Would you report a pet to the management company?

jayjay2010

I'm living in an apartment block where pets are strictly forbidden. However I have seen a handful of dogs been sneaked into the complex and sneaked out.

Personally, I don't mind this. I rather live next to owners with a dog than druggies for example. But my housemate thinks that reporting this to the management company is the right thing to do.

I used to have a dog in an apartment that I used to live in. And it was very difficult having to sneak the dog in and out and apartments are simply not meant for pets. I would never to that again.

What would you do? Leave things as they are as they are not directly affecting me or report it as we should all obey the management company rules?

mistress_gi

If they are not bothering anyone why report them? It is bad enough to rent or even buy in Ireland with a pet. If it were me and there were no issues I would leave it alone. No need to "break up" an owner from a pet!

Why would you bother reporting them if they're not doing any harm or hassling anyone?

What's the best case scenario for you here?

I can think of a few worst cases scenarios, like the neighbours moving and loud or annoying neighbours replacing them. Or the neighbours that have the dogs, twigging it was you that reported them and turning malicious, etc.

Unless you have an actual issue, I'd not bother getting involved. Let everyone else sort out their own problems.

Lux23

I wouldn't do it unless the animal was annoying me. But I certainly wouldn't judge anyone who would report a neighbour who had a pet they weren't supposed to.

DivingDuck

I would. The people are intentionally breaking the rules of the agreement they entered into when choosing to live there, and there are probably people in the complex who chose to live there because of the no pets rule, so others breaking it is unfair to those people. It's also unfair to the many rule-abiding residents who would like to have a pet and refrain because it's against the agreement they made.

I believe there are also issues of liability for the management company if something happens with one of the animals (though I am neither a solicitor or an insurance expert, so I'm not 100% on that).

If you can't hack the rules imposed on you by living in a particular place, don't live there. I live in an apartment, and consequently I'm not allowed a pet, loud music late at night, or a satellite dish. Annoying as those are to me, I knew they were the rules before I moved in, and I said yes to those rules, so I follow them. I expect everyone else who said yes to those rules to follow them as well.

Eric Cartman

I would report it, chances are if the house rules say no pets, its for a reason (lack of green space etc..) eventually these pets will wake someone up with barking , and its also unfair to anyone that may have allergies to have to walk through the communal areas.

Taco Chips

If its not bothering you don't bother reporting it. Whats to gain from being a tell tale? Pet owners do have an awful time in the rental market as it is.

kig

As long as they are not bothering you why report them. a lot of people rely on a pet for company. Also a lot of the rules are there only for the event that pets cause a nuisance.

Taco Chips

Taco Chips wrote: »

If its not bothering you don't bother reporting it. Whats to gain from being a tell tale? Pet owners do have an awful time in the rental market as it is.

While I would probably not report it unless there was a nuisance from a pet nobody forced them to get pets, they aren't a necessity and they will probably get found out at some stage. Anyone who doesn't own their own home is a fool to get a pet imo.

Taco Chips

Romina Sharp Carpenter wrote: »

While I would probably not report it unless there was a nuisance from a pet nobody forced them to get pets, they aren't a necessity and they will probably get found out at some stage. Anyone who doesn't own their own home is a fool to get a pet imo.

Many circumstances why people may have pets. Could be inherited, rescued... Perhaps their last rental allowed pets but they were priced out of it by increasing rent and forced to move. What are they supposed to do with the pet in that case? Give it away? As another poster said pets are companions and support structures for many people. The attitude of many landlords towards pets in this country is bizarre tbh, no where near as hard in many other countries.

Eric Cartman

Taco Chips wrote: »

Many circumstances why people may have pets. Could be inherited, rescued... Perhaps their last rental allowed pets but they were priced out of it by increasing rent and forced to move. What are they supposed to do with the pet in that case? Give it away? As another poster said pets are companions and support structures for many people. The attitude of many landlords towards pets in this country is bizarre tbh, no where near as hard in many other countries.

but the risk of having to move elsewhere is always present with rental properties, if anyone is offered a pet under any circumstance they should consider this before taking it. Finding rental accommodation that takes pets is hard, and unless you're also in the process of exchanging contracts for your new owned house while getting the pet , it has to be advised against.

We have stories here every day of how single professionals struggle to get accommodation , even when rental properties were 10 a penny you struggled to find ones that took pets. Looking after an animal is very admirable and a lot of people get joys out of having pets, but its just putting yourself and the animal in such a tough situation by getting one while in rented accommodation.

DivingDuck

Taco Chips wrote: »

The attitude of many landlords towards pets in this country is bizarre tbh, no where near as hard in many other countries.

Landlords of apartment rentals may not have a choice. Many apartment complexes have a no-pet rule, and landlords are obliged to ensure their tenants follow the complex/building rules.

Arbiter of Good Taste

Taco Chips wrote: »

Many circumstances why people may have pets. Could be inherited, rescued... Perhaps their last rental allowed pets but they were priced out of it by increasing rent and forced to move. What are they supposed to do with the pet in that case? Give it away? As another poster said pets are companions and support structures for many people. The attitude of many landlords towards pets in this country is bizarre tbh, no where near as hard in many other countries.

So what? Owning a pet is not an inalienable right. If you want a pet, then buy a house. If that's not possible, too bad.

As a homeowner with two dogs, having them in an apartment would be a nightmare

No reason whatsoever to report this if its not causing you an issue.

Pets aren't an inalienable right or anything, but if the neighbours you have aren't bothering you then dear God don't rock the boat, you're in an enviable position imo.

Riverireland

jayjay2010 wrote: »

I'm living in an apartment block where pets are strictly forbidden. However I have seen a handful of dogs been sneaked into the complex and sneaked out.

Personally, I don't mind this. I rather live next to owners with a dog than druggies for example. But my housemate thinks that reporting this to the management company is the right thing to do.

I used to have a dog in an apartment that I used to live in. And it was very difficult having to sneak the dog in and out and apartments are simply not meant for pets. I would never to that again.

What would you do? Leave things as they are as they are not directly affecting me or report it as we should all obey the management company rules?

How will you feel if the pets end up being put down because you report them? Tell your house mate to get a life, from me ��

DivingDuck

To those who say "If it's not causing a problem for you, don't report it", you might want to consider that flagrant rule-breaking in a complex is likely to lead to the general decline of a complex. If one person breaks the rules by getting a dog and nothing's done about it, then other people will assume they can do the same, or start having late-night parties, or hanging their washing out the windows, or whatever else is against the complex rules. If rules aren't enforced consistently for all, they will be broken more readily by all.

That means that landlords will struggle to secure rule-abiding tenants (do you want to live next-door to someone who throws weekly parties and has four dogs when you aren't prepared to jeopardize your lease agreement to take in a pet, and like to get sleep before work?), and will have to settle for whomever they can get. Again, this will contribute to an overall decline in the character of the complex and the living environment in general.

If you're a short-term renter, you may not care about this, but if you're a homeowner or you intend to rent there long-term, you may feel differently. Once the management company loses its ability to enforce the rules in a complex, it's likely to become a very different place to live very quickly.

L1011

Dog barking or owner letting it defecate in the common areas - yes
Pretty much all other scenarios - no

Eric Cartman

Riverireland wrote: »

How will you feel if the pets end up being put down because you report them? Tell your house mate to get a life, from me ��

Taco Chips wrote: »

Should have know better than to put my head above the parapet in the Landlord Forum. No one said anything about inalienable rights, nice hyperbole though to try and diminish my point and enhance your own. Another thing, presented a list of very valid reasons as to why people may have pets and the response is "so what". Well reasoned. What an arrogant reply. The point was that the renting culture in this country towards pet owners is far too unnecessarily punitive. Its another restrictive imposition on average tenants. What should be encouraged is responsible pet housing in complexes so the environment is happy for everyone.

No idea why any of that provoked such an animated response.

Every single time we have a thread to do with pets, we get responses like these. Not everyone likes pets, not everyone wants dogs or cats or whatever around them. Now the ups and downs of having pets are not what this thread is about.

The simple facts that we have are :

1. The complex does not allow pets (this is legal and within their rights)
2. This other tenant is breaking the rules of the complex

It doesn't matter whether its drug dealing from an apartment, pets, keeping bikes inside etc… if theres rules, they probably exist for a reason and they are being broken.

Taco Chips

DivingDuck wrote: »

To those who say "If it's not causing a problem for you, don't report it", you might want to consider that flagrant rule-breaking in a complex is likely to lead to the general decline of a complex. If one person breaks the rules by getting a dog and nothing's done about it, then other people will assume they can do the same, or start having late-night parties, or hanging their washing out the windows, or whatever else is against the complex rules. If rules aren't enforced consistently for all, they will be broken more readily by all.

That means that landlords will struggle to secure rule-abiding tenants (do you want to live next-door to someone who throws weekly parties and has four dogs when you aren't prepared to jeopardize your lease agreement to take in a pet, and like to get sleep before work?), and will have to settle for whomever they can get. Again, this will contribute to an overall decline in the character of the complex and the living environment in general.

If you're a short-term renter, you may not care about this, but if you're a homeowner or you intend to rent there long-term, you may feel differently. Once the management company loses its ability to enforce the rules in a complex, it's likely to become a very different place to live very quickly.

Ah yes, first its pets. Next thing you know the entire complex will descend into anarchy with drug deals on the corridors.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

Every single time we have a thread to do with pets, we get responses like these. Not everyone likes pets, not everyone wants dogs or cats or whatever around them. Now the ups and downs of having pets are not what this thread is about.

The simple facts that we have are :

1. The complex does not allow pets (this is legal and within their rights)
2. This other tenant is breaking the rules of the complex

It doesn't matter whether its drug dealing from an apartment, pets, keeping bikes inside etc… if theres rules, they probably exist for a reason and they are being broken.

Oh snap.

Well responses like what? People calling for a more reasonable outlook towards accommodating pets? Imagine that. It's an issue that isn't going to go away because humans have had pets for as long as we've been on the earth. The modern phenomenon of antisocial fusspots in urban dwellings unable to cope with people living outside of their arbitrary rules is an over the top restriction. You would have a point if we were talking about shady illegal activities like you alluded to in your post but these are just domestic animals. No one is saying everyone has to like pets. But as long as they are responsibly looked after your neighbours pets will never need to cross your path.

Eric Cartman

Taco Chips wrote: »

Ah yes, first its pets. Next thing you know the entire complex will descend into anarchy with drug deals on the corridors.



Oh snap.

Well responses like what? People calling for a more reasonable outlook towards accommodating pets? Imagine that. It's an issue that isn't going to go away because humans have had pets for as long as we've been on the earth. The modern phenomenon of antisocial fusspots in urban dwellings unable to cope with people living outside of their arbitrary rules is an over the top restriction. You would have a point if we were talking about shady illegal activities like you alluded to in your post but these are just domestic animals. No one is saying everyone has to like pets. But as long as they are responsibly looked after your neighbours pets will never need to cross your path.

you are correct, and at that time people had houses spread out from each other and separated by fences, and the pets had ample space to be pets. We are talking about apartments, a modern phenomenon that are completely unsuitable for pets. I would even go so far as to say that keeping a dog in an apartment is animal cruelty.

DivingDuck

Taco Chips wrote: »

Ah yes, first its pets. Next thing you know the entire complex will descend into anarchy with drug deals on the corridors.

I never mentioned drugs.

Are you trying to make the argument that people are not more inclined to break rules once they see others breaking rules? Because as arguments go, that's not a good one.

But as long as they are responsibly looked after your neighbours pets will never need to cross your path.

Most apartments have common areas: hallways, mailbox rooms, elevators, etc. It is impossible to exit the building without travel through these areas. Responsible pet owners allow their animals outside time. This means that they'll have to bring their pet through the common area, where they will cross the paths of their neighbours.

Many people are not comfortable sharing a confined space with an unknown animal. If someone moves into a place where it is legally written into their lease that they won't have to deal with this, then they shouldn't have to.

Taco Chips

Taco Chips wrote: »

Well responses like what? People calling for a more reasonable outlook towards accommodating pets? Imagine that.

A LL should be under no obligation to accommodate pets, why should they? Apartments are not suitable for pets and I'd even say city living isn't really suitable for pets.

I wouldn't allow an animal in my own house so I surly would under no circumstances allow them in a property I was renting out. Any pet I had/will have lived outside with adequate shelter never in the house hence I see apartments as totally and utterly unsuitable for pets.

mosi

The dog isn't causing a problem, it would just be nasty and petty to report them. It would likely be pretty devastating for the owner to have to then face losing their dog or homelessness.

Eric Cartman wrote: »

I would even go so far as to say that keeping a dog in an apartment is animal cruelty.

Nonsense. While some breeds do better in apartments than others, so long as a dog is adequately exercised and cared for, there should be no issue. An apartment dog has to be brought out for a walk every time it needs a toilet break, which is a much preferable scenario to the way some dogs in houses are just left out in the garden all the time.

athtrasna

Rules are rules. The management company can't know everything that's going on and rely on members of the management company and their tenants to help maintain standards by reporting rule breaking.

DivingDuck

Mountainsandh wrote: »

When a majority of residents know and do not mind pets in the complex, well then maybe it means the rule is unnecessary.

This only makes the argument to complain stronger. If people do not complain, there is a possibility the management will begin to think people don't mind, and may wish to seek to remove the rule in future.

This is blatantly unfair to those who purchased or rented their apartments because this rule was in place.

Would an entire apartment complex be forbidden to use a certain substance in their home or on their person because one may be allergic to it ? Say, I love using bleach for cleaning my home, and the communal areas are cleaned with bleach. Will bleach be banned because one resident is allergic ?

If you agreed to use no bleach when you rented or bought the apartment in the beginning, then yes you should absolutely be prevented from using it.

Hollister11

No, theres enough pets on the streets and in shelters. Keep the pet in its home, regardless of what the MC wants.

Arbiter of Good Taste

The level of me feinism here is very sad really. So it's essentially a matter of fvck the rules, if it doesn't bother me, then it's all good?

athtrasna

Hollister11 wrote: »

No, theres enough pets on the streets and in shelters. Keep the pet in its home, regardless of what the MC wants.

It's not a question of wants it's a question of signed legal documents.

Arbiter of Good Taste

athtrasna wrote: »

It's not a question of wants it's a question of signed legal documents.

Unfortunately so many people have no concept of what it means to sign their name to a document, and then they start whinging when they have to be held to what they agreed.

Mountainsandh

DivingDuck wrote: »

This only makes the argument to complain stronger. If people do not complain, there is a possibility the management will begin to think people don't mind, and may wish to seek to remove the rule in future.

This is blatantly unfair to those who purchased or rented their apartments because this rule was in place.

If you agreed to use no bleach when you rented or bought the apartment in the beginning, then yes you should absolutely be prevented from using it.

But the OP doesn't seem to mind the pet being kept there.
Of course when someone is bothered by noise, allergy, whatever, they are perfectly entitled to complain or report.

Going back to the bleach, what if no one in the complex is bothered by bleach, on the contrary, several are using it, or would like to, and everybody is happy with the use of bleach. Can rules ever be changed ?

twinytwo

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

The level of me feinism here is very sad really. So it's essentially a matter of fvck the rules, if it doesn't bother me, then it's all good?

It should be pointed out that it is this exact attitude that nearly broke this country...

Edit:

Actually this country is broken it just dosent realise it yet.

athtrasna

Mod note

This thread is NOT about bleach.

jd

Where I live pets are forbidden in the Head Lease, so it would be quite difficult to change the rule because of that. Incidentally the directors have zero tolerance once they are aware of a pet on the premises, whether causing a nuisance or not. I guess it cuts out any subsequent whataboutery

Mountainsandh

Arbiter of Good Taste wrote: »

The level of me feinism here is very sad really. So it's essentially a matter of fvck the rules, if it doesn't bother me, then it's all good?

No, it seems to me that maybe market demand should really govern rules in an apartment complex, that possibly the tenants of today have different expectations and demands to those of say, 10 years ago, and that landlords or complex management agencies are reluctant or slow to catch on.

wnolan1992

If it's not directly affecting you, I don't see why you'd bother getting involved. What do you gain from reporting them? Yeah, they're in the wrong here in that they shouldn't have the pets, but no one will benefit from reporting it, they'll either end up having to move (in which case you've just caused unnecessary upheaval in someone's life for no good reason) or get rid of the pet (in which case they lose the companionship of the pet, and the pet loses its home).

If the pets are causing a disturbance (barking, causing damage, etc), and a friendly word to the owner has yielded no results, then yeah, report it. But if it isn't affecting you in any way, just let it be IMO. There are probably better things you could be devoting your time to stamping out TBH.

jd

Mountainsandh wrote:

No, it seems to me that maybe market demand should really govern rules in an apartment complex, that possibly the tenants of today have different expectations and demands to those of say, 10 years ago, and that landlords or complex management agencies are reluctant or slow to catch on.

The rules are generally a reflection of what is in the Head Lease. It isn't up to landlords or management agencies to set rules , this would be within the remit of the OMC

DivingDuck

Mountainsandh wrote: »

No, it seems to me that maybe market demand should really govern rules in an apartment complex, that possibly the tenants of today have different expectations and demands to those of say, 10 years ago, and that landlords or complex management agencies are reluctant or slow to catch on.

I would absolutely support the creation of new complexes which allow pets. There's clearly a dire need for it, and this need should be catered to. People could then rent/buy on the understanding that they could have the pets they wanted, but would have to also deal with other people's pets and the resulting potential for difficulties there. It would be their choice.

By contrast, overturning the no-pets rule in a complex where it has always existed would be the opposite of choice. That is why it would be unfair, as it would force people to either move home (which they would not have otherwise wanted to do) or put up with something they didn't want to have to deal with, and something they rented/bought on the understanding would not be something they would have to deal with.

In a situation like this, someone is always going to have the bad end of the stick. In my belief, it should be the people who break rules, not the people who abide by them.

DivingDuck

wnolan1992 wrote: »

If it's not directly affecting you, I don't see why you'd bother getting involved. What do you gain from reporting them?

Some people want to live in a place where pets are not allowed. These people have rented/purchased apartments in complexes where there is a no pets rule. They have done the right thing. The person who has rented or bought in and place with a no-pets rule and moves in an animal has done the wrong thing.

I like to support people who are doing the right thing, and because I would like support if someone was breaking a rule which bothered me. For example, if your neighbour was playing loud music at 4am and you have to be up at 7am for work, wouldn't you like your neighbour to support your complaint, even if he wasn't bothered because he used earplugs anyway because his wife snores?

It's the same thing.

Stinicker

If people live with Dogs in an Apartment it shows they have no respect for the owners property (unless Dogs are allowed which in this case they aren't), if they have no respect for their landlords property then they likely have even less respect for their neighbours. Dogs should not be cooped up inside an apartment, they should have a big back yard to run around, and be chained up in a Kennel. It won't be long before dogs start to bark and then your nightmare will really start. Dogs really should only be kept on Farms and those with big houses in the country and not kept in housing estates either where their constant barking causes misery for all those around them.

wnolan1992

DivingDuck wrote: »

Some people want to live in a place where pets are not allowed. These people have rented/purchased apartments in complexes where there is a no pets rule. They have done the right thing. The person who has rented or bought in and place with a no-pets rule and moves in an animal has done the wrong thing.

I like to support people who are doing the right thing, and because I would like support if someone was breaking a rule which bothered me. For example, if your neighbour was playing loud music at 4am and you have to be up at 7am for work, wouldn't you like your neighbour to support your complaint, even if he wasn't bothered because he used earplugs anyway because his wife snores?

It's the same thing.

I fully agree with you. If you want to live a place with no pets, and someone has a pet, then the situation is affecting you, so you should feel free to report it, I'd personally have no issue with that. However the OP suggests that the person doesn't actually have a problem with people having pets, so in that case I just don't see why you'd get involved.

DivingDuck

wnolan1992 wrote: »

I fully agree with you. If you want to live a place with no pets, and someone has a pet, then the situation is affecting you, so you should feel free to report it, I'd personally have no issue with that. However the OP suggests that the person doesn't actually have a problem with people having pets, so in that case I just don't see why you'd get involved.

As I said in the post you quoted, the reason I would do so is to support others who are abiding by the rules and would like to see those rules enforced.

A management company is more likely to take a complaint seriously and act on it more quickly if it comes from multiple people. It also means that one person doesn't end up in the unenviable position of always being the person to report breaches, which unfortunately is what tends to happen.

I don't feel that's fair, so I'll report things which may not bother me over-much in the spirit of the idea that when I have a problem, somebody might be kind enough to do the same for me.

wnolan1992

DivingDuck wrote: »

As I said in the post you quoted, the reason I would do so is to support others who are abiding by the rules and would like to see those rules enforced.

A management company is more likely to take a complaint seriously and act on it more quickly if it comes from multiple people. It also means that one person doesn't end up in the unenviable position of always being the person to report breaches, which unfortunately is what tends to happen.

I don't feel that's fair, so I'll report things which may not bother me over-much in the spirit of the idea that when I have a problem, somebody might be kind enough to do the same for me.

Hadn't thought of it that way, and can't argue with that. A completely fair and reasonable position to hold.

I wouldn't report in this case, but I think I'm just clouded by my love of animals TBH. :P

athtrasna

Mr.S wrote: »

Also, reporting it to the management company will do sweet **** all, would be a very drawn out process.

"Dog? What dog? No no that was just a friends visiting, no dog here!" And repeat.

No evidence of that. Some management companies are highly efficient at enforcing development rules.

As for lying? Even visiting dogs are a breach of rules where bans are in place.

Arbiter of Good Taste

wnolan1992 wrote: »

Hadn't thought of it that way, and can't argue with that. A completely fair and reasonable position to hold.

I wouldn't report in this case, but I think I'm just clouded by my love of animals TBH. :P

I'm not taking a dig, but surely someone who is an animal lover would therefore see the unreasonableness of moving animals somewhere unsuitable - either because they will be cooped up in an apartment, or because of the risk they might end up in a shelter because the owner is forced to get rid of them.

borderlinemeath

Stinicker wrote: »

If people live with Dogs in an Apartment it shows they have no respect for the owners property (unless Dogs are allowed which in this case they aren't), if they have no respect for their landlords property then they likely have even less respect for their neighbours.

If an apartment complex states no pets allowed then this should be respected. Whether it's an owner/occupier or a tenant. They either willingly bought or rented an apartment that had a no pets rule.

Dogs should not be cooped up inside an apartment, they should have a big back yard to run around, and be chained up in a Kennel. It won't be long before dogs start to bark and then your nightmare will really start. Dogs really should only be kept on Farms and those with big houses in the country and not kept in housing estates either where their constant barking causes misery for all those around them.

But this part of your post is a load of rubbish. Firstly, dogs are companion animals. They need the company of humans, not to be left in a garden and to be chained to a kennel is cruel and goes against every welfare policy that the ISPCA/DSPCA/Dogs Trust/Every reputable rescue stands for. If you are looking for a sure fire way for a dog to bark in loneliness and frustration then leaving them in a garden and chaining them to a kennel is a sure fire way to go about it. Do you think dogs run around and exercise themselves in a garden? They tend to sleep all day and wait for their owner to come home.

Plenty of responsible owners are able to own dogs and live in cities either in houses or apartments and their dogs don't bark uncontrollably, or destroy the house or apartment because they are sufficiently exercised. To have the notion that dogs only belong on farms or in big country houses is a bit ridiculous. Do you think that because somebody lives in a big country house or a farm that they are a responsible owner? Most of the farmers I know don't neuter their farm dogs and collies are without doubt the most prolific dogs and pups handed into pounds.

Mr.S

Mr.S wrote: »

"Dog? What dog? No no that was just a friends visiting, no dog here!" And repeat.

One sniff inside the apartment and you will know if a dog lives there or not and if they inspect the apartment at random the dog will be there.

athtrasna

Mr.S wrote: »

Yes, but again - it's a very, very drawn out process. Lots of back and forths. I mean, it's a hassle, but if you really want your pet with you, you'll probably get away with it!

Has happened a few time in different blocks like the OP described, one apartment reported a dog in another (they where the only one who cared) and management company eventually lost interest!

A bit like wooden floors...sure everyone has them!

Also there are management companies that enforce rules. They're not all the same and rule compliance really should be encouraged not discouraged.

Eric Cartman

Just to ask the thread, lets say an apartment in the complex develops an issue with mice and the MC or other tenants put in ultrasonic units to scare them away, the type that drive dogs and cats mental. Or another dog is illegitimately smuggled into an adjoining apartment and the two bark at each other through the wall non stop.

Whats the course of action in that case ? do the rules have to be obliged or does everyone have to suffer because some want to keep pets ?

also to anybody in favour of pets being kept 'secretly' , do you feel the same way about disobeying rules on wooden floors, noise , satellite dishes, bikes in hallways, rubbish on balconies ? . In a complex you can either be for upholding the rules or letting everyone away with whatever they want that "doesn't harm anyone else"