Forum Replies Created
-
Replies
-
Thanks for the comprehensive article Jimmy. You’ve posted here, and before, that strata occupants’ worry about problem pets might overlook the provisions for their removal.
As far as I understand, getting pet problems dealt with is a matter of hours of labour and months of lead time for people on the receiving end, with an uncertain outcome. Here’s an example from my strata building in VIC.
Pets are allowed here if there’s a medical necessity. Consequently there are several medically necessary dogs on my floor alone. The six-month-old stone floors in common areas had to be resurfaced due to uncleaned messes, and cameras installed, at a shared cost to every lot (pets or not) because the culprit/s would not pay.
Most of the dogs are relatively quiet. Possibly this is the case for most strata pets. But in high density living, it only takes one. The Owners’ Corp requested video evidence to eliminate ‘he said, she said’. So far, video of three sessions of machine gun barking has been provided. After the first two recordings were submitted to the OC, the occupants not only didn’t take better care of their pet, they got a second barking dog.
The OC manager now says it’s a ‘civil matter’ and whoever isn’t entertained by the animals’ noise and distress will have to take the owners to VCAT personally. The owners can be asked but not required by the OC to consider their neighbours. The manager also says removing a pet is difficult—read unlikely.
Given one bad pet owner has a widespread effect; and the fact that issues like barking and soiling are common (not a criticism of pets, just reality); and the apparent longevity and complication in resolving problems, I take no comfort in knowing there are provisions and processes.
Any thoughts, strata gurus? Help!
On a rental front, property owners should have the right to say whether they want an animal as part of a tenancy. Market forces will turn them pro-pet if pet-inclusive tenancies prove to be a good investment.
Thanks for your thoughts JimmyT. Absolutely, there’s a culture of contempt for by-laws. I question whether by-laws restricting pets are always harsh. However we live, want doesn’t equal need or right.
In the case of my building, what’s harsh is someone with a real medical condition having to get rid of a neighbour’s pet. Even harsher is the fate of the pet, which may end up in a shelter or worse. All because it’s easy to cheat the assessment process. As some people in my building were openly owning up to doing.
Rather than ejecting pets after they’re proven to be a nuisance or a medical problem for a neighbour, it would be kinder to people and animals to have an effective assessment process up front. One that recognises how community-minded strata pet owners need to be.
Recently our strata building had a (false) fire alarm at 5am.
We all piled out onto the street in our pyjamas clutching our nearest and dearest. I never knew so many of my neighbours had pets!
The building (in VIC) doesn’t allow pets unless there’s a medical requirement.
Some of us were chatting and several holding dogs swapped tips about pretending medical conditions to GPs that warrant a pet. Personally I support people having well-cared-for pets that cause no problems but it did make me cynical about the assessment of medical requirements.
In the case of a pet owner’s neighbour being allergic to pets or debilitated by fear of them, it seems unfair that those difficulties can be trumped by a faked medical condition. Pet ownership and its impact on others needs to be taken more seriously.