Homeowner Says Love Me, Love My Dogs ...

[Mila's Mum]

In today's Sunday Mail (Brisbane) -

Online link has now appeared

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/two-dogs-are-better-than-one-says-owner-who-beat-one-pet-policy/story-fnihsrf2-1227109892646

Edited November 2, 2014 by Mila's Mum

[mita]

Yes, I read that in the Courier-Mail this morning. Top marks to the person who heard the appeal against the body corporate's change of mind about owning 2 dogs. Also full marks to the young woman who owns the lovely pair of kelpie crosses. There was strong evidence presented how well she cares for & manages her dogs. The fact that she's a loving & thoroughly responsible dog owner has paid off!

Edited November 2, 2014 by mita

[Rosetta]

These Body Corporates really need to be challenged! Many people have been caused terrible misery by being forced to give up pets because some Body Corporate Committees think they can make up rules as they like. Its happening more and more that tribunals are finding in favour of the pet owner - and about time too. A fair outcome in this case.

[mita]

I totally agree with you, Rosetta.

[Rosetta]

I totally agree with you, Rosetta.

I get on my soapbox a bit about this issue :) I have seen this happen to sometimes elderly people who don't have the capability or knowledge to pursue and defend their rights and are bullied into parting with a beloved pet - its heartbreaking for them

[Trisven13]

By the same token a lot of people buy into strata BECAUSE of the restrictions on owning dogs. There are two sides to it and it is why I would NEVER buy into strata - and I work in the industry :laugh:

[keetamouse]

I live in a townhouse and my neighbours know I do rescue but they would be horrified to know exactly how many dogs I do have.

Maree

CPR

[Rosetta]

The opinion of the Tribunals seem to be coming around to the view that an apartment is still a person's home and they should have the right to have a pet as long as certain reasonable conditions are adhered to. It is just a matter of following rules - no different to all the other rules that people in a strata complex must abide by. If people are ignorant of their neighbours amenity then there are plenty of ways they can cause disruption regardless of whether they have a pet. I believe that all new apartment complexes being built in NSW will automatically be pet friendly.

[Trisven13]

The draft of the legislation in NSW did not make it automatic but optional to the developer with a mandatory by-law review at the 1st AGM.

It could change when the next draft comes out though of course.

[mita]

I totally agree with you, Rosetta.

I get on my soapbox a bit about this issue :) I have seen this happen to sometimes elderly people who don't have the capability or knowledge to pursue and defend their rights and are bullied into parting with a beloved pet - its heartbreaking for them

It's a different matter when the body corporate rules exist already... & a person is aware of any restrictions about pets before moving in. But the huge problem is when the body corporate decision allows someone to move in with a pet.... but then the rule is changed afterwards. This is what happened in the Brisbane case.

The young woman was given the OK to move in with 2 dogs. There were no complaints relating to the behaviour of the dogs or her management of them. But the body corporate changed to saying only 1 dog was allowed.... citing council by-laws that don't even exist.

I've notice that in some of the new unit developments, they have a blanket 'pet friendly' or 'no pets' written into a permanent basic charter for residency. That means those wanting to avoid living with pets around can be assured & those wanting to live with pets are also. It's the chopping & changing that's caused problems.

[Little Gifts]

When push comes to shove covenants on newly built estates and body corporate rules mean nothing. As long as a person is not doing anything unlawful on the premises or their unlawful actions are harming others, all those onsite rules supposedly designed to maintain peace and harmony have no legal standing in a court of law. Mind you, some body corporate peeps can be terribly unpleasant about getting their own way if a person tries to buck the system.

I think a lot of the rules are quite elitist. I've been visiting numerous complexes the last couple of weeks (helping a sibling find a place to live) and many would be perfect for a pet owner - single level units, fenced in yards, fenced off complex, quiet street access, pathed areas, grassy areas, parks nearby (one even had a doggy door) but not one was open to renters with pets. One new place I went to obviously only had Stepford families living there. I could see kids playing quietly and swimming delicately in the pool but there was no kid noise because that was clearly against the rules. They told me their own gardener even came in and mowed/trimmed your enclosed back yard to ensure uniformity.

[Guest donatella]

There was lots of rage on the courier mail fb page with this story about how she was cruel for keeping 2 kelpies in a small townhouse. It was entertaining

[Sheridan]

This seems to be a peculiarly Australian complaint. Dogs don't actually need backyards.

[BarbedWire]

Maybe in some countries they don't need backyards because they have never had the luxury. I guess we could say that children don't need playgrounds either or even that families don't need bedrooms. They can all sleep in the living room. My dogs love their backyard which I define as an enclosed grassy area. Every morning they run around to investigate any new scents from any overnight trespassers and during the day they like to lie in the sun and just listen to what is happening around them. I as a dog owner need to provide them with a backyard because I think it keeps them happy and healthy.