• Creator
    Topic
  • #8910
    Fiveaces
    Flatchatter

      Hi everyone,

       

      My partner and I have recently purchased and applied to keep a cat, which has not been approved with no explanation besides noting that “there are no other animals in the building”.

      1. Are we entitled to a more detailed reason why the approval has not been given?
      2. Does this count us unreasonably withholding approval? After all, if you decline an application on the basis that there are no animals there will never be animals, which defeats the purpose of having a by-law that allows pets on application.

      I have copied the by-law below and our application was based around the fact it’s an existing pet from our past residence and is a companion for my partner while I am travelling overseas for business.

       

      16.           Keeping of Animals

      (1)            Subject to section 49 (4), an owner or occupier of a lot must not, without the prior written approval of the Owners Corporation, keep any animal (except fish kept in a secure aquarium on the lot) on the lot or the common property.

      (2)            The Owners Corporation must not unreasonably withhold its approval of the keeping of an animal on a lot or the common property.

       

      Thanks everyone.

    Viewing 7 replies - 1 through 7 (of 7 total)
    • Author
      Replies
    • #18871
      kiwipaul
      Flatchatter

        I suggest you look at this ruling by CTTT as it is very similar to yours.

         

        https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCTTT/2003/783.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=strata%20and%20community%20and%20schemes%20and%20pets%20and%20cat

         

        Basically the ruling was

        1. Permission is hereby granted for the Applicant to keep a “bichon frise” dog on the subject lot provided the dog is kept wholly within the lot at all times, does not interfere with other occupiers reasonable peace and enjoyment of their lots and the common property. The dog is to be carried over common property when being transported to and from the lot from time to time.

        2. This consent only applies to the keeping of this particular dog and not to the keeping of subsequent pets.

         These conditions are pretty standard and so long as you are prepared to abide by them you should win your case.

        If the bylaw had said no pets period you would have had a more difficult fight.

        #18872
        Jimmy-T
        Keymaster

          Saying there are no other animals in the building is not a reason – it’s a simple statement of fact.

          If the owners in this building felt strongly that they didn’t want pets in the building they could and should have passed a by-law to that effect.  Any reasonable person viewing their by-laws before purchase would assume that pets were allowed, not that they weren’t.

          You need to write to your EC and say that they are in breach of their own by-law by unreasonably refusing permission and therefore their decision is invalid.

          Tell them that you are prepared to make sure the cat is not a nuisance to other owners and does not damage or stray on to common property.  However, failure to provide you with written permission will force you to take them to the CTTT to get an order compelling them to abide by their own by-laws which say they must not unreasonably refuse permission.

          I would do this promptly before you discover there is a rush to change the by-laws.

          You’ll find the process of getting an order at the CTTT explained HERE . Don’t worry that this is about taking complaints about by-law breaches .. the process and, indeed, the forms are the same.  Just scroll down to the section about CTTT orders.

          The first part of the process is that you will have to go to mediation and it really should be resolved at that stage.

          Your biggest problem is that the by-laws also say that you can’t bring a pet into the building without written permission – but if you have the cat already, I would just wing it and hope for the best.  One breach of by-law doesn’t cancel out another but you are the one who’s being denied your rights.  

          If the EC can’t be bothered to read their own by-laws and understand the implications of them, it’s hardly your fault.

          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.
          #18873
          Kangaroo
          Flatchatter

            It bewilders me why Schemes which do not want pets without prior written approval do not simply strike out (via an amendment) Clause (2) of By-Law 16.

            They’ve decided on Clause (1).

            Why make a rod for their own back by leaving Clause (2) there?

            Instead they should write a new Clause (2) which says that the CTTT is responsible for sending an officer around to remove any pet which does not comply with the conditions they set when ruling the OC’s decision was unreasonable.

            #18879
            scotlandx
            Strataguru

              I think one of the principal reasons for that is that there are many ECs who are not aware of what their by-laws say, or if/when they look at them, they don’t know what they mean.  So in this example the EC may well think that the by-law gives them the right to simply refuse permission for an animal.

              You can’t write a by-law requiring the CTTT to do something like remove an animal.  The CTTT isn’t a party to the by-laws, and they don’t have the power to remove an animal.  They can issue an order on an application for an animal to be removed, but that’s the limit.

              #18880
              Fiveaces
              Flatchatter
              Chat-starter

                Thanks everyone, some great responses as always with this forum. It’s looking likely we’ll head down the path suggested by JimmyT, I’ll keep this thread updated with progress,

                 

                 

                #18876
                Fiveaces
                Flatchatter
                Chat-starter

                  Hi everyone,

                  I’ve got some more details to add, the previous by-law that I quoted is what the managing agent had quoted to me in an email. However, looking at the strata by-laws myself I do not see that anywhere and only the following by-law.

                  1. Do you think this should change our approach?
                  2. The by-law previously quoted to us looks to be the model by-law straight from the 1996 act. Since it’s not in our register of by-laws, is it irrelevant or is it implied because it’s the model by-law in the act?
                  3. If it’s irrelevant, the by-law below appears to prohibit pets on “community property” and not within a lot. Is this a fair understanding?

                  I am thinking our response should be the same since the by-law below implies there is an approval process.

                  BY-LAW 12. ANIMALS

                  12.1 The keeping of the animals on community property is prohibited, except with the written consent of the Association (other than guide dogs as permitted by Secion 49(4) of the Strata Schemes Act 1996, fish kept in an aquarium and two birds).

                  12.2 Owners and Occupiers must comply with the conditions on any consent.

                  12.3 Owners and Occupiers must ensure any animal they are permitted to keep in their Lot or bring in to the Building:

                  (a) does not make a noise so as to interfere with another’s peaceful enjoyment of their Lot or Common Property; and

                   

                   

                   

                  #18920

                  I am an owner/occupier as well as a landlord in my strata plan.  I have had so many difficulties with other owners & tenants keeping pets.  In my experience, it doesn’t matter what is agreed, residents with animals just do what they want no matter how it adversely affects the others in the strata plan or other neighbours and then it is up to me and Owners Corporation to spend time/money/energy on trying to sort the problems out eg let cats roam the property day & night – I have had cats wandering into my garage when I have the side door ajar for fresh air when I am in inside for a period of time, allow dogs to be unleashed on common property whom ‘rush’ at me and small children whom are visiting myself or my tenant, refuse to believe dogs are barking when left home alone all day, allow cats & dogs to defacate on the lawns and in the gardens which is smelly and unpleasant for those whom tend to these gardens (me), keep birds & parrots whom make loads of noise, keep snakes plus live mice/rats to feed them, allow their dogs to have puppies so “one small dog” becomes 5 dogs overnight – then those whom complain (me) are considered to be harsh – it ends up being others whom are expected to accept and accommodate the presence of these pets – permission is never sought BEFORE, it is always after the fact and once these pets are in, they never leave, no matter what.  I believe it is the irresponsible behaviour of pet owners that encourage Owners Corporations to frown upon pet ownership in a strata plan – it is easier just to say no than to continually argue with these people for months, if not years.  Again, in my experience, unit living, especially the small 1 bedroom/studio units in my strata plan, is generally unsuitable for most pets.  Personally, I value the native wildlife at our property but the birds, possums, bandicoots, bilbys etc are continually chased away or attacked by the pets of inconsiderate and ignorant pet owners whom refuse to change their behaviour.  In my book, pet ownership is a privilege, not a right.  I shake my head when I read stories about disadvantaged families whom have quite a few children PLUS a dog and/or cat and complain landlords will not lease their properties to them.  I won’t be handing over the property I scrimped, saved & worked my behind off to acquire and lovingly take care of to have it trashed by animals & be made to feel I ‘owe’ people whom have chosen their circumstances (we all do) and feel pet ownership is for them when they are not set up securely.  When I was a naive, first time landlord, I believed the promises of a couple of my tenants with “1 small dog” – one moved in with 7 animals which grew to 12 – and after having carpets stained with urine & torn, fly screens ripped, and numerous other damages plus the copmplaints of neighbours about the barking an howling – never again!

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