› Flat Chat Strata Forum › Pets: Furry friends … or fiends? › Pet Approval › Current Page
Getting back to the original question from Annag26791, the key issue is whether or not the refusals are unreasonable. “We have never allowed pets” is not a reasonable refusal – it’s just a statement of historical fact. The by-laws allow for pets, albeit under restricted circumstances.
However, having a resident who is allergic to cats or terrified of dogs may be a valid reason for refusal, as would a poll of owners that clearly stated the majority of owners didn’t want animals in the building.
The real problem for most buildings is that there will be people on the committee don’t want change but can’t even be bothered to consolidate anti-pet sentiment with a full pet ban by-law. In many cases they probably realise they won’t get the support they need.
It is worth taking this to NCAT – and that means time, energy and becoming unpopular with your committee – because it forces the committee to justify their refusal with logic and reason, rather than prejudice and contempt.
Be prepared for long-winded claims that the animals will be filthy, noisy and a nuisance. These can all be countered by pointing to other areas of the Act that deal with noise, damage and behaviour on Common Property. There is even a specific clause (151) for dealing with animals that have been approved but which have since proved to be a nuisance or hazard to residents.
Meanwhile, have a look at this story and video: It shows how a determined couple took on a building with messy anti-pet by-laws and won.