- This topic has 8 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 3 months, 1 week ago by .
13/10/2020 at 7:51 pm #52438Loose PavingsFlatchatter
Just saw this pop up in my various news feeds. No idea as to the veracity of it and given the quality of the media these days the phrase ‘wrong end of another stick’ springs to mind.
Can Sue, Jimmy, or anyone with an actual clue provide information on this?
16/10/2020 at 6:30 pm #52544WhaleFlatchatter
I used to be a “Strata Guru” on this forum, and while my Wife and I are no longer Strata residents, I couldn’t resist adding some comments and advice regarding the recent Court ruling about the keeping of pets in Strata.
As well as holding TAFE Cert 4 in Strata Community Management, I also hold a Masters Degree in Applied Science (Chem), the relevance being that I understand the “limits” that can be set, both realistically and administratively, around prescribed parameters whether they be for the detection of chemical analytes or under Strata By-Laws.
Enough of that…..but the relevance of it to the current conundrum of how to manage the keeping of pets in Strata Communities is that an acceptance parameter of “zero” is neither realistic or administrable.
The Special By-Law (SBL) that I wrote for the 23 Lot Plan we then lived in, and that I then self-managed, put administratively simple conditions around the keeping of pets by Residents.
The SBL permitted aquariums and one (1) caged bird by Application, and as best I can recall placed each of these conditions upon Applications for other pets:
▪ Renters requiring their Landlord/Owner’s prior written consent to the keeping of pet/s on their Lot
▪ Applications for assistance animals being supported by a written verification as to the animal’s status (training) from Assistance Animals Australia.
▪ A letter from a registered veterenarian who had physically inspected the Applicant’s Lot and found it suitable for the keeping of the specific pet/s in terms of physical size (of the pet and the lot), and for the overall wellbeing of the animal.
▪ A photograph of the pet/s.
▪ A written statements around the normal undertakings by Applicants to not place pet “residues” into the sewerage system serving the Lot, to manage noise, to not to permit their pet/s to be unleashed on the Common Property etc etc, and their acknowledgement of the consequences of a breach of any Consent under the SBL.
Details of any Consents were included in a Pet Register that formed part of those items disclosed with Strata Inspections.
The operational consequences of this Special By-Law (SBL) were that those Residents who at best produced a letter from a GP to assert how much they needed their pet weren’t sent packing but were instead referred to the SBL, and only those with a genuine desire to keep and to properly care for their pet bothered to “jump through all the hoops” attached to that SBL.
As best I can recall, up until I “retired” from Strata Residents of eight Lots (of 23) had Consents to keep pets, only one had been served with a Notice to remove their pet after the 3 written warnings prescribed under the SBL, and perhaps of most significance, nobody had cause to run off to the NCAT because they’d been given a flatout NO to pets.
I hope that’s helpful, because I think I’ll now return to my retirement from this Forum (sorry Jimmy)
16/10/2020 at 1:35 am #52542TonyCFlatchatter
- This reply was modified 3 months, 1 week ago by .
The Court of Appeal is clearly a devotee of the movie “The Castle”. In the movie, Darryl Kerrigan successfully defended his home from compulsory acquisition. In this case, the Cooper family successfully defended their rights as ‘freehold owners’ to keep their dog in a strata scheme.
Effectively, the Court of Appeal is giving strata owners the same rights as home owners – which is the freedom to do what they like inside their strata units so long as they don’t disturb the neighbours.
In doing so, the Court has put a very powerful weapon into the hands of strata owners to sweep aside (invalidate or ignore) by-laws which restrict what they can do inside their unit (so long as they don’t disturb the neighbours).15/10/2020 at 12:05 pm #52534
Hi Jimmy, Could strata plans restrict the type of pets? Allow gold fish or birds but not dogs or cats for example.
You have to look at the fundamentals of the ruling – that by-laws can’t prevent people from doing what they want provided their choices don’t impact negatively on ther neighbours. From that perspective, banning cats and dogs would be harsh.
However, since the OC can create by-laws about what can and can’t happen on common property, you might be able to pass a by-law that says animals must be carried in the lift or across common property.15/10/2020 at 11:34 am #52524
Similar laws – not by-laws – have existed in NSW for yonks, going back to the 1996 Act, if not before.
But NSW has sunk into the mire of expectation that a) people will behave badly, given a chance and b) the Tribunal can’t be relied upon to defend residents’ rights.
The latter is a valid concern and that authoritarians among us love imposing their will on their neighbours. I guess we should just be thankful that they aren’t running for high political office.14/10/2020 at 1:57 pm #52531LukeFlatchatter
Could strata plans restrict the type of pets?
Allow gold fish or birds but not dogs or cats for example.14/10/2020 at 11:36 am #52526Austman
The default rules (by-laws) for Victoria, have never banned animals/pets. My guess is that well over 90% of stratas in Victoria use the default rules or incorporate them. That’s at least for the past 16 years.
The Victorian default rules (by-laws) are:
(4) If the owners corporation has resolved that an animal is a danger or is causing a nuisance to the common property, it must give reasonable notice of this resolution to the owner or occupier who is keeping the animal.
(5) An owner or occupier of a lot who is keeping an animal that is the subject of a notice under subrule (4) must remove that animal.
(6) Subrules (4) and (5) do not apply to an animal that assists a person with an impairment or disability.
While I realise that pets then can be an issue for an OC or an occupier to deal with if they become a danger or a nuisance, so far the sky hasn’t fallen.14/10/2020 at 3:47 pm #52529AJPFlatchatter
I am beyond furious that this has happened. We voted unanimously for the “no pets” bylaw earlier this year, after years of problems caused by dogs. I’m disgusted that this was now a waste of time and money.
My definition of “<b>harsh, unreasonable, oppressive</b>” is being forced to live next door to a barking dog. It is life destroying! I know, I’ve been there.
And having the bylaw where they have to ask for permission is useless. They get a unanimous ‘no’ vote, then they go to NCAT who allows them to have the dog. The health and right of non-dog owners to live peacefully is completely ignored.13/10/2020 at 7:54 pm #52442
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.