Strata and community schemes case study

The issue of having pets in strata units is a common area of dispute, usually involving an owners corporation’s refusal to allow pets even though allowing pets is not specifically prohibited in the by-laws of the strata scheme in question.  In dealing with these matters, the Adjudicator considers the 'reasonableness' of the refusal based on the evidence provided.

A lot owner who recently purchased her unit in a block of 20, found out that keeping pets was not allowed.  As she owned a toy poodle, she sought permission from the owners corporation to keep her dog in the unit.  The executive committee of the owners corporation refused her request.

The lot owner applied for mediation through the NSW Fair Trading Strata Mediation Unit to try to resolve the dispute, however mediation was unsuccessful.  She then lodged an application to the CTTT for orders by a Strata Schemes Adjudicator.

Once received, the CTTT Registry sent notification of the application to the owners corporation and invited submissions on the matter.  The owners corporation was required to notify all other lot owners of the application.  The parties had four week to put in their submissions.

Once the submissions were received, the matter was listed before an Adjudicator to determine the dispute 'on the papers'.  A number of residents in the unit block provided written submissions in support of the executive’s decision, claiming that they believed the dog would cause disruption to their comfort, reduce the value of the block and set a precedent.  However, no information was provided supporting their claim.

The pet owner provided evidence that her dog had lived with her for many years in her previous unit and was well suited to apartment living.  She claimed that her dog would be unlikely to cause interference with the other residences and their enjoyment of their property.

In coming to a decision, the Adjudicator considered the standard by-laws that state that a pet owner must get the approval of the owners corporation.  However, an owners corporation cannot unreasonably refused a request.  Therefore the Adjudicator had to consider the 'reasonableness' of the refusal.  While the views of the majority were considered, they did not convince the Adjudicator that they met the criteria of 'reasonableness'.  As each case is considered on its merits, the Adjudicator did not believe that allowing the pet would create a precedent.  The Adjudicator ordered that based on the written evidence provided by both parties, the request to keep the dog was reasonable and orders were made approving the request.