#25520
Jimmy-T
Keymaster
Chat-starter

    @Player Special said:
    A new tenant moved into the building signing a lease acknowledging no pets. Nor was any request made at the time to keep a pet to the Owners Corporation. The building is sign posted ‘no pets’. Subsequently a dog appeared. The body corporate and owner of the apartment was informed it belonged to someone else and would be gone in a matter of weeks. This never eventuated and the new tenant then claimed the dog was a special needs assistance dog that has been admitted to the mindDog program. The pre-requisite for this is a letter from a doctor and payment of a fee. The training last for approximately 12 months when the dog must thereafter wear a special vest identifying it as a special assistance dog. This new tenant now has the full protection of the anti discrimination laws. Thoughts?  

    I would think the tenant would have anti-discrimination protection AFTER the dog had been trained.  And you could go to NCAT and argue that it’s not really an assistance animal – just the abuse of a loophole.

    Having said that, is it really that much of a problem? There are mechanisms under the Act for removing animals that are permitted but which have proved to be a nuisance.

    For a number of reasons, not least that this person may have a genuine problem, I would be tempted to let this slide until an actual problem arose.

    If you are concerned that this sets a precedent, I would use the “assistance animal’ provisions as a way of discouraging other tenants from bringing in pets (if that’s what the majority of owners really want).

    The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers.