Management Company & Pet Policy

Trend Setter in Training

Hi,

Looking for some advice or past experiences. Myself and gf have been living in apt for last 15 months and about 13 months ago got a yorkie. We approached LL and management company before buying and we're told by mgt co that it was up to the specific LL, nothing in the mgt rules on pets.

So fast forward 13 months and we have just been informed by LL who attended AGM that the issue of pets in the complex has been raised by one individual. Not making a complaint about the dog and two others in our block but questioning the rules. Turns out there is a no pets stipulation in original mgt rules.

LL who we have gotten to know quite well and have a good relationship with has told us that the mgt co are going to post the rules to all tenants, effectively stating that anyone with pets are in breach.

Do these changes (I use the phrase lightly) as they are not changes really, but would they need to be something voted upon by all owners? Do we have a leg to stand on after originally being told (verbally) that pets were okay? Would a complaint need to made against us and the dog before action could be taken and if our own LL still accepts pets then what can be done?

We have never had an issue with anyone with the dog, she is v quiet and always on a leash going in and out of the block.

Sorry for the rant just v annoyed at this and know it will extremely hard to find another place to live.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts or inputs.

athtrasna

To be honest, as someone who lives in a high density development, I feel that dogs have no place in them. A unit 20 doors away from me has a dog (against the rules, MC are in the middle of action against them) and I reckon the dog barking disturbs at least 70 of the 81 units.

Your dog may not be disturbing others but in my experience one dog in a development leads to others.

The management company have been negligent in not trying to enforce the rule if it is contained in the original leases. Your landlord is the one in breach, landlords are responsible for ensuring their tenants comply with the development rules. Any action would be against the landlord who then would probably ask you to get rid of the dog. Depending on the conditions of the lease there could be sanctions against the landlord for failing to comply.

If the rule is already in existence no vote is necessary. Even if it wasn't it could have been agreed at the AGM by a majority of attendees provided the quorum is reached.

djimi

athtrasna wrote: »

To be honest, as someone who lives in a high density development, I feel that dogs have no place in them.

Fully agree. Several apartments in our complex have dogs and they are a bloody nightmare. Give me a vote and Id have them banned in the morning. Harsh perhaps on the couple that are genuinely well behaved, but many days spend listening to two mongrels barking constantly below me, or not being able to walk into the car park without being accosted by the neighbours dog have made me somewhat unsympathetic!

Trend Setter in Training

Thanks for the replies. Ye are entitled to your opinions and I can understand where ye are coming from.

The block is small, 8 units. However, that doesn't make a difference if she was causing noise / trouble. My grievance is with the original advice as would never have got the dog in the first place if we had known. As I said no complaints on our dog or two others in the block so will just have to see what comes from the mgt co.

athtrasna

The management company should contact your landlord and not you as your landlord is the person who has a legally binding contract with the MC. You technically have a grievance against your landlord for false information but it doesn't give you a right to have a pet where pets are not allowed.

The_Conductor

athtrasna wrote: »

The management company should contact your landlord and not you as your landlord is the person who has a legally binding contract with the MC. You technically have a grievance against your landlord for false information but it doesn't give you a right to have a pet where pets are not allowed.

Athtrasna is 100% accurate.
Unfortunately- if you intend to stay in the complex- you are going to have to rehome the dog.
Certain pets (like fish) may be tolerated- but dogs etc- are a no-no in general.

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

Athtrasna is 100% accurate.
Unfortunately- if you intend to stay in the complex- you are going to have to rehome the dog.
Certain pets (like fish) may be tolerated- but dogs etc- are a no-no in general.

The OP might want to google the principle of "estoppel"; the management company has stated that there is no preclusion to the owning of a dog and the OP has acted on that assertion of fact.

The_Conductor

Marcusm wrote: »

The OP might want to google the principle of "estoppel"; the management company has stated that there is no preclusion to the owning of a dog and the OP has acted on that assertion of fact.

The tenant should not have been given misinformation, however, notwithstanding that- there is a binding contract in place, which clearly states that pets are not allowed. Its a tiny development (8 units)- it would appear likely a verbal opinion was offered to the landlord- who should have checked his or her lease by rights- before they offered false assurances to the tenant.

If the tenant has an issue- its with their landlord- not the Management Company- the tenant has no relationship with the Management Company- only their landlord.

You can quote estoppel till the cows come home- it doesn't trump contract law however- and in this case- the issue, as it arises, is between the tenant and the landlord.

seamus

athtrasna wrote: »

You technically have a grievance against your landlord for false information but it doesn't give you a right to have a pet where pets are not allowed.

Incorrect.

If the OP was not provided with a copy of the management company's rules with his lease agreement, then he cannot reasonably be required to adhere to those rules.

Especially given that this was doublechecked by the OP, then the OP has no obligation to abide by rules which he neither agreed to nor which were provided to him on request.

You're right - the issue is between the landlord and the management company. But the landlord cannot insist on the pet being rehomed because there is no "No pets" rule either implied or explicit in the OP's lease agreement. The landlord is in breach of his contract. The OP is not.

odds_on

But a management company can bring in a rule of no pets in a complex at any time (provoded agreed at an AGM). Then any person residing in the complex would have to get rid of their animal or move.

My complex has a no pets rule, but there is still dog mess in the garden area and along the pavement. If ALL owners were responsible and scooped up the mess, the place (and most towns) would be a lot nicer and a lot more pleasant to walk around.

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

The tenant should not have been given misinformation, however, notwithstanding that- there is a binding contract in place, which clearly states that pets are not allowed. Its a tiny development (8 units)- it would appear likely a verbal opinion was offered to the landlord- who should have checked his or her lease by rights- before they offered false assurances to the tenant.

If the tenant has an issue- its with their landlord- not the Management Company- the tenant has no relationship with the Management Company- only their landlord.

You can quote estoppel till the cows come home- it doesn't trump contract law however- and in this case- the issue, as it arises, is between the tenant and the landlord.

In making my suggestion, I assumed two things:

1. That the OP, as tenant, had spoken with the MC directly - sensible MCs will interact with tenant's in order to manage effectively.

2. The MC is the freeholder or superior leaseholder from whom the landlord derives his leasehold title from which he has carved out a tenancy to grant to the OP. bearing in mind general practice and the MUD Act, this is a reasonable assumption.

As the superior leaseholder, the MC would be entitled to vary the lease or waive certain conditions. It sounds as if the OP, acting in good faith and without any bad intent, sought an appropriate permission which the MC was likely to have been in a position to provide.

If this was a big bucks case, which it is not, ican guarantee you that the issue of estoppel would very much be in point. In the current circumstances, I woud seeit as a matter of embarrassment for the managing agent which, based on the OP's post, has acted inappropriately.

djimi

seamus wrote: »

The landlord is in breach of his contract. The OP is not.

I dont think it matters really. The end result is going to be the same; the conditions set by the management company have been breached and this is going to have to be rectified. The tenant can take it up all they like with the landlord, but as far as the management company are concerned they wont care one iota what the landlord told their tenant.

Trend Setter in Training

Thanks again guys, it appears to be a straightforward yet with a few debatable points.

We would never rehome our dog so going to have to wait and see. I do understand why non dog lovers / owners don't want them in their complex or about. We have spoken with the other dog owners in the block and one in a second block and are all in same position.

As far as I know there was no votes taken or specific complaints made at the recent AGM. We would be pleading ignorance on the rules and I believe the Mgt co rep has accepted that he told us the incorrect policy on pets along with the LL. Original lease had no reference to pets and since that 12 months were up we have been been on a rolling agreement with no further lease signed. As I said earlier we have a good relationship with LL, don't hold it against either the MC or LL for the error but just annoyed that we can be told retrospectively about a policy that we had enquired about specifically, for it then to be thrown in our face and told we will have to move on.

It wouldn't be something I would be willing to fight on as there are more important thing in life, we have had a word with the individual who brought up the issue and hope he may not push it (not holding much hope as he is a stubborn individual who apparently has done similar acts in the past). With no complaints, no noise, mess, damage to communal areas, I hope common sense may prevail.

The_Conductor

I'd like to clarify- when I mentioned lease- I didn't mean the tenant's lease- I meant the landlord's lease. The landlord doesn't own the unit- its vested in the Management Company and on a long lease to the landlord (typically a 900 year lease). It is the terms in the landlord's lease that are sacrosanct- not those of the tenant's lease.

djimi

Trend Setter in Training wrote: »

We would never rehome our dog so going to have to wait and see. I do understand why non dog lovers / owners don't want them in their complex or about. We have spoken with the other dog owners in the block and one in a second block and are all in same position.

Just to clarify, my feelings have nothing to do with me not being a dog lover; I would love to own another dog, however it is not going to happen until I can afford to move into a house. I simply do not believe that dogs have any business being in multi-property complexes. A barking dog is annoying when its your neighbour in a housing estate; its a downright menace when its in a property that shares walls with possibly three or more other apartments. There is not sufficient space for a dog in an apartment complex, and residents do not appreciate the mess they will leave in common areas.

Youre in the fortunate position that if the management company decide to strictly enforce this then at least you have the option of moving to another property.

hdowney

I feel for you OP. You asked the Mgt company and your landlord prior to getting a dog and were given the ok, you would have never proceeded if you hadn't been. Now you have been told that in the landlords original lease with the Mgt company there is a no dogs clause. I am not sure what is going to happen to you and the other dog owners in this instance, but the Mgt company can enforce the clause leaving you with the option of re-homing the dog or looking for another home yourself. I hope everything works out satisfactorily for you.

I am a dog lover - have two of my own - but I am with most posters on here that dogs in apartment complexes are complete no-nos. I have seen LARGE dogs in apartment complexes, how the heck can someone do that to a dog is beyond me . And all dogs bark, and as said above - sharing a (often quite thin) wall with someone who has a barking dog is not very nice.

Again OP I hope everything works out for you and I am sorry you were put in this position by the Mgt company and landlord. Also your neighbour sounds the busybody type!

bobbyss

Trend Setter in Training wrote: »

Hi,

Looking for some advice or past experiences. Myself and gf have been living in apt for last 15 months and about 13 months ago got a yorkie. We approached LL and management company before buying and we're told by mgt co that it was up to the specific LL, nothing in the mgt rules on pets.

So fast forward 13 months and we have just been informed by LL who attended AGM that the issue of pets in the complex has been raised by one individual. Not making a complaint about the dog and two others in our block but questioning the rules. Turns out there is a no pets stipulation in original mgt rules.

LL who we have gotten to know quite well and have a good relationship with has told us that the mgt co are going to post the rules to all tenants, effectively stating that anyone with pets are in breach.

Do these changes (I use the phrase lightly) as they are not changes really, but would they need to be something voted upon by all owners? Do we have a leg to stand on after originally being told (verbally) that pets were okay? Would a complaint need to made against us and the dog before action could be taken and if our own LL still accepts pets then what can be done?

We have never had an issue with anyone with the dog, she is v quiet and always on a leash going in and out of the block.

Sorry for the rant just v annoyed at this and know it will extremely hard to find another place to live.

Thanks in advance for any thoughts or inputs.

Do tenants have a written contract with individual landlords claryfing this point? for example a landlord X may stipulate dogs are allowed wheras landlord Y may say no?

jd

Just to clarify with the OP, when he says he approached Management Co. before buying the dog was it the directors of the OMC or the Management Agent he contacted?

mitosis

Something I don't understand. Are there two sets of mgmt Co rules, one which forbids animals and one which is non-specific? And the OP saw the latter but is being ruled on with the former?

hdowney

I don't think the OP 'saw' any Mgt company rules. More that they asked a Mgt company ?agent? what the story was and the ?agent? said there was nothing one way or the other and it was up to the OPs individual landlord to say whether they allowed pets in their letting property?

jd

mitosis wrote: »

Something I don't understand. Are there two sets of mgmt Co rules, one which forbids animals and one which is non-specific? And the OP saw the latter but is being ruled on with the former?

I'm guessing what happened is that the managing agent said there were no rules against dogs while in fact the position is that they are not allowed according to the lease the apartment "owners" have with the OMC.

Santa Cruz

In properly managed complexes there will be a copy of the rules posted on the notice boards at the entry. Also landlords/agents should give there tenants a copy of the house rules.
The Lease agreement between the apartment owner (shareholder) and the management will often include either a restriction entirely on pets or will allow them as long as they do not cause a nuisance to other residents. This should be specified in the house rules. A well kept pet shouldn't be a problem

Lantus

Santa Cruz wrote: »

In properly managed complexes there will be a copy of the rules posted on the notice boards at the entry. Also landlords/agents should give there tenants a copy of the house rules.
The Lease agreement between the apartment owner (shareholder) and the management will often include either a restriction entirely on pets or will allow them as long as they do not cause a nuisance to other residents. This should be specified in the house rules. A well kept pet shouldn't be a problem

Always an ambiguous statement 'nuisance' as tolerance for such things can be quite variable.

DoozerT6

I would always assume (and always have) that pets are not allowed in apartment blocks, no matter what I was told. I kinda thought it was a given, really! I always assumed that people who had pets in apartments were doing so against the rules of the apartment block/Mgt Co. Are there apartment blocks where pets are allowed?

Personally, I would love a pet (I also live in an apartment) but as I work during the day and the animal would have no access to the outside, I feel it would be unfair I know cats can be trained to be indoor cats, but still...sad face.....

Trend Setter in Training

jd wrote: »

Just to clarify with the OP, when he says he approached Management Co. before buying the dog was it the directors of the OMC or the Management Agent he contacted?

It was the director / manager of the company. I'm not 100% who else is involved with the company.

No rules etc posted anywhere in communal areas, again I'd imagine this will change soon.

As long as we given an appropriate amount of time to move / find another location if or when the situation matures.

Trend Setter in Training

DoozerT6 wrote: »

I would always assume (and always have) that pets are not allowed in apartment blocks, no matter what I was told. I kinda thought it was a given, really! I always assumed that people who had pets in apartments were doing so against the rules of the apartment block/Mgt Co. Are there apartment blocks where pets are allowed?

Personally, I would love a pet (I also live in an apartment) but as I work during the day and the animal would have no access to the outside, I feel it would be unfair I know cats can be trained to be indoor cats, but still...sad face.....

I would have too but there are places I have heard over the years that allow them. Hence the asking all parties involved in advance and also there being other pets in the block (in plain sight and not hidden etc) who had been there years.

If there had been an isolated or number of incidents reported leading to a complaint (which were warranted) then I would or could not disagree which the person in question. However, there hasn't been any that I know of other then the general complaint against the policy. Again I know (now) that it is in the rules but unfortunate that they only now want to enforce it. Squatters rights for the dogs...? ha