contact your HOA and find out which companies are already registered with them. Then tell DirecTV which one to use.

[djiddy]

I do not see this happening. Are there any Directv dishes already on the roof maybe there is a company that is already setup with HOA, as far as the paperwork goes.

There are Dish Network dishes on the roof but no DirecTV dishes. My management company insisted that this is a very standard request for work done on condos in Chicago. I thought it sounded wierd but they said they absolutely will not allow any work done unless the installer adds the HOA to their insurance. Thanks for the suggestion though. Maybe I can get the technician that installed the Dish Network dishes to install my DirecTV (assuming they don't have some sort of exclusivity agreement with Dish).

[BattleZone]

There is about ZERO chance of a DirecTV installer "adding the HOA to his insurance". In-house techs are either employees of the HSP they work for or of DirecTV. Contractors are typically subcontracting through a larger contractor (and may be several levels deep), and may or may not have their own insurance, depending. But even if you could get one to agree to do that (and chances are zero), it certainly wouldn't happen the day of, and there's little chance that the same installer would get the job back.

If you want this to happen, you need to cancel and order through a local DirecTV retailer who can accomidate your needs, and prepare in advance. Otherwise, it isn't gonna happen.

[BattleZone]

Technicians should be able to provide the documentation or provide you the way to get it.

Many techs will NEVER have access to their employer's insurance forms, but even if they did, that's not the same thing has having the HOA specifically added to the insurance as an "additional insured". Such a requirement will result in the tech canceling the install 100% of the time; the HSP system is simply not set up for such a demand, and they'll support the tech leaving in this case.

[djiddy]

Many techs will NEVER have access to their employer's insurance forms, but even if they did, that's not the same thing has having the HOA specifically added to the insurance as an "additional insured". Such a requirement will result in the tech canceling the install 100% of the time; the HSP system is simply not set up for such a demand, and they'll support the tech leaving in this case.

That's exactly what I thought but the management company said it is standard procedure. I wonder if this is their way of discouraging dishes on the roof. I have half a mind to put a dish on a 50 foot flagpole in my backyard (I wouldn't really do that, but I bet that would get the HOA to change their "additional insured" requirement real fast).

Thanks for all of the great feedback.

[Movieman]

DJ do they have to give you some sort of key to be able to access the roof? I ask because if they come and install it you can give the HOA the paperwork after the installation. According to the FCC website no HOA can block you from getting service and they cant forcefully remove the installer if he has consent to do work for you. I have never heard that requirement but I live in Florida. Sometimes I have had issues with my HOA and provided the documents they wanted after the fact.

[djiddy]

DJ do they have to give you some sort of key to be able to access the roof? I ask because if they come and install it you can give the HOA the paperwork after the installation. According to the FCC website no HOA can block you from getting service and they cant forcefully remove the installer if he has consent to do work for you. I have never heard that requirement but I live in Florida. Sometimes I have had issues with my HOA and provided the documents they wanted after the fact.

There is no key. They have to use a ladder to access the roof. I had a chimney sweep come when we first moved in and the president of the HOA was at our door within 5 minutes asking if I provided the appropriate paperwork to the management company. He let the chimney sweep finish the job but said next time I didn't provide the paperwork, I would be fined. I think they can technically prevent the installer from going on the roof because it is considered a "common area." However, I may not be reading the FCC rules correctly.

[raoul5788]

Wouldn't this requirement be considered too restrictive?

[BubblePuppy]

There is no key. They have to use a ladder to access the roof. I had a chimney sweep come when we first moved in and the president of the HOA was at our door within 5 minutes asking if I provided the appropriate paperwork to the management company. He let the chimney sweep finish the job but said next time I didn't provide the paperwork, I would be fined. I think they can technically prevent the installer from going on the roof because it is considered a "common area." However, I may not be reading the FCC rules correctly.
So you aren't responsible for roof repair or maintenance?

[jdspencer]

You mentioned a 50' pole in the backyard. Any chance a shorter one would work?

[djiddy]

So you aren't responsible for roof repair or maintenance?

No. The association takes care of the entire exterior of the building including the roof. I guess because it's all one roof so if one person put on a new roof, it would affect his/her neighbor's roof.


You mentioned a 50' pole in the backyard. Any chance a shorter one would work?

I have a tree in our very small backyard. To get a line of sight over the tree, the dish would have to be at least 15 feet off the ground and the pole couldn't be attached to the building. My guess is that a pole that size would have too much sway (but I have no expertise in this area). If you think a freestanding pole that size might work, let me know.

[jdspencer]

What about a pole near the tree and get a line of sight under it?

[Movieman]

No. The association takes care of the entire exterior of the building including the roof. I guess because it's all one roof so if one person put on a new roof, it would affect his/her neighbor's roof.




I have a tree in our very small backyard. To get a line of sight over the tree, the dish would have to be at least 15 feet off the ground and the pole couldn't be attached to the building. My guess is that a pole that size would have too much sway (but I have no expertise in this area). If you think a freestanding pole that size might work, let me know.

Although the President was there when the chimney guy came in the laws dont allow for removal of force. If even the cops came in they would ask you personally if you gave them consent. About the most the HOA can do is give you a fine and usually they have grievance commissions. I think you should be able to find out who the contractor is or maybe get a private installer and try to get them to give you the paperwork you need. Also, the President of the HOA may not know how the FCC laws already govern satellite dishes.

[HDTVsportsfan]

The HOA wants what is called a Certificate of Insurance. The installers insurance company (at least mine can--they're local office) can provide one of those the same day. They can fax it and then they would mail a hardcopy to the entity that is requesting it.

I don't think the HOA wants the installer to actually add the HOA to the insruance. But I do know what they are asking for I just can't think of the term and description.

Being a townhouse and the roof being a common area certainly adds a wrinkle.

[BattleZone]

It is very common with townhouses that the roof is "community property" and maintained by the HOA, and is therefore NOT protected by OTARD.

[ffemtreed]

This type of stuff is why I will NEVER live in a HOA community again. I was so glad when I moved out!!!!!!!

[texasbrit]

It is very common with townhouses that the roof is "community property" and maintained by the HOA, and is therefore NOT protected by OTARD.
Legally speaking the roof may be maintained by the HOA but still not be "common property", it depends on the description of the property in the original deed of sale. If it's a condo where the piece of roof over the property is "yours", that's often the case, and the FCC has ruled in the property owner's favor several times in these cases. But if the roof is actually owned by the HOA, the HOA can make whatever rules it likes about access.
However, it would be unreasonable for the HOA to ask for paperwork naming the HOA on the insurance certificate. Most contractors (not just DirecTV installers) would not be able to provide that. What would be normal is for the contracter to show that he has liability insurance coverage, as HDTVsportfan posted. And this requirement must be applied to ALL contractors, not just a satellite installer. So in this case, with the same requirement being applied to the chimney sweep, it looks like the requirement is being applied to anyone who works on the roof and that's OK, if it truly is community property.

[Herdfan]

However, it would be unreasonable for the HOA to ask for paperwork naming the HOA on the insurance certificate. Most contractors (not just DirecTV installers) would not be able to provide that.

Not a bit unreasonable. If a contractor can't provide it, then they probably don't have insurance.

Here is a sample of what is being requested: http://www.busserv.ucsb.edu/Forms/rm/quicktips/QTAcordCert.pdf

Now an individual installer may not be able to produce one, but the company he works for most certainly can with a simple phone call to the insurance agent. This is done everyday and all it does is prove that the installer has coverage.

[RobertE]

Not a bit unreasonable. If a contractor can't provide it, then they probably don't have insurance.

Here is a sample of what is being requested: http://www.busserv.ucsb.edu/Forms/rm/quicktips/QTAcordCert.pdf

Now an individual installer may not be able to produce one, but the company he works for most certainly can with a simple phone call to the insurance agent. This is done everyday and all it does is prove that the installer has coverage.

I think you misread what texasbrit said.

It's reasonable for the HOA to ask for proof of insurance.

It's unreasonable for the HOA to ask to be added to the insurance.

[djiddy]

Not a bit unreasonable. If a contractor can't provide it, then they probably don't have insurance.

Here is a sample of what is being requested: http://www.busserv.ucsb.edu/Forms/rm/quicktips/QTAcordCert.pdf

Now an individual installer may not be able to produce one, but the company he works for most certainly can with a simple phone call to the insurance agent. This is done everyday and all it does is prove that the installer has coverage.

Thanks for the link Herdfan. After reviewing #5 on your link, I did a little more research. If you name someone as an "additional insured" any claims against that person are covered by your insurance policy. It seems like a relatively common request for building contractors, roofers, etc. They don't like these additional insured requests but many will do it and the insurance company generally does not charge extra to add an "additional insured."
For more information check out this link. (http://www.professionalroofing.net/archives/past/apr00/legal.asp)

[joe diamond]

The insurance requirement is a standard issue. Try entering a marina to fix a boat. The actions of technicians can and do affect the whole property. As HDTV Sportsfan said...an insured contractor can get this done easily. They pay the insurance bill and their agent works these things out.

IF the tech cannot control the insurance he may well be an employee. If he is a Directv employee they know how to get an insurance certificate sent. IF the tech is some kind of subcontractor without insurance he is the one you do not want on your roof.

Joe

[BattleZone]

Do you really suppose that an in-house DirecTV tech (in most cases, an employee) is going to be able to get their local office to contact their corporate office to contact their insurance company to add an additional insured and fax it back through the chain and get it to the tech? IMO, you're dreaming.

Same thing for employees of the larger subcontractors, whose corporate office is likely to be in a different state than the employee is.

Keep in mind that the installer has to complete the job inside their time window or (in most cases) cancel it. I promise you that 99.99% of installers are going to figure out that they'll make more money canceling this job and moving immediately to the next than to spend several hours of unpaid time on the phone trying to get an insurance form to the HOA's office with the correct information on it, THEN start the install, making them late for any other jobs they have.

As I said before, the system simply isn't designed for such demands, and the path of least resistance is to cancel the job as "no landlord permission."

This is one of the best reasons to use a local retailer instead.

[joe diamond]

Do you really suppose that an in-house DirecTV tech (in most cases, an employee) is going to be able to get their local office to contact their corporate office to contact their insurance company to add an additional insured and fax it back through the chain and get it to the tech? IMO, you're dreaming.

Same thing for employees of the larger subcontractors, whose corporate office is likely to be in a different state than the employee is.

Keep in mind that the installer has to complete the job inside their time window or (in most cases) cancel it. I promise you that 99.99% of installers are going to figure out that they'll make more money canceling this job and moving immediately to the next than to spend several hours of unpaid time on the phone trying to get an insurance form to the HOA's office with the correct information on it, THEN start the install, making them late for any other jobs they have.

As I said before, the system simply isn't designed for such demands, and the path of least resistance is to cancel the job as "no landlord permission."

This is one of the best reasons to use a local retailer instead.

Exactly!

That is how it will roll out.Once you get that constant need for an ETA for every job of the day you find ways to blow them off just to keep on schedule. I remember being on hold for twenty minutes to report the customer was not home...the MASTEC call center said ok, you gotta wait one hour right there............we had a failure to communicate.

I can see it now..."need an insurance certificate sent."
...Ha Ha Ha Ha.....a what?"

Joe

[AntAltMike]

At Ft. Belvoir in Virginia, a tradesperson is not even allowed on base to talk to the prospective customer or to develop or deliver a proposal until his insurance certificate has been delivered. The nitwit who wanted me to put a satellite dish on their bowling alley didn't tell me that, and so I became one of over a dozen contractors waiting in the office for his insurance papers to be forwarded... and one of the dozen who gave up and left before they did.

[joe diamond]

At Ft. Belvoir in Virginia, a tradesperson is not even allowed on base to talk to the prospective customer or to develop or deliver a proposal until his insurance certificate has been delivered. The nitwit who wanted me to put a satellite dish on their bowling alley didn't tell me that, and so I became one of over a dozen contractors waiting in the office for his insurance papers to be forwarded... and one of the dozen who gave up and left before they did.

I got funny Ft. Belvoir stories...from the 70s.
Is the Belvoir Grill still out there on rt 1?

Joe

OK, well........just one..........what happens when you connect the center of a lg truck tie rod by chain to a dozer to get it out of a swamp?.......If the front tires are pointing at each other will it still steer?.......Is "Belzer" a close enough pronunciation for Belvoir?

But I digress . . .

[AntAltMike]

I.......Is "Belzer" a close enough pronunciation for Belvoir?...


I usually pronounce it Bell' - vwar. I've heard others pronounce it, Bell' - voyer.

And those local, low salt potato chips, "Utz"? I finally asked one of their truckdrivers what the preferred pronunciation is, and he said the "u" is pronounced like it is in the word, "put", or like the vowel sound in "soot".

Did you ever see Richard Belzer do his Mick Jagger imitation? He started out as a comedian.

[HDTVsportsfan]

Mostly it's pronounced Bell-Voor. But we are all digressing LOL

[joe diamond]

Mostly it's pronounced Bell-Voor. But we are all digressing LOL

Digressing...true!

Here is an observation on point.
I finally had an insurance claim. My insurance was in place and, to shorten the story, I showed my customer how their customer was committing insurance fraud. AND he had done it to them before...with a previous telco repair.
I then informed my insurance company how this claimant was BSing. They interviewed him and determined he was misrepresenting the facts.
Both the long distance company and my insurance company paid the bastard because it was easier than doing all the paperwork to defend in court.

Since I had an insurance claim...I havn't seen any more work from them in almost a year.

So allowing an HOA with a penchant for paperwork to drift to DISH land may not be a bad thing.

Joe

[Herdfan]

So allowing an HOA with a penchant for paperwork to drift to DISH land may not be a bad thing.

I don't understand how the HOA wanting to make sure the person climbing on their roofs has proper insurance is a bad thing.:confused:

I know that as a homeowner, I would want someone climbing on my roof to be insured against 1) damage they might cause to my roof and 2) any injury they may suffer while on my property.

This is in no way unreasonable.

[Lee L]

I don't understand how the HOA wanting to make sure the person climbing on their roofs has proper insurance is a bad thing.:confused:

I know that as a homeowner, I would want someone climbing on my roof to be insured against 1) damage they might cause to my roof and 2) any injury they may suffer while on my property.

This is in no way unreasonable.

Exactly.

In fact, if you have someone over at your house doing work for you, it is best to do the same thing. It is a simple call for the business to make to their insurance agent and that way you can make sure you are covered. In a situation like a satellite installer for a large company like DirecTV at a personal residence, it is maybe a littel less important, but for say, some local company installing a roof or doing cleaning services, you better check or you could be in for trouble if one of their employees gets hurt or does damage to your place and hte insurance is not up to date.

The OP just might have to pay a seperate installer to do the work in this case. You might also try to call DirecTV and tell them it is an install in a commercial building. Surely those people have had to deal with this type of thing. It is probably not going to be a free install though.

[Talos4]

Exactly.

In fact, if you have someone over at your house doing work for you, it is best to do the same thing. It is a simple call for the business to make to their insurance agent and that way you can make sure you are covered. In a situation like a satellite installer for a large company like DirecTV at a personal residence, it is maybe a littel less important, but for say, some local company installing a roof or doing cleaning services, you better check or you could be in for trouble if one of their employees gets hurt or does damage to your place and hte insurance is not up to date.

The OP just might have to pay a seperate installer to do the work in this case. You might also try to call DirecTV and tell them it is an install in a commercial building. Surely those people have had to deal with this type of thing. It is probably not going to be a free install though.

I agree 100%. In this case the HOA is following good business practice and is not being unreasonable. In this case.

If the company cannot provide a Certificate of Insurance with the HOA listed as the additionally insured you and the HOA don't need to be doing business with them.

It is a simple process to do what the HOA is asking. It doesn't matter whether you are a sub of a sub of a sub. The installing company has to produce proof of insurance. A phone call is made to the insurance company requesting a COI with X listed as additionally insured. The COI is usually faxed to the additionally insured the same day. Done.

If they say they cannot produce one guess what, they probably/most likely don't have insurance. They probably offer tailgate warranties too.

Where I work we provide these on a daily basis to our customers and prospective customers. Most times when bidding a job it's part of the bid documents. No COI? Bid is rejected.

[BattleZone]

There are a lot of folks here who simply don't realize the environment most installers work under.

I have insurance (more than required). I could get the needed documentation, though it typically takes 24 hours (i.e., at least 1-2 hours under ideal conditions, which rarely happen in the real world). But as an HSP fulfillment contractor, I wouldn't bother; the admin costs are way more than it's worth, and so is my installer's time. The SOP would be to call the HSP, say "No Landlord Permission" and move on.

As a *retailer*, where profit margins on an individual customer are high enough to warrant the extra work, I would happily get the paperwork together. As Talos4 mentioned, such paperwork is common on commercial bids (which neither sat company gets directly involved in), but on those, you have much more lead time and enough profit to justify the added labor expenses.

The sat companies' systems are already set up to make their installers bear the costs of everyone else's (the customer's, the sat company's, the CSR's, the sales staff, etc.) failures, mistakes, and laziness. My techs are currently facing a 31.6% failure rate on jobs this month. That means that about 1 in 3 jobs that they go to, often 20+ miles in each direction, can't be completed. The majority are installs (i.e., the jobs that pay best). Often, the tech not only has to drive out, but must spend an hour or more on-site dealing with the customer and/or DirecTV before the job is ultimately canceled. All of that time and expense is 100% paid for by the tech (except for all of the phone/admin time spent by my self and my office staff trying to help resolve the situation, which is paid for by me).

Given that, and given the penalties for missing appointment windows, there is little tolerance in the installer's world for extra paperwork or other activities that are going to eat away at the clock. The installer can't risk losing a job that he *can* complete to deal with one that has a better-than-average chance of not going in anyway.

I didn't make this system; I'm just trying to explain to people how it is. It isn't like a traditional contractor relationship, where the contractor comes out and gives a bid. These guys are working for ultra-low fixed-rate wages in order to allow DirecTV to offer a "free (standard) install". Anything that deviates from the norm is likely to get set aside for another day, because the system doesn't reward anyone for dealing with anything outside of the norm.

[ffemtreed]

I agree 100%. In this case the HOA is following good business practice and is not being unreasonable. In this case.

If the company cannot provide a Certificate of Insurance with the HOA listed as the additionally insured you and the HOA don't need to be doing business with them.

It is a simple process to do what the HOA is asking. It doesn't matter whether you are a sub of a sub of a sub. The installing company has to produce proof of insurance. A phone call is made to the insurance company requesting a COI with X listed as additionally insured. The COI is usually faxed to the additionally insured the same day. Done.

If they say they cannot produce one guess what, they probably/most likely don't have insurance. They probably offer tailgate warranties too.

Where I work we provide these on a daily basis to our customers and prospective customers. Most times when bidding a job it's part of the bid documents. No COI? Bid is rejected.


There is a HUGE difference from having a COI and having the HOA listed as additionally insured. That is where the problem comes into play.

[joe diamond]

I don't understand how the HOA wanting to make sure the person climbing on their roofs has proper insurance is a bad thing.:confused:

I know that as a homeowner, I would want someone climbing on my roof to be insured against 1) damage they might cause to my roof and 2) any injury they may suffer while on my property.

This is in no way unreasonable.

Herdfan,

You and your HOA is not being unreasonable. It is just that from an installer point of view you folks are too much trouble to mess with. First there is the insurance thing. Then there is going to be the cable routing discussion. Then the cable entrance to your unit will require holes. The cable will need to be run around in your unit. Most of this will be much more than the installer is being compensated to do or possibly competent to do.

Look for a private installer / reseller...write down what you want and accept bids.

Joe

[dracozny]

Herdfan,

You and your HOA is not being unreasonable. It is just that from an installer point of view you folks are too much trouble to mess with. First there is the insurance thing. Then there is going to be the cable routing discussion. Then the cable entrance to your unit will require holes. The cable will need to be run around in your unit. Most of this will be much more than the installer is being compensated to do or possibly competent to do.

Look for a private installer / reseller...write down what you want and accept bids.

Joe

tripod or nonpen on your balcony and flatwire, requires nothing to the HOA.
however we usually still ask just to be kosher, even though OTRD does give the tenant rights to install to obtain LOS. DTVHS will provide via fax licenses and bond info to an HOA or landlord per request. at the same time all requirements and restrictions by such agencies must be provided to the installer or faxed to the installers office prior to work bieng performed. if the requirements/restrictions are outside of directv's requirements/restrictions than the workorder will be canceled, no exceptions.

[HerntDawg]

I would just move,(or not move there in the first place) i would not want the hassle of a HOA.

Then there would not be the pain of someone being there in 5 min.

I know it doesn't help, just my opinion.

[joe diamond]

I would just move,(or not move there in the first place) i would not want the hassle of a HOA.

Then there would not be the pain of someone being there in 5 min.

I know it doesn't help, just my opinion.

You don't want to make all your decisions based on making TV service EZ. Condos are a good real estate investment. What is needed is a way to tie one or the other of the satellite services into a master cable system.
(SMAT). If the cable company or DISH is already there combining those wires to give folks a choice could be a good investment.

The FREE basic Directv installation is not going to heppen in this case.

Joe

[BattleZone]

The problem is that SMAT systems are expensive to install (and upgrade, and administer, and maintain), and no one wants to pay for it. MDU providers either have to charge the apartment owners the entire cost of the system, plus a maintenance contract, or they have to get a contract to be the exclusive provider of the service for that building for a period of X years.

Finding apartment owners willing to pay outright is rare. And on systems where the MDU provides the system in trade for exclusive rights, you have tenants constantly trying to end-run the system so they can get out of paying the MDU fees. If the MDU and the apartment managment don't work together well and tightly enforce the rules, then the MDU provider will lose money and then the system won't be maintained.

Again, the problem goes back to all of the "free install" advertising, which results in customers assigning a value of ZERO to the install, even if it isn't "standard".