When I kicked off a debate about a right to have companion animals in body corporates and rental properties I wasn’t actually aware that Andrew Barr had already fired the starters’ gun on the issue and had introduced the Unit Titles Amendment Bill 2008 which, amongst other things, addresses part of this issue.
With debate on the Bill today the RSPCA has announced how pleased they are.
Of particular interest is this bit:
- Clause 12 – New sections 51A to 51C – creates sections 51A, 51B and 51C.
Section 51A Animals – owners corporation’s consent the provision provides that an owners corporation must not unreasonably withhold consent for the keeping of an animal by the unit owner or occupier. An owners corporation can impose conditions on the consent.
The provision was previously provided for in the default articles in the Unit Titles regulations however the provisions have been moved into the Act to ensure the rights of a unit owner, to keep animals or allow animals to be kept in a unit, are protected. The Unit Titles regulation provided that an owners corporation could amend its articles to preclude any right of any unit owner to keep an animal.
The unit owner can apply to the ACAT if a dispute arises about the keeping of an animal.
Which just leaves a right to reasonable pet ownership in rental properties. 37% of our poll respondents reckon it’s a vote clincher for whoever runs on it (and another 25% consider it important but not decisive).
Our opponents are sad, old, will never change their vote, and will die soon. So who do you really want to be lining up with?
Loading ...
What’s Your opinion?
Pet rights in body corporates coming today.
Oldest to Newst
Thumper said :
Wrong!!
It will be leaking all over your lounge room carpet ….
*tee hee*
A pet right I would want might be to know all others unit entitlements in the property.
hehe, my cats eat live Chihuahauas for dinner every night.
Chihuahaua hair?
HAHA get a real dog before you talk about damage.
Piratemonkey said :
Spot on, Pirate. Young kids and late teens/young “adults” have a much better track record in wrecking places than pet animals.
I was eyeing my house the other day, to see what damage my dogs have done. Well, they put fur everywhere (mostly on any black clothes I own, I was still finding chihuahua hair on things 4 months into a US stint). And the boy has been gnawing my Ikea footstool to get me to stop sewing and play with him (I was seated on the footstool at the time). And that’s about it.
I once rented a house in Turner where the Hills hoist was on a rather unusual angle – it got that way because the previous tenants had used it to “lift” an engine block out of their Valiant.
Hell young adults like myself are certainly better at destroying rentals with parties then any animal
And thus the owner should have the final say.
For instance, if they are bogans with a LH Torana you will end up with a 308 engine block leaking oil all over your garage floor and your sink will be used for holding petrol to clean 450 Holley carburettors.
Piratemonkey said :
I think people should be able to set up ‘no children’ body corporates as well.
The way i see it animals and young children are both roughly even in their ability to destroy things. Especially when it comes to carpets at least. If we are going to be allowed to discriminate against one surely we can discriminate against the other. Wait we can’t hmmmm :-s
Hell young adults like myself are certainly better at destroying rentals with parties then any animal.
In an environment where the market is so tight I think its ridiculous that people can be discriminated against over such a non issue. Especially the elderly who clearly need the companionship and who find it the hardest to move. If there is damage to a property the ranter has to pay, what they do or have in their apartment is their own business.
Clown Killer said :
Mmm, yes I haven’t read the fine print myself so all comments I make are framed by that ignorance. Body Corporates are frustrating things. I guess people buy into a body corporate so they buy into those circumstances. I’d hate to live in one though, they sound so awful.
Now that’s what I would have a problem with.