New build house rules - no pets

Yeah needs to be in accom & property.

Most OMCs wont have an issue with a pet in your own home as long as it doesn't cause an annoyance. The contract allows them to deal with any problem pets should an issue arise.

Why would the management company go? There is a statutory requirement to have an OMC in multi unit developments built since 2011.

My point was that no matter how formidable you think you are, if the clause in the contract is legally binding and you agreed to it, then Fido would have to go.

You might not see it, but the legislation does.

”residential unit” means a unit in a multi-unit development which is— 

(a) designed for— 

(i) use and occupation as a house, apartment, flat or other dwelling, and 

(ii) has self-contained facilities;

https://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/2/section/1/enacted/en/index.html

Again, why wouldn’t the OMC exist?

If the developer is too specific the rule will be constantly challenged when a pet becomes an annoyance.

Generally there will be more than one person on the board of the OMC, it would probably be a collaborative review to determine if the pet is an annoyance to the other members of the OMC.

There is a similar clause on one of the apartments I own, about half of the residents have pets. There is only one resident who's pet has caused issues and they were forced to remove it.

Ray, “taking charge” usually means the LA accepts responsibility for the maintenance of footpaths, roads, external common areas, it does not mean the assume all the functions and responsibilities of the OMC. The OMC continues in place for all the other MUD requirements that the LA do not take responsibility for.

The OMC gets transferred to the unit owners when the units are sold, perhaps that is what you are thinking of, but that does not mean the OMC ceases to exist.

The developer is mentioned as there is generally no OMC until the development is completed, once sold an OMC is formed by the members that have purchased the units. I wouldn't get too bogged down with use of the word developer when only a snippet of the rules of ownership were provided.

There will generally be a clause in the contracts of sale that state that the same rules apply to the development when the developer hands over control of the estate to the OMC but that the OMC is free to update the rules with a majority vote. So if there are a lot of pet owners in the development ye can push to remove this clause in the future.

I personally think these types of rules are necessary to ensure enjoyment of the estate by all its occupants. While 90% of pet owners are responsible the 10% can really ruin it for others.

I dont belive you need to be an animal expert in order to determine when a pet is an annoyance to other members of the development. While an independent vet or the DSPCA might be able to determine if the pet is neglected they don't have to live in proximity to the pet full time unlike the neighbours so i dont see how they would be in a better position to determine if the pet is an annoyance to others.

I know in the case in our development the directors of the OMC called an EGM in order to vote on the action to be taken. It's not going to be the case where one person will be making the decision on who's pets have to go, at a minimum it will be the board of the OMC that generally consists of 3 or more people.

The simplest solution to this is to ensure the pet is suited to the type of unit you are purchasing, care for your pet and exercise it so it doesn't become an annoyance.

Dog owners should pick up after their dogs, no argument on that score.

But what is excessive barking, is subjective. What you may find excessive, might not bother someone else.

Some Karens would say if they hear a dog bark once or twice a day its "excessive". Particularly those who simply don't like dogs anyway.

Also, how to you identify whose dog is barking if there are more than one? I'm sitting in my living room right now, which is at the back of the house and the french doors are open to the garden. I have heard several neighbours dogs barking today. I wouldn't know who owns which dog. I've also heard some really noisy birds. (Wish we could ban those as easily, as they keep pooping on my washing).

Also my neighbours child at the back of me who has spent every day of the last week screaming and squealing at a high pitched tone that would shatter your eardrums, and this goes on from early morning until I presume they put the child to bed. Now that is a real fcuking annoyance. I've had to close the doors at times to block her out.

Now, if there was some actual parameters that could be followed, such as "dogs should be kept indoors between 10pm and 7am" - I could some logic to that. But not just some vague subjective bs.

Bottom line, if you're going to live in anything other than a one off house in the sticks somewhere, you're going to have to have some tolerance for "annoyances" from other people. Be it their pets or their kids.

I am 100% serious.

Common decency, manners and cop on should go both ways. You have to have some level of tolerance for other people, if you live in an estate.

I tolerate the neighbours' screaming kids.

I tolerate their **** choice in music which they seem to think it's okay to blare at max volume all day as soon as the sun comes out.

I had to tolerate the smoke from someone's BBQ last night which meant I had to keep all my doors and windows closed because it smelled like a forest fire, and rewash all my washing that was on the line this morning.

There are far bigger annoyances that can be caused by neighbours, then a pet.

If only we could apply the same rules to neighbours themselves, and allow us to request they be gotten rid of, as easily as some would demand they get rid of their pets.