- This topic has 7 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 7 years ago by .
-
Topic
-
Our complex has had a No Animal by-law for many years and that particular by-law was reviewed at last AGM and OC resolved to leave by-law in place. Recently a new owner moved in with a large dog, many complaints received by SC who requested SM to advise Owner via letter of bylaw and requesting the animal be removed. After firstly responding dog belonged to a visitor and was only there once – so according to them there was no real issue to be addressed (there is already an existing by-law in place re no visitor pets etc). Subsequently over the next few weeks they were presented with video from complex CCTV showing the dog still residing at complex they have advised ownership of the dog, and that if we don’t stop “bullying” them with continual letters from SM they will be taking the matter to NCAT on following grounds:-
1. They consulted Solicitor during process of purchasing unit who provided them information that new rules would permit them to keep an animal. As such they took all reasonable steps to ensure they complied.
2. They keep the animal confined inside their unit and always carry the dog when transporting from unit, across CP to any public area.
3. They always take and use plastic bags to remove animal waste from CP grassed areas.
4. To date there have been no complaints about barking.
5. Dog has been a family pet for many years and because there are no friends/family that can take the dog it would have to be put down which would be cruel.
After talking to several different SPs we have been told they will probably get a NCAT decision to allow them to keep the dog, but include something like a sunset clause advising they cant replace the dog if it dies (its not an old dog). Is this really the likely outcome? What’s the use of by-laws if this is true.
-
Replies
-
@bangles said:
They have advised ownership of the dog, and that if we don’t stop “bullying” them with continual letters from SM they will be taking the matter to NCAT.Just to be clear – I am pro-pet when it comes to strata. I am also pro by-laws, so this is what I think …
1. They consulted Solicitor during process of purchasing unit who provided them information that new rules would permit them to keep an animal. As such they took all reasonable steps to ensure they complied.
So they brought the dog into a scheme knowing it has a “no pets” by-law? Their beef is with their solicitor for giving them bad advice.
2. They keep the animal confined inside their unit and always carry the dog when transporting from unit, across CP to any public area.
Irrelevant. The by-law says “no pets” not “pets must be carried”.
3. They always take and use plastic bags to remove animal waste from CP grassed areas.
So they let their dog crap on common property? Nice!
4. To date there have been no complaints about barking.
See response to point 2.
5. Dog has been a family pet for many years and because there are no friends/family that can take the dog it would have to be put down which would be cruel.
They should have thought of that when they decided to buy an apartment in a scheme that they knew had a ‘no pets’ by-law.
After talking to several different SPs we have been told they will probably get a NCAT decision to allow them to keep the dog, but include something like a sunset clause advising they cant replace the dog if it dies (its not an old dog). Is this really the likely outcome? What’s the use of by-laws if this is true.
I don’t know if it is true, especially in a case where someone has knowingly decided to defy the by-laws before they moved in, then openly lied when they were challenged.
I don’t know how much difference this makes but I think your mistake was to send letters rather than official Notices To Comply followed by action to impose fines.
And that would be my next step. Much as I think pets in strata are generally a good thing, I respect the rights of people who don’t want to be around them and have no truck with people who decide the by-laws won’t apply to them.
The only appropriate way to respond to threats is to say “bring it on”. I would be sending the first Notice To Comply at the earliest opportunity.
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.
I basically agree with everything Jimmy says. Especially getting the Notice to Comply out asap.
What I find interesting and in your favour is that: “After firstly responding dog belonged to a visitor and was only there once” They later changed their story to “They consulted a Solicitor during process of purchasing unit who provided them information that new rules would permit them to keep an animal. As such they took all reasonable steps to ensure they complied”
You should get evidence as to their statement re the dog being a visitor’s, that could be a statement from the person they verbally advised.
It would also be interesting to see what evidence they have of this solicitor’s advice. My guess is it won’t be in writing at least not in the purchase documents. What were the “all reasonable steps” they took and what were they attempting to comply with? To my knowledge a solicitor’s purchase investigations include obtaining a copy of the by laws of your strata from the Land and Property Office, so it would be a big over sight to have gotten a copy and not see there was a problem.
They also said “To date there have been no complaints about barking.”, however you state ” many complaints received by SC”. What was the nature of these complaints? If the matter goes to NCAT the strata needs to get as many complaints (both made before and recently) as to any nuisance caused by the presence of the dog.
My experience with tribunals is that many participants front up without documents or evidence supporting what they want the tribunal to accept as facts. If the strata is hesitant to go to NCAT try presenting the documents/evidence you gather to the owner and ask them to address each one.
@Cosmo said:
If the strata is hesitant to go to NCAT …The strata? Committee? Manager? Sphere? Caster?
Come on Cosmo, you have been posting here for a long time. You are better than this!
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.
I am sorry Jimmy I think you have over estimated me!
I am definitely not better than that …. you will have to in the words of that great philosopher Pauline Hanson “please explain” *smile*
“The Strata” has no meaning (except in your mind) unless you put another word after it. A lot of people coming to this forum are first-timers looking for advice in a confusing world. Many of them don’t know the difference between strata committee, strata manager, strata scheme, strata plan, owners corporation, building manager or rental agent.
It is therefore incumbent upon us regulars to be clear in our intentions.
And as for the poster who recently took the trouble to write “the strata (sorry Jimmy)”, requiring more keystrokes than just writing “manager”, I am speechless.
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.
The Strata – that strange many-headed beast, when you cut one head off it just grows again. By the way “strata” denotes layers.
Moving right along – I am an animal lover, I have always owned dogs and currently own a dog. However, in this case the OC has determined, and confirmed quite recently, that it does not wish to have animals. And that is fine, it is up to the owners to decide the rules that they want to apply to their scheme.
I suggest you not get caught up in responding to the owner’s arguments or reasons for keeping a dog in breach of the by-laws. For the OC’s purposes it is entirely irrelevant what went on between the owner and his solicitor. That is not the OC’s problem.
The owner lied about keeping a dog, claiming it was visiting, therefore it is reasonable to assume that the owner knew from the outset they were breaching the by-law and to that extent has acted in bad faith.
No-one gives a flying fig if the dog has been a family pet for many years, which seems to be contradicted by the dog being relatively young.
The owner has not taken all reasonable steps to comply with the by-laws, because they are breaching the by-law that provides that no animals are to be kept. A common response when someone gets caught out breaching a rule or by-law is for them to claim they are being bullied or harassed. So call their bluff – issue a notice to comply, and remember an owner can be fined for a breach.
I believe that in this case where the owners have only recently determined to keep the no animal by-law, there is a reasonable possibility that if it went to the Tribunal the by-law would be upheld. If it isn’t, you have to ask what is the point of having a choice as to the by-laws you have regarding animals? As bangles says what is the use of by-laws if they are just going to be ignored or overturned?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.