• Creator
    Topic
  • #8608
    Mailbox
    Flatchatter

      We have a resident whose dog is intermittently off leash on common property. He has been asked verbally to adhere to the rules, but to the fury of one EC member it doesn’t always happen. The resident is a much-liked member of the community and the only objection has come from the one person (they have a chequered history). What is the best course of action? Thanks 

    Viewing 7 replies - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #17435
      Jimmy-T
      Keymaster

        If the free-range pet is in breach of your by-laws, the easiest option is to invite the irritated EC member to table a motion at your next EC meeting to issue a notice to comply.  Your EC doesn’t have to agree – and you might want to speak against the motion or organise the votes beforehand –  but at least you have ticked all the necessary boxes.

        If the aggrieved EC member wants to take it further, then he or she can raise the issue themselves at Fair Trading  which will cost them just this side of $80.

        You could even come at it from a different angle and propose an amendment to your pets by-law at your next general meeting, allowing pets to be allowed to run free provided they have prior written permission from the EC, which can be withdrawn if they prove to be a nuisance.

        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.
        #17439
        Whale
        Flatchatter

          Great advice – let the aggrieved Owner vent their spleen at and Executive Committee Meeting, issue an Advice Letter (as opposed to a Notice to Comply) first up, and have a quiet word in the ear of the “much-liked” dog owner beforehand.

          #17441
          Mailbox
          Flatchatter
          Chat-starter

            Thanks. I do find mixing the political with the personal a tricky juggling act. I think it is probably best to follow the rules and issue a warning note as a first step,

            #17440
            Jimmy-T
            Keymaster

              @Bev29 said:
              Thanks. I do find mixing the political with the personal a tricky juggling act. I think it is probably best to follow the rules and issue a warning note as a first step,

              I understand your desire to do the right thing but there’s nothing in “the rules” about warning notes.  In fact, a Notice To Comply is a warning note: if you don’t comply with the by-laws the EC may apply to the CTTT to impose a fine. That’s a warning, not a fine.

              Allowing the aggrieved owner to vent at an EC meeting on a motion to issue a Notice To Comply is a legitimate way of giving them an opportunity to express their irritation while testing the boundaries of what the owners find acceptable, even if there are clear breaches of by-laws.

              Whale’s suggestion that the outcome of such a motion might be to issue a warning letter is also fine because that’s just correspondence and has no legal standing under strata law beyond that.

              As discussed elsewhere in this forum, I am gradually coming to the view that the rigid enforcement of by-laws is not necessarily good for community building.  Each community should be allowed to set its own boundaries that reflect the current community’s standards, not necessarily the letter of the by-law. And if by-laws become inappropriate or unworkable, then common sense would dictate that they should be changed eventually.

              Communities should not be restricted by by-laws that only a few people like, that were drafted by different people at a different time dealing with a very different world. If there is an occasional (acceptable?) lapse, so be it. The “thin end of the wedge” theory doesn’t really hold since the CTTT is supposed to consider each case on its individual merits.

              But, allowing for the evolution of community standards in this way, the by-laws should be reviewed every five years or so. Provided there is open and free discussion of issues, this is perfectly achievable and there are other avenues of complaint for those who feel aggrieved.

              There is a discussion elsewhere on this forum about a scheme that is trying to interpret a “pets only with permission” by-law as a ban on pets.  If that is the prevailing view of the community, then they really need to change that by-law.

              By the way, I note my last point on the subject of flexibility in by-laws  – the Christmas lights that are in clear breach of at least two by-laws –  has not attracted any response from posters who were pro-rigid enforcement.

              Is it just the Christmas spirit extending to my feeble thinking or have I actually won an argument (for once)?

              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.
              #17442
              Whale
              Flatchatter

                JimmyT said

                Whale’s suggestion that the outcome of such a motion might be to issue a warning letter is also fine because that’s just correspondence and has no legal standing in strata law beyond that.

                 



                Correct – but I suggested the Advice Letter because in two (2) of my earliest appearances before the CTTT, firstly an Adjudicator and then a Member asked whether the Owners Corporation (O/C) had “communicated with” the residents in breach prior to it issuing the Notice to Comply (NTC).

                In the first matter the conciliation didn’t get off to a good start (or finish too well) because the O/C didn’t do anything proactively to advise the residents that they were breaching the By-Law prior to issuing the NTC, and in the second matter the Member found in favour of the residents because they claimed that nobody from the Executive Committee advised them that they were in breach, and moreso because their Rental Agent didn’t include a copy of the Plan’s By-Laws with their Lease.

                So as I don’t need to head-butt a wall more than a couple of times to realise that it hurts, our O/C agreed to implement a process whereby from that time on two members of the E/C would speak with residents who it believes have breached By-Laws, then issue an Advice Letter if it happens again, and only then hold a Meeting and resolve to issue the NTC if the same breach occurs for a third time.

                Again, I acknowledge that this process is not in accordance with strata law and it is a bit cumbersome, but the CTTT appears to like it that way – although as our last appearance before it was a lay down misere under any criteria I can’t say whether our process assisted or not, but it can’t hurt in my opinion.

                #17443
                Jimmy-T
                Keymaster

                  It seems an eminently sensible way to approach – again, the initial personal approach depends on the type of scheme you are in and the personalities involved.
                  Similarly, the wording of the “advice note” could be critical – too harsh and it could get people’s back up, too conciliatory and it might seem like you aren’t all that bothered.
                  It’s certainly worth every EC putting an item on their agenda to discuss how they want to deal with complaints and alleged breaches of by-laws. It my be that different breached, and their severity, might require different approaches.
                  But this is what democracy is all about – we get to decide for ourselves.

                  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.
                  #17502

                  Hi all, Merry Christmas and Happy New Year,

                  Bev29, I see and understand your issue. We are a pet friendly building. I love animals and agree sometimes with the keeping of them in apartments. We have the basic bylaws in place re pets and request and appreciate if owners keep their pets either on leash or carried while on CP for a number of reasons. Aggresion, poo, biting residents just a few. Are the OC liable for attacks on residents while on CP? While it may be ok for one owner to have their pet roaming you must consider the impact if you have a building with numerous pets roaming off leash there could be serious issues. One rule should be for all. Consider the issues of this one pet multiplied. Perhaps this could be explained to your resident?

                  Best Regards, CBF

                Viewing 7 replies - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
                • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.