• Creator
    Topic
  • #8879
    Jimmy-T
    Keymaster

      I was buttonholed recently by Richard Holloway, one of the doyens of strata management, who hustled me into a quiet corner and said he wanted to talk to me about pets.

      Richard has been around the industry since Stonehenge held its first executive committee meeting and the ‘body corporate’ was a human sacrifice to appease the strata gods (ahhh… if only).

      So I fully expected the age-old strata manager rant about pets woofing , mewing, weeing and pooing where they oughtn’t.

      Instead, Richard said that permission to have pets should be the default position in by-laws, with the option, of course, to impose conditions or even ban pets outright, via votes at a general meeting.

      Richard was inspired by the experiences of a close relative who was seriously unwell for a long time but who got through her ordeal with the help of her dog.

      “Had it not been for that dog, she probably wouldn’t be with us today,” says Richard.  “Many people just don’t realise how important companion animals are, especially to those who are on their own.”

      He has a point. According to the advice website helpguide.org, researchers have found that pet owners are less likely to suffer from depression, have lower blood pressure in stressful situations and have fewer warning signs of heart disease than those without pets.

      The website also claims heart attack patients with pets survive longer and pet owners over age 65 make 30 percent fewer visits to their doctors than those without pets.

      That’s just for the general population.  The increasing use of pet therapy with everyone from victims of sexual abuse to hardened criminals in prison has shown the benefits of mutual and unconditional affection that pets provide.

      Richard clearly has a point, although there would have to be allowances made for apartment residents who can’t abide the thought of living close to animals.

      He would be encouraged that NSW Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts confirmed in Parliament this week that the impending change to strata legislation will see the default by-laws change so that pets will be allowed, subject to ‘reasonable’ approvals and conditions set by Executive Committees. 

      Currently in NSW they are banned unless there is written approval so this is a subtle but significant change in emphasis, given that it takes a 75 percent vote of owners to change by-laws.

      “This reflects the overwhelming views of the discussion papers submitted last year.” Mr Roberts told Flat Chat. “Nobody should be surprised that this is our position or that the default by-laws will change.”

      So there you have it – when the new strata laws come in NSW (hopefully some time next year), the default position will be pro pets although an overwhelming majority of owners will still be able to ban them, if they so desire. 

      That’s the way it should be – real choice that reflects the way the majority of us want to live. No-pet buildings will still be around but everyone will know beforehand what they are getting into.

      By the way, default or ‘model’ by-laws are not immutable state laws, they are just a template that most new buildings can adopt and adapt to suit their own specific circumstances.

      And if your building has a specific set of by-laws that ban pets or let people keep a zoo on their balconies, the new law won’t change them – it doesn’t act retrospectively

      You can find the Helpguide page which has a stack of information about the therapeutic benefits of pets HERE.  And you can join the discussion on this page or on the Flat Chat Forum HERE.

      You will find a comprehensive state-by-state breakdown of the default by-laws HERE in Strata Community Australia’s website and you can join the Flat Chat discussion on pets HERE.

      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.
    Viewing 8 replies - 1 through 8 (of 8 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #18771

      I thoroughly endorse Richard Holloway’s comments about pets in strata. We are fortunate to live in a two unit strata scheme where pets are allowed with the OC’s permission. We have a Bichon Frise dog who has a wool coat and does not smell and is under 10kgs. He is the quintessential “lap dog”. He is not a yappy dog and only barks when someone comes to the door. He loves my husband’s mobility scooter and goes shopping with him harnessed to the running board under my husband’s feet. Our dog is very appealing and my husband has lost count of the number of times elderly people, particularly women who have lost their partners come up to him and pet our dog telling my husband that they cannot have a pet in their unit. Many of them have tears in their eyes as they say this. My husband is 85 and says that when I am away our dog is a great comfort to him. I myself feel a level of calm come over me when our dog gets on my lap, lays on his back,looks at me with his panda eyes and wants to be petted,then goes to sleep snoring!

      #18841
      Mailbox
      Flatchatter

        I live in a block of 63 units, where cats, fish and birds are already

        allowed on the strata by laws.   We have recently had issue with an owner

        who brought a dog to the block, and claimed it was a companion dog, but the

        said dog barked incessantly.    Even though the block covers a large area,

        it was surprising and alarming to be quite some distance from the unit the dog was in, but to still be able to hear it barking inside my home with the doors and windows closed.

        The dog was removed under a lot of pressure, but through all the correct processes.  To think that people can now have the by laws changed like your article seems to be saying, is of concern.  I made the effort to check the by laws before purchase and purchased on a number of grounds the major one

        being no dogs…..   Why should I (and others who purchased because of this

        condition) feel compelled to sell and move elsewhere, when the owner concerned could get a cat anyway?

        It seems to me to be a crazy situation.

         

        NICHOM

        #18842
        Mailbox
        Flatchatter

          A message from Dr Peter Holdsworth, CEO of the Animal Health Alliance who says the proposed changes to the default by-laws bring the strata laws into the 21st century. 

          “Pets are an important part of the everyday lives of the majority of Australians, with many considering them to be members of the family,” said Dr Holdsworth. 

          “The range of benefits that pets provide their owners is well established, from general physical and mental health benefits to companionship for the elderly, children, and importantly, those in socially isolating environments.

          “For elderly people who have lost a long-term life partner, the companionship offered by a small dog or cat can be a very significant factor in their quality of life.

          “The greater community benefits of pet ownership are equally well documented.  Pets can bring a sense of community to larger buildings and city locations. They trigger conversation and positive social interaction between strangers.

          “The reality is that living patterns have changed.  Between 2006 and 2011, medium and high density dwellings in Greater Sydney increased by 15.3 per cent compared to freestanding dwellings that increased by only 2.3 per cent.

          “These changes show that the laws are being modernised in response to changed living patterns.

          “A well-managed pet-friendly policy can improve profitability, broaden the pool of prospective tenants, lower vacancy rates, reduce tenant turnover, and promote a sense of tenant safety and security,” said Dr Holdsworth.

          #18870
          Jimmy-T
          Keymaster
          Chat-starter

            Here’s a video of Fair Trading Minister Anthony Roberts answering the original question raised by MP for Sydney Alex Greenwich.  Warning: this video contains parliamentary shenanigans, blatant politicking and a prop. Click HERE.

            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.
            #18889
            Anonymous

              If I am an owner in an existing SP then the reform offers me the wording of a by-law that I can have put on the agenda of my next general meeting. A motion likely to fail.

              If I am a future owner in a new SP then the reform offers me the opportunity to get a pet before the OC changes the by-law, which is assuming the OC decides to change it.

              If I am a developer then the reform offers me the chance to tell a prospective buyer we have a modern and pet friendly by-law OR I can tell the prospective buyer we have the new default pet by-law but it is “easily” changed by the owners. What the developer says depends on how pet friendly the prospective buyer appears. Either way there is a sales pitch.

               

              If anyone bothered to read the mountain of submissions regarding strata reform then they would know the issue was owners in existing strata plans not being able to get their OC to act reasonably.

              The reform does nothing to address the issue.

              #18891
              kiwipaul
              Flatchatter

                @SMO said:

                If anyone bothered to read the mountain of submissions regarding strata reform then they would know the issue was owners in existing strata plans not being able to get their OC to act reasonably.

                The reform does nothing to address the issue.

                 

                If the owners cannot get the OC to act reasonably it is the fault of the owners as they are the OC. Bylaws can be changed at a GM or AGM by a vote of 75% (of those present) of owners in favour.

                If you don’t have the support of the owners to pass a new bylaw or motion maybe you are a minority and want to force changes on the majourity.

                #18896
                Anonymous

                  @kiwipaul said:

                  @SMO said:
                  If anyone bothered to read the mountain of submissions regarding strata reform then they would know the issue was owners in existing strata plans not being able to get their OC to act reasonably.

                  The reform does nothing to address the issue.

                   

                  If the owners cannot get the OC to act reasonably it is the fault of the owners as they are the OC. Bylaws can be changed at a GM or AGM by a vote of 75% (of those present) of owners in favour.

                  If you don’t have the support of the owners to pass a new bylaw or motion maybe you are a minority and want to force changes on the majourity.

                  I got this in a Teys Lawyers FAQ sheet the other day.
                  It is a general misconception that you require 75% of all voters present (either personally or by proxy) to vote in favour of a proposed motion. In fact a special resolution is passed only after a poll is taken at the meeting and not more than 25% in value of the votes, by persons present (either personally or by proxy) and entitled to vote, are against the motion. The value of a vote cast by a person entitled to vote in respect of a lot is equal to the unit entitlement of that lot:

                  cl.18(2) sch.2 of the Act.

                  The point of the post was that the issue in the reform submissions was not whether or not a group of owners were a majority or a minority but about OCs being reasonable or unreasonable.

                  The idea that what the majority wants constitutes something reasonable is not always correct, especially in strata. Are OC’s like lynch mobs where the majority rules regardless of whether or not they being reasonable? Some people would like to think so.

                  I could list numerous SCS matter where the Adjudicator or Member allowed an animal after the OC refused to allow the animal.

                  The reform does not address the issue expressed in the submissions.
                  Feel free to explain how it does.

                   

                  #18899
                  Jimmy-T
                  Keymaster
                  Chat-starter

                    @SMO said:
                    It is a general misconception that you require 75% of all voters present (either personally or by proxy) to vote in favour of a proposed motion. In fact a special resolution is passed only after a poll is taken at the meeting and not more than 25% in value of the votes, by persons present (either personally or by proxy) and entitled to vote, are against the motion. 

                    The only misconception is in the phrase ‘of those voting’. Perhaps some poeople think you have to have 75 percent of the owners in favour, or not more than 25 percent against – rather than just those proportions of valid votes but it’s still a mountain to climb.

                    The reality is that many Owners Corps are dominated by EC members holding large numbers of proxies so it can be very hard to get those numbers required to change a by-law if the EC doesn’t want it.

                    I could list numerous SCS matter where the Adjudicator or Member allowed an animal after the OC refused to allow the animal.

                    What is SCS? And why not list some of these matters?

                    The reform does not address the issue expressed in the submissions. 
                    Feel free to explain how it does.

                    If you are talking about the default pets by-law, it places the onus on the developer or Owners Corporation to at least think about how they want to manage pets in their strata scheme, with the default position being that they are allowed.

                    Right now, developers are locking their owners into a standard set of by-laws that strata newbies don’t even read before the approve them (by a simple majority).  After than, they require a 75 percent vote to change them. Thye most significant effect of this change is that it will make people stop and think about having pets in their building.

                     

                     

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