• Creator
    Topic
  • #8494

    Hi all

    I have recently bought an apartment in a strata which has a special by-law to specifically exclude dogs. According to the strata manager, the background to this is they had issues with a previous dog (passed away 8 years ago now) and took the approach that all dogs should be banned.

    When I bought into the strata I didn’t think twice about it as I don’t have a dog. Now I am looking to rent out my second room and received an application from a prospective tenant offering to pay 10% more than the advertised rent and is willing to sign up for a long contract if she can bring her dog along. I have spoken to her on the phone and it is a familar tale for most of Sydney renters, it’s difficult to find a place, let alone one that is pet friendly. I have no problems with dogs so I wouldn’t mind and so long as it doesn’t disrupt other people enjoying their apartments, it would make good business sense to rent to her!

    Being a new owner, I don’t want to start off on the wrong foot with the BC. I’d like to propose repealing the special by law and reinstating the standard Option A for pets so that the option is at least there if they are a responsible pet owner. Does anyone have any tips for proposing a change in by-law or alternative ideas?

     

    Cheers

Viewing 8 replies - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #16913

    Hi Ruffy, don’t like your chances as this is a recent decision made by the OC in response to previous bad experiences with dogs in the building. It would be such a long involved process for you to change the bylaw that I feel you would be much better off to just rent to the next applicant. Are you on the EC? You would need to request an EGM and get a majority I think to change the bylaw. JT will be able to give you the details but I personally would just rent to a non pet owner for now  as it is not your own pet so best to pick your fights otherwise strata issues can take months and sometimes years to resolve. Mind you, if you are interested in changing the bylaw you should start doing so as it may help in the future.

    Cheers CBF Cool

    #16914

    Hi Ruffy,

    It’s like any good political matter. You will need to ‘campaign’ the other owners regarding this. You need to be able to show owners that the pros out weigh the cons!

    Mr S

    #16919
    Whale
    Flatchatter

      Ruffy, a Special By-Law can be repealed using the same process that created it, that is by ≥75% of Owners present personally or by proxy voting in favour (to repeal) at a General Meeting.

      That said, dogs simply don’t belong in apartments – it’s not fair to them or to the human residents who invariably have to tolerate barking that echos throughout the corridors every time the dog’s acute hearing detects a noise, and have to suffer those inconsiderate owners who allow their dogs to defecate on the Common Property because they’re too lazy or time-poor to take their animals to the dog park.

      Sorry, but I don’t think you’re being reasonable by buying your apartment armed with the knowledge that the Special By-Law excluding dogs was in place, and by now even considering an approach to your Owners Corporation to repeal that Special By-Law simply for monetary gain.

      As CBF suggested, perhaps you should reconsider your position by renting to a non-pet owning tenant. 

      #16925

      Thanks for your responses. I’m aware that it can be quite a long and drawn out procedure, so for the time being, I am happy to rent to a non pet owner. CBF hit the nail on the head, I’m interested in taking steps now so that the option is there in the future.

      I am not on the EC, however in terms of next steps, the AGM is scheduled for December so I was hoping to raise it as an agenda point then. Prior to this, is there a way I can contact all the owners to gauge their response and concerns that may be raised?

      I know keeping dogs in apartments is a fiercely debated topic. I agree with the sentiment that owners who choose not to own a pet should be unaffected by those who do and pet owners who are responsible and considerate of their neighbours shouldn’t be deprived of the enjoyment that their pet brings. However, I wouldn’t want this thread to become a slinging match as to whether it is right or wrong for dogs to stay in an apartment. My (perhaps naive) understanding is that the strata rules should balance the needs of the current owners. This special by-law was introduced to ban dogs almost 10 years ago because that was the wish of the owners at the time, however attitudes may have changed with units changing hands and I don’t see the harm in raising it for consideration by the other owners.

      #16932
      Whale
      Flatchatter

        Hello again Ruffy, don’t worry – slanging matches rarely occur on FlatChat, and if matters head in that direction then the Moderator swiftly puts and end it!

        So back to your subject – it’s not pets per se that are a problem in Strata Schemes, but rather that dogs almost always are for the reasons that I gave earlier.

        That said, you’re correct in your assessment that the By-Laws “should balance the needs of the current owners”, but achieving that balance is problematic when a significant number of residents are not owners; that’s too often the case.

        In order to progress matters without getting your Executive Committee (E/C) off-side, why not find out who the E/C Secretary is (your Strata Manager can tell you) and have an informal chat with them about the matter and flag your desire to raise it informally with other resident owners and perhaps with some of the long-term tenants (if any) prior to the upcoming AGM.

        Even if that doesn’t go over well, at least you can then make an informed decision about whether to gauge support prior to the AGM in an effort to get that ≥75% support, to submit a Motion for the Agenda of the AGM, or to do nothing at all (for now).  

        By the way ….. have you read the precise wording of that Special By-Law, because in an ideal world such documents should be instructive rather than strictly prohibitive, so there may be an “out”? 

        #16947

        Thanks for the tips Whale, I will get the ball rolling with the EC secretary.

        Apologies in advance as I am new to the world of strata – would you be able to expand on your comment about strata by-laws being instructive rather than prohibitive? Is this something in the Act or have there been cases which confirm this?

        The actual wording of the by-law is “Subject to s49(4) an owner or occupier of a lot must not keep any dog on the lot or common property…an owner or occupier of a lot may keep an animal other than a dog on a lot or common property provided they have first obtained the written consent of the Owners Corporation…”

        Cheers

        #16954
        scotlandx
        Strataguru

          That’s interesting, so essentially it is a by-law forbidding the keeping of dogs, other than guide dogs or assistance dogs.  So in theory you could keep any other type of animal, provided permission were obtained.  Usually you would expect to see a by-law that either forbids all animals, states that you must not keep animals without obtaining permission (and that can’t be unreasonably withheld), or allows small animals and for other animals you have to get permission.

          A friend asked me about an issue yesterday, where she knows someone who lives in a complex where they have forbidden any animal other than three specific breeds of cats, and the cats have to be females.  Apparently there is one person who controls the EC who has very definite ideas about what is and what isn’t acceptable.  Seems a bit discriminatory to me, what if you are allergic to those three breeds? 

          #16963
          Whale
          Flatchatter

            Ruffy – your Plan’s By-Law doesn’t prohibit the keeping of all animals, but rather (as an “out”) provides instructions about how residents may seek the consent of the Owners Corporation (O/C) to keep some animals on Lots – so it’s actually a good example of what I meant about such By-Laws being instructive rather than strictly prohibitive.

            In my experience, the (otherwise inconsistent) Consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal (CTTT) is consistent in its “liking” for By-Laws that don’t simply prohibit certain things outright!

            By the way, the additional “out” is that guide-dogs / hearing-dogs / and, I think you’ll find, dogs that are considered by a resident’s Medico to be necessary as a “companion animal” must be consented by the O/C under the provisions of S49(4) of the NSW Strata Schemes Management Act (1996), with conditions.

          Viewing 8 replies - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
          • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.