Flat Chat Forum From the Front Page Current Page

  • Creator
    Topic
  • #51462
    Jimmy-TJimmy-T
    Keymaster

    More than 1300 pet lovers have signed up to a petition demanding that blanket bans on pets in strata be revoked, after only two days of it being online on the NSW parliament website. At least 20, 000 signatures are required to force the issue being debated in Parliament. But but having achieved nearly seven percent of …
    https://www.flat-chat.com.au/pet-petition/

Viewing 10 replies - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • Author
    Replies
  • #51601
    Jimmy-TJimmy-T
    Keymaster
    Chat-starter

    Firstly Jimmy, I’m horrified at the thought that their could end up being a block of units with 200 dogs …

    Selective reading? I actually said “…larger blocks where a majority totalling  200 owners who want to allow pets (but not necessarily own them) …”

    Here’s the thing, AJP, there are large blocks that allow pets and none that I know of that have 200 dogs in them.

    Statistically, I think about one-third of all Australian families have pets.  The numbers are a lot lower among apartment residents, either because they are not allowed or they don’t want them.

    Also, pets covers cats too, so it would have to be a huge block of well over 1000 units to even get close to  there being 200 dogs.  So big, I reckon, you wouldn’t even notice.

    I live in a pet-friendly building of 130 units which has, I’d say about 20 dogs (tops) in residence.  It’s rarely a problem but when it becomes one , it’s dealt with. The problem isn’t pets, it’s people.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 4 weeks ago by .
    #51555
    AvatarCosmo
    Flatchatter

    “This makes me really angry. Before our strata introduced a pet ban living here was impossible.

    I have rented and lived in strata where pets have been allowed, unfortunately I can see and have experienced AJP’s point of view.

    I have had pets do a lot of damage to strata property or more than the bond.  I have had circumstances where the full degree of the damage done was not discovered until occupiers have been long gone.  I have had owners swear the pets are quiet and won’t be a nuisance only to find out that they are both.  In practice there are sometimes real lifestyle and financial issues, with allowing pets.

    Evicting a pet, especially where the pet’s owner ‘owns’, is extremely difficult and creates acrimonious disputes.

    I am not saying pets should not be allowed but I think the current laws (in NSW) are adequate and reasonable.  Other owners have an asset and lifestyle that they need to and have a right to protect.

    EDITOR’S NOTE:  When Flatchatters use “quote” rather than “Reply”,  it should be to highlight a specific point, or respond to a particular post, rather than just repeat the whole of a previous correspondent’s post.  But it’s a great device, when used correctly.

    To use it, click on “quote” on top of the post you are responding to, delete the parts you are not referring to (or just leave the first sentence if you are responding to the whole post), and don’t forget to “unquote” your response.  I have corrected this post as an example of what to do. Previously it had the whole of the previous posters message, then the response, all as “quotes”.  But kudos for at least trying.

    • This reply was modified 1 month, 4 weeks ago by .
    #51595
    AvatarAJP
    Flatchatter

    Firstly Jimmy, I’m horrified at the thought that their could end up being a block of units with 200 dogs, even when 100 other owners don’t want them.

    Secondly, in my experience, it’s the owners that don’t live in the unit block that vote in favour of dogs, because they think it will make it easier for them to get a tenant (although the opposite is often the case). I know all votes are equal, but I don’t believe that owners who don’t live in a block have the right to inflict dogs on the owners who do live in the block.

    #51593
    Sir HumphreySir Humphrey
    Strataguru

    I think there should be a middle ground…

    I think the ACT has that middle ground. A particular animal can be refused permission on reasonable grounds and reasonable conditions can be imposed. What you can’t do in the ACT is ban pets outright. It would be hard to find reasonable grounds to ban a couple of goldfish but there could be reasonable grounds to refuse such a quantity of fish that an aquarium containing many tonnes of water would be required, possibly overloading the building structure. Similarly, a cat confined to the unit area would be hard to reasonably refuse but an elephant might be.

    #51586
    Jimmy-TJimmy-T
    Keymaster
    Chat-starter

    I think there should be a middle ground.  An NCAT Member who ruled that “no-pet” by-laws were illegal (later overturned on appeal) said that the by-law might be better suited to smaller unit blocks.

    I think that makes perfect sense for a lot of reasons. Firstly, people who want to live in apartment blocks but don’t want to live under the same roof as animals should be able to do so in peace and certainty that this isn’t going to change.

    Also, people in smaller blocks are more likely to interact directly with residents’ pets.

    But it seems grossly unfair in larger blocks where a majority totalling  200 owners who want to allow pets (but not necessarily own them) can be prevented from doing so by 100 owners.

    And in the reality of strata living in NSW, it would be 20 owners who don’t want pets blocking the other 30 who bother to turn up at general meetings.

    Allow “no-pet” by-laws in small buildings (under 100 units) that don’t want animals but also allow by-laws with reasonable conditions in large blocks where a simple majority of owners want to allow them.

    • This reply was modified 2 months ago by .
    #51562
    AvatarAJP
    Flatchatter

    Cosimo “I have had pets do a lot of damage to strata property or more than the bond.”

    You are correct Cosmo. Don’t even start me on the damage. I have an investment property and my tenant moved in a dog without my knowledge or permission and against the bylaws. I only found out when other residents complained about it. He moved out when he was told he had to get rid of the dog. The place stunk, the carpets were stained and had to be replaced, and the underlay was covered in watermarks and mould from the dog urinating inside. The courtyard was covered in dog poop which I had to pick up. Paintwork and drapes were also damaged by the dog. It cost me $11,000 to fix the damage and the bond didn’t go anywhere near close to covering it. I also lost a couple of months rent while getting the unit ready for a new tenant.

    There are also medical reasons for not allowing dogs in strata. Years ago I got a job in the west of NSW where I rented a strata property that went with the job. The previous tenant had kept a dog in the unit. Dog hairs were stuck everywhere to the carpet and two industrial cleans didn’t get rid of them. Not only was I constantly having to brush dog hairs off my clothes, but they gave me asthma to the extent that I had to move out and give up the job.

    I have had very bad experiences with dogs as a tenant, an owner occupier and a landlord and am very strongly against them being allowed in strata complexes.

     

    #51551
    AvatarAJP
    Flatchatter

    This makes me really angry. Before our strata introduced a pet ban living here was impossible. Dog owners went to work leaving their barking mongrels to destroy everyone else’s life for hours and hours day after day. My mental health was severely impacted. People might have the right to own a dog, but they don’t have the right to impose that dog on other people’s lives.

    It’s really simple. If you want to own a dog, don’t move into a complex that bans pets and then think it’s your right to challenge the bylaw. Dog haters have rights too, and they have the right to protect their own mental health. In my opinion the sound of a dog barking is the most annoying, horrible, soul destroying sound in the world and it drives me absolutely insane. There is nothing I wouldn’t do to keep our complex pet free.

    #51544
    Sir HumphreySir Humphrey
    Strataguru

    It might assist in making the argument to point to other jurisdictions:

    In the ACT, new default rules (ACT-speak for by-laws) that apply from later this year include a ‘pet-friendly’ default. Existing Owners Corporations can take up the new default or adopt their own ‘pet-friendly’ ‘alternative rule’. An alternative rule is not valid to the extent that it results in the rules prohibiting a unit owner from keeping an animal, or allowing an animal to be kept, within the unit or the common property in any circumstances.

    In the absence of either the default rule or alternative ‘pet-friendly’ rule, the Act provides that permission must be obtained but must not be unreasonably withheld. Conditions may be applied.

    #51542
    Jimmy-TJimmy-T
    Keymaster
    Chat-starter

    As of Wednesday morning (19th) the numbers were over 3000

    #51463
    Jimmy-TJimmy-T
    Keymaster
    Chat-starter

    As of Sunday 16th, the number of signatures has risen to more than 1700

Viewing 10 replies - 1 through 10 (of 10 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.

Flat Chat Forum From the Front Page Current Page