# Regulatory Compliance Category > Consumer Protection Act Forum >  Body Corporates Not Allowing Pets

## BryanCasson

If anyone can give me insight into how body corporates work, and who they are help accountable to by law. We are currently trying to rent/buy a house and we are having endless problems with body corps that do not allow pets, even though pets already exist in the complex. 

Case 1: We got went at looked at a place in Montana in Weltevredenpark. The complex was fine with our dogs but stated on a board. NO NEW CATS. When we took a look at the place there were cats roaming the complex. Rawsons showed us the property and told us that cats will most likely not be a problem. We got a our paperwork ready and then were told that the body corporate run by Trafalgar have come up with a new rule that no new cats are allowed.

Case 2: Went to look at a place in Hombre on toy avenue in Allens Nek, once again we were told by agents "All About Rentals" that the place was pet friendly, in this case we actually signed a lease and even paid a deposit only to find out that the complex was again taking NO NEW PETS.

Where do these body corporates get so much power and is it legal for them to discriminate when it comes to allowing and dis-allowing pets, especially when pets already exist in the complex (Some trustees even have pets themselves) . It seems to me that trustees on the body corps are simply giving their pets preference and saying stuff you to anyone elses needs. Would you believe that the agents have even asked if we would still consider... what do they want us just give away our pets. 

Agents and Body Corps really need to think about their actions. The sectional title act stats that a reasonable explanation needs to be taken into consideration when dis-allowing pets.  Who governs this and stats what is reasonable or not reasonable?

----------


## Blurock

People often find it difficult to adapt when moving into a complex. You are no longer on your own, but now have to contend with your neighbour's unruly children, pets crapping in your garden and all sorts of issues related to communal living. 
I hope this article copied from Paddocks Press will serve to lift your spirits:

From: David Thorne
Date: Thursday 21 May 2009 10.16am
To: Helen Bailey
Subject: Pets in the building
Dear Helen,
Thank you for your letter concerning pets in my apartment.
I understand that having dogs in the apartment is a violation of the agreement due to the comfort and wellbeing of my neighbours and I am currently soundproofing my apartment with egg cartons as I realise my dogs can cause quite a bit of noise. Especially during feeding time when I release live rabbits.
Regards, David.
From: Helen Bailey
Date: Thursday 21 May 2009 11.18am

To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Pets in the building
Hello David
I have received your email and wish to remind you that the strata agreement states that no animals are allowed in the building regardless of if your apartment is soundproof. How many dogs do you have at the premises?
Helen

From: David Thorne
Date: Thursday 21 May 2009 1.52pm
To: Helen Bailey
Subject: Re: Re: Pets in the building
Dear Helen,
Currently I only have eight dogs but one is expecting puppies and I am very excited by this. I am hoping for a litter of at least ten as this is the number required to participate in dog sled racing. I have read every Jack London novel in preparation and have constructed my own sled from timber I borrowed from the construction site across the road during the night. I have devised a plan which I feel will ensure me taking first place in the next national dog sled championships. For the first year of the puppies life I intend to say the word mush then chase them violently around the apartment while yelling and hitting saucepan lids together. I have estimated that the soundproofing of my apartment should block out at least sixty percent of the noise and the dogs will learn to associate the word mush with great fear so when I yell it on race day, the panic and released adrenaline will spur them on to being winners. I am so confident of this being a foolproof plan that I intend to sell all my furniture the day before the race and bet the proceeds on coming first place.
Regards, David. ...to page 7

From: Helen Bailey
Date: Friday 22 May 2009 9.43am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Pets in the building
David, I am unsure what to make of your email. Do you have pets in the apartment or not?
Helen
From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 22 May 2009 11.27am
To: Helen Bailey
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pets in the building
Dear Helen,
No. I have a goldfish but due to the air conditioner in my apartment being stuck on a constant two degrees celcius, the water in its bowl is iced over and he has not moved for a while so I do not think he is capable of disturbing the neighbours. The ducks in the bathroom are not mine. The noise which my neighbours possibly mistook for a dog in the apartment is just the looping tape I have of dogs barking which I play at high volume while I am at work to deter potential burglars from breaking in and stealing my tupperware.
I need it to keep food fresh. Once I ate leftover Chinese that had been kept in an unsealed container and I experienced complete awareness. The next night I tried eating it again but only experienced chest pains and diarrhoea.
Regards, David.

From: Helen Bailey
Date: Friday 22 May 2009 1.46pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pets in the building
Hello David
You cannot play sounds of dogs or any noise at a volume that disturbs others. I am sure you can appreciate that these rules are for the benefit of all residents of the building. Fish are fine. You cannot have ducks in the apartment though. If it was small birds that would be ok.
Helen

From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 22 May 2009 2.18pm
To: Helen Bailey
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pets in the building
Dear Helen,
They are very small ducks.
Regards, David.

From: Helen Bailey
Date: Friday 22 May 2009 4.06pm
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pets in the building
David, under section 4 of the strata residency agreement it states that you cannot have pets. You agreed to these rules when you signed the forms. These rules are set out to benefit everyone in the building including yourself. Do you have a telephone number I can call you on to discuss?
Helen

From: David Thorne
Date: Friday 22 May 2009 5.02pm
To: Helen Bailey
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pets in the building
Dear Helen,
The ducks will no doubt be flying south for the winter soon so it will not be an issue. It is probably for the best as they are not getting along very well with my seventeen cats anyway.
Regards, David.

From: Helen Bailey
Date: Monday 25 May 2009 9.22am
To: David Thorne
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Pets in the building
David, I am just going to write on the forms that we have investigated and you do not have any pets.
Helen

 :Crazy:

----------

Mark Atkinson (16-Jul-11)

----------


## BryanCasson

hahahaha,  great article... very funny.

----------


## adrianh

Ok, lets turn the discussion on its head. You own a townhouse and you are part of the body corporate in the complex. Some people already have have 3 cats, 4 dogs, 5 chickens, 7 chimpanzees etc. You have received numerous complaints from owners who do not have animals that they are tired of all the barking during the day, the dogs crapping on the lawn, the cats getting take-aways at night etc. They ask if you, as being part of the body corporate can't do something about it because the place is turning into a zoo. Now, you as a member of a body corporate has a responsibility towards the people that already stay in the complex. After much debate it is decided that the existing residents can keep all their animals but are not allowed to get more. It is also agreed that prospective ressidents should not bring more animals into the complex because of the growing number of animals and the noise that ensues when the animals have territorial fights.. The entire body corporate agrees and all the residents are satisfied.

Now you want to rent or buy and the body corporate says sorry we can't allow more animals.

So what now!

You will be surprised about the stupid things residents get up to in complexes. Body corporates are forced to make rules to keep everybody happy. Imagine if one resident slaughters a sheep in his open yard every Sunday, or has a party till 6 in the morning every weekend or has 7 ducks in his yard that quacks all day long. It is within the rights of the body corporate to make appropriate rules provided enough people agree.

Don't get me wrong, I am an animal lover, we have 2 dogs, 4 cats, 2 cokatiels and I must add; one mole (the kids don't allow the murder of small furry creatures). The biggest fight I ever had in a townhouse complex was because one of my cats had a slash on a neighbours bed (he was an ahole - I'm sure the cat was trying to tell him something)

I was also on the body corporate and I tell you, you think you have problems when you are trying to rent a place, try keeping all the residents from killing each other over pets, noisy cars, music, broken gates, drunken parties, peeping toms, levies, rates, taxes, misuse of communial property, guests parking in other residents bays..etc...People are far less compromising that you might hope for.

----------

Dave A (19-Jul-11)

----------


## AmithS

lol

----------


## BryanCasson

I believe this is the wrong approach, we need to first look at the law... How many cats and dogs are allowed by law first. My understanding is that you are allowed only 2 dogs and 2 cats max for a small property, so, if some guy has 3 dogs then yes, by law you can ask them to abide... how if there is a new tenant who has pets that are within the limit then they should be ok.... as for animals that do not behave, again, there is a law in place that says if your pets are a pain in the ass you must fix that... however, you cannot make this decision on new pets as they have not yet broken any "pet" laws. People cant go around assuming that something is going to happen, that is discrimination.

----------


## Justloadit

My castle my rules is what is being applied. You need to get into the body corporate  :Smile:

----------


## daveob

This has got to be the MOST argued about subject at any body corporate meeting ( on a level with the "kids" ).

There are many sides to this problem.

A few examples :
We used to stay in an upstairs townhouse. A new (rental) tenant next door moved in with 3 huge hounds the size of minature ponies. Was that fair ? They were quiet, but was it fair on the dogs ? And if the rules say only 2 dogs, should it be limited to certain sized dogs ?

In my experience, the smaller the dog, the bigger the problem. They run amok, crap everywhere, and yap endlessly. Our downstairs neighbour had 3 yappers. They never could understand the problem. Dogs never barked. Yeah, right. The owner drove out the driveway and those F*&king mutts yapped and whined non-stop until the car returned. This was every day, 7 days a week, from 7:30am to 5:30pm for over 3 years. I am not exagerating - non-stop. Drove us up the bloody wall, especially with us being home most the day.

And what about the other poor neighbour who worked shifts ?

OK, so we complain, together with the other 5 neighbours in the same area, and what happens ? Nothing. The owners say they don't care, and they are not removing their 3 dogs. The body corp imposes a R50 fine, the owner pays it, laughs, and keeps the dogs.

Eventually, after about 3 years, they sold their unit. I swear that miserable bastard made it a condition of sale that the purchaser must possess at least 3 dogs - I'm convinced of it. True as nuts. Rules say no new pets, and owner arrives with -- you guessed it -- 3 yappers.

And you wonder why it is such an emotional issue at meetings ?

What I can tell you, is that if the rules say no new pets, then they certainly have already had their share of pet related problems.

----------


## adrianh

:Rofl:  :Rofl: daveob.... :Rofl:  :Rofl:

----------


## daveob

Yeah adrianh, might be funny now. But imagine the other old geezer (a.hole) who made a habit of letting his darling yapper out at 3am every day for a pee. Let it roam the common property instead of putting it in his own enclosed garden - probably didn't want to have to clean up after it.

A week of this waking everyone up and I was out in my pyjamas with a steak knife hunting the damn thing at 3am. 
He has the cheek to say "over my dead body". 
I agreed and offered to oblige if he didn't sort out the problem. 
He backed down and thereafter the dog krapped in his garden every morning.

Bottom line, from my experience, in a complex the pet owners care more about their own pets than about the rights of anyone else. I was bought up that you had some common decency and consideration for others - not a "f*&k you" attitude.

----------


## adrianh

A family friend in Rustenburg had a neighbour whose dog crapped in his yard. This carried on an on and he spoke to the owner nicely a couple of times. He go gatvol one Sunday afternoon and tossed a shovelload of dog turd over the vibacrete wall. The neighbour was having a braai and had friends over. Seems the shovelload landed in the braai. The dog now craps in his own yard!

----------


## mother

> Seems the shovelload landed in the braai. The dog now craps in his own yard!


MENTAL PICTURE!

 :Rofl:  :Rofl:  :Rofl:

----------


## BryanCasson

Just because there are some dumb people that take advantage of the rules does not mean that we are all like that. We work from home therefor know if our pets are barking and there are walls all the way around the complex so it is impossible for our dog to crap in someone else s garden. Lastly I asked for legal advise not opinions, body corps act on opinions which is why pets are being outlawed from most compex's. The extreme examples here are not the norm and are not helping me out. By law, as far as I know (unless things have changed) you cannot change the law on speculation or presumtion that something will happen... I feel like I am talking to a bunch of people who are most likely on body corps trying to justify their lawless ways... I need facts people





> Bottom line, from my experience, in a complex the pet owners care more about their own pets than about the rights of anyone else. I was bought up that you had some common decency and consideration for others - not a "f*&k you" attitude.


This generalization is what is the problem, not all pet owners are idiots who don't follow the rules. The rules clearly state in most cases that your pet "Must not be a nuisance" , if your pet is crapping in yards, barking etc then they are a nuisance... however not all pets are a nuisance so you cant just generalize and make assumptions.

----------


## Phil Cooper

The most common rule is no new pets allowed, but existing pets may remain until they pass on, with no replacements.

Corporate body has the power - but they propose rules, which the owners vote and accept. These are then lodged with the relative Departments, and become binding.

----------


## Dave A

Body corporates have pretty extensive powers to regulate the affairs of sectional title schemes in terms of the Sectional Title Act of 1986 as amended. These powers include things like pet policies.

Bryan, there is a fudamental flaw in your argument i.r.o the municipal bylaws. If the body corporate rules provided for *more* animals being kept on the premises than provided for in terms of the municipal bylaws, yes you might have a case. But as the body corporate conditions *does not exceed the maximum provided for* in the bylaws, the body corporate rule is not in contravention of the bylaws.

I seriously suggest you rather take a "soft skills" approach to this and approach the body corporate for a conditional waiver of the rule in your instance. Obviously this would have to be well motivated - perhaps something along the lines that there are already animals on the property, your animals will not cause a disturbance, they are existing pets, you will not be adding more pets to your menagerie, you're a well behaved tenant with a good track record, along with supporting testimonials.

As a side note - I wouldn't recommend that you mention you will be running a business from home - sometimes there are rules about that too. As long as there is no steady stream of "visitors" I doubt it would ever become an issue down the line. (I'm assuming you wouldn't have a steady stream of clients coming to your home in your line anyway).

----------


## daveob

> This generalization is what is the problem, not all pet owners are idiots who don't follow the rules. The rules clearly state in most cases that your pet "Must not be a nuisance" , if your pet is crapping in yards, barking etc then they are a nuisance... however not all pets are a nuisance so you cant just generalize and make assumptions.


Yes, I can generalise and make assumptions. I lived in a complex ( of 128 units ) for over 20 years. I now live in a house.

During the 20 years, I saw a steady flow of residents ( tenants and owners ) come and go in that time. In 20 years, I never, ever, saw someone bring in a dog that somebody didn't complain about - and in 99,9% of the cases, with good reason.

Now don't get me wrong - I love pets, but not in a complex.

Every single time ( without fail ) when a complaint was laid, the pet owners took an agressive defensive attitude and refused to either do something about the pets, or remove them from the complex. Lets face it - you wouldn't part with your beloved pet, would you ?

A fine by the body corp was puny and had no effect at all. If you were told you are being fined R50 per month for your pets, you would laugh at them and pay up - and keep the pets.

I think that you'll find that the position is most likely as follows :

1. if you are already in the complex, they can't ( at least not easily ) force you to remove the pets. However, they can fine you, but it does not remove the problem. It just makes you feel justified in keeping the pet because you paid a little extra for it.

2. the only way they can effectively address the problem is to say "no more pets"

3. if "generalising" there generally isn't a pet problem in many complexes, then why the "no new pets" rules that you're seeing so often ? It's because generally, the pet owners don't give a krap about anyone else - at least, not more than they care about their pet.

4. Prevention is better than cure -- the body corps have learnt over the years that they can't cure the pet problem, so rather prevent it with "no new pets"

I understand that you're a pet owner and lover, and really want to move into the complex, but you have to face the facts. You have built neither trust nor credability with the body corp, so in a nut-shell, you'll be painted with the same brush as all the other pet owners that pissed them off enough in the past to make the "no new pets" rules.

Go to a few body corp meetings and put forward your case, and you'll see exactly how irritated the body corp is with pets.

----------


## BryanCasson

> As a side note - I wouldn't recommend that you mention you will be running a business from home - sometimes there are rules about that too. As long as there is no steady stream of "visitors" I doubt it would ever become an issue down the line. (I'm assuming you wouldn't have a steady stream of clients coming to your home in your line anyway).


Clients do not come to our home  :Smile:

----------


## BryanCasson

> A fine by the body corp was puny and had no effect at all. If you were told you are being fined R50 per month for your pets, you would laugh at them and pay up - and keep the pets.


Pet fines in our current complex is between R700 and R1700 (probably why the pets in our complex seem to be well behaved) , of course R50 is not going to do anything.

----------


## Dave A

A thought popped into my head after my last post - 

From your point of view these are not *new* pets. You've already got them  :Devil2: 

I am aware of body corporates that allow new owners to bring in their current pets, but not replace them or get new ones - essentially relying on the "problem" dying out without being an obstruction to new owners. This often doesn't extend to tenants, though.

In fact, on the subject of "complex" politics, I have a strong suspicion that many body corporates would outlaw tenants if they could and have a _owner residents only_ policy.

----------


## BryanCasson

> From your point of view these are not *new* pets. You've already got them .


Brilliant!

----------


## Dave A

Maybe, but no guarantee that it would fly, though.

----------

