- This topic has 11 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 7 years, 10 months ago by .
-
Topic
-
We have a tenant (a group of international students) that moved into the building 2 months ago. We immediately found out that they were keeping a dog and a cat, and let the owner and the tenants know that it was not permitted and they must lodge an application to keep a pet. But they never did that, until another tenant lodged a complaint about some malicious behaviours demonstrated by the tenant, such as smoking in the balcony and in the bathroom with windows opened, flicking cigarette butts from the balcony and spitting from the balcony onto the car parking below their balcony. Only then the strata manager wrote formally to the owner about the unacceptable behaviours and keeping pets without approval. Now the tenant has applied to keep a whippet dog and a kitten, which has already been approved by the owner.
As an EC member, I intend to vote NO. Since we can’t unreasonably reject an application, I wonder what reasons are reasonable. Here are some that I have come up with, but I’m not sure if they are good enough:
1) They did not apply to keep pet when they moved in, especially when they were told in black and white that they must lodge an application two months ago. It showed that they had no intention to obey the rules.
2) They have demonstrated unacceptable behaviours and we doubt that they will abide by the conditions for keeping pets, such as carrying the pet when leaving and arriving at the property.
3) They were seen frequently with a shepherd, but when asked about how many dogs they had, they claimed the shepherd was only visiting.
4) After lodging the application, two EC members together witnessed that someone from that unit walked the shepherd to the backyard unleashed, and then walked the dog back to the unit a few minutes later, and then the person left the property by himself, leaving the shepherd in the unit. So we highly suspect that the shepherd is also kept by them but they were trying to hide the number of animals being kept, and they were already breaking the council rules and the conditions by unleashing the dog after they have signed to agree to the conditions listed on the application form.
Are the reasons above good enough?
-
Replies
-
sonido – Can you provide some more information please?
(1) Which state do you live in? Pet rules can be quite different between states.
(2) What does your animal/pet by-laws?
It is impossible to predict the decisions made by NCAT as they are individuals who bring their own biases and prejudices to the issues.
However, I would argue that a blatant disregard for the by-laws established to regulate the keeping of pets would be a reasonable reason for refusing, on the grounds that they have shown that they are irresponsible pet owners, regardless of the nature or behaviour of the pets concerned.
Playing devils advocate, if I were representing the tenants, I would argue that in the absence of any demonstrably negative consequences of having these pets in the scheme, then any refusal was unreasonable.
If you can marry the two – they didn’t obey the by-laws and the pets have been proved to be a nuisance – then you would probably win.
That said, there is a whiff of trying to find some way – any way – of dealing with nuisance tenants in this and that is something you need to steer clear of as it can only go against you at the Tribunal.
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.
sonido – To add to Jimmy T’s advice ….. Your arguments prima facie seem sound.
Your owners corporation could refuse the pet application and see what happens next. You would need to specify a date that you wish the pets to be removed from the premises by (e.g. 14 – 21 days). You would also need to stress that no visitors are permitted to bring any animal on to the premises without prior approval from the owner’s corporation.
The tenants may not opt to take this matter to NCAT. They may perceive it to be too difficult.
Your scheme’s by-laws regarding pets could be strengthened. Do you have a by-law stating that pets: must at all times be constrained and on a leash whilst on common property; and that pets must not be permitted to damage or soil common property; and that pet excrement must be double bagged before being placed in the garbage receptacles?
Your scheme’s by-laws regarding pets could be strengthened. Do you have a by-law stating that pets: must at all times be constrained and on a leash whilst on common property; and that pets must not be permitted to damage or soil common property; and that pet excrement must be double bagged before being placed in the garbage receptacles?
You could also establish some norms that would save on administrative bother. Our OC also included in our rule (aka by-law) blanket approval for certain numbers and sorts of animals that would cover most instances of reasonable animal keeping. That way people would know what they can do without needing approval and we would not have lots of residents inadvertently breaching the rules while doing something reasonable. Explicit individual approvals are now only required if you want to have a larger than usual number of animals or an unusual sort of animal. Eg. You would still need to apply if you want to keep an elephant and the EC could still decide that it is reasonable to reject such an application. If you want to have a couple of budgies in a cage you don’t need approval but if you want a substantial aviary with very many birds, you would still need approval.
sonido – Here is some information that you may find useful regarding Tribunal Rulings that have both denied or confirmed the Owner’s Corporations rejection of an application to keep an animal:
https://www.qbmstrata.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/BylawsOnline-Pet-FAQ.pdf
Animal owners have had their applications rejected based on the time that the animals will spend alone within the Lot. See https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCTTT/2008/1069.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=%20NSWCTTT%201069%20(4%20June%202008)
Perhaps this could be an argument that your strata scheme may use, particularly if the students will be away from the Lot for a significant part of the day, and the animals are young.
See also: https://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/nsw/NSWCTTT/2003/778.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=title(Engelman%20near%20Owners%20Corporation%20)
Hi, Sonido. Sorry to arrive late to the party. One way for a committee to be “reasonable” is to give permission subject to conditions. Based on my experiences in Queensland, the control of your pet problem lies within the conditions imposed on the owner. For pets, the conditions could/should start off:
1. Pets must be registered with the local council according to local council sub-laws or regulations. A copy of the original registration form has to accompany the application to keep a pet.
(This copy would have to be verified by contacting the local council.)
2. Where more than one pet is involved, an application for permission to keep more than one pet in an apartment/unit has to be approved by the local council. A copy of that permission for more than one pet has to accompany the pet application.
(Our local council stipulates – one dog per unit, one cat per unit, etc. Which effectively blocks two dogs unless your local council dodges confrontation by deferring to body corporate bylaws. The copy of that permission would have to be verified by contacting the local council.)
As noted above by Peter C, pets should be on leads or leashed on common property, owners should pick up and dispose of their pet’s faeces by dropping the double bagged item and contents in the waste industrial bin, etc.
(Pet owners have been known to leave pet faeces on their balconies for a number of days which usually contravenes local council health regs.)
Other conditions could include:
3. Pets must be carried while in the foyer area of the apartment block e.g. from a lift to an entry door.
(This poses a problem for owners of large pets e.g. elephants.)
4. If there are residents on a lift that a pet owner and their pet wish to enter, the pet owner must ask those residents if they are comfortable with travelling on a lift with their pet. Where residents do not feel comfortable, the pet owner and pet must wait for another lift.
(This is aimed more at large or potentially dangerous dogs.)
5. Where the pet’s behaviour (e.g. barking or defaecating on its unit balcony) causes a nuisance to residents in other units, the pet owner will take steps to remedy the pet’s behaviour.
The bylaws should finish with something like –
“Where the above pet bylaws are contravened, the pet owner will be given notice to remedy the breach. Failure to remedy the breach in seven (?) days will require the pet owner removing the pet from their lot within 30 days.”
Blanket bans on pets in apartment blocks are very difficult to sustain under adjudication because each case has to be judged on its merit otherwise the committee can be deemed as acting unreasonably. It is far easier to impose conditions that are reasonable within themselves when taken singly but, in total, are very prescriptive and require the pet owner to be responsible.
Based on some adjudications I’ve seen in Qld., it is possible for a committee to give permission or approval or not after the event, as in your situation, without being in contravention of bc legislation. The fall back position that applies in “difficult” decisions is for the committee to refer the decision to an extraordinary general meeting where all the owners are given the opportunity to vote. Providing the motion is properly framed, not illegal, etc., adjudicators are very reluctant to over-rule a decision arrived at by all owners.
Good luck, George
For those interested, I just posted our animal keeping rule as a new topic.
I honestly don’t think the family is going to do anything about their pets even when their applications are disapproved unless some action is going to be formally taken against them to ensure that they aren’t allowed to flout the rules after the judgement has been passed. Perhaps you should inform the owner of the apartment about the behaviour of his tenants (not that he would be able to do much about it) and perhaps he’ll get the hint enough to do something more stringent about how he screen his potential tenants.
Not sure about elsewhere but in the ACT owners and tenants are held jointly and separately responsible for breaches of the rules/bylaws.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.