- This topic has 3 replies, 3 voices, and was last updated 1 month ago by .
16/01/2020 at 7:22 am #47969MailboxFlatchatter
There is an important point which is usually overlooked/ignored by NCAT and anyone seeking to bring a dog into a strata.
Where anyone living in the strata suffers from cynophobia ( a medical condition meaning fear of dogs) then they may be discriminated against by anyone trying to bring a dog into the strata eg probable encounters in lifts/stars or elsewhere on common property.16/01/2020 at 7:40 am #47988Jimmy-TKeymaster
I would imagine that if the building had a no-pets policy and someone tried to bring one in, the cynophobia argument would be quite persuasive. This would be less so in a block that already had pets that a cynophobic moved into.
Section 158 of the NSW Act (below) clearly allows even for animals permitted under by-laws to be removed if they cause a nuisance to other residents. But why a cynophobic would move into a building that allows pets is beyong me.
That said, some of the decisions coming out of NCAT are bizarre or, at the very least, unpredictable. They seem to be making it up as they go, then the Justice department expects strata owners to pay for their Members’ idiocies by correcting them on appeal.
The recent case in Queensland where a Member of their Tribunal announced that he was ignoring both the High Court of West Australia and the Privy Council in London and instead using as precedent a very minor and very specific low-level NCAT case in Sydney, illustrates perfectly that Tribunals across Australia are populated by incompetents and fools, ruling on the basis of their own bias rather than any adherence to or observance of law.Section 158 Order for removal of an animal permitted under by-laws
The Tribunal may, on application by an interested person, make an order against a person who is keeping an animal on a lot or common property in accordance with the by-laws for a strata scheme, if the Tribunal considers that the animal causes a nuisance or hazard to the owner or occupier of another lot or unreasonably interferes with the use or enjoyment of another lot or of the common property.
The Tribunal may order that the person—
cause the animal to be removed from the parcel within a specified time, and be kept away from the parcel, or
within a time specified in the order, take such action as, in the opinion of the Tribunal, will terminate the nuisance or hazard or unreasonable interference.25/01/2020 at 10:33 am #48154Shoo-inFlatchatter
It seems like it would open a huge can of worms to start making rulings on the basis of what are by definition irrational fears.25/01/2020 at 10:34 am #48157Jimmy-TKeymaster
Like fear of worms …
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.