New build house rules - no pets

aoifec250

Hi, I’m looking at buying a new build house and in the contracts we got there’s a rule for no animals of any kind. Has anyone seen that included for houses before? Now there are some apartments being built in the estate but it looks like the rule is for all.

Water John

Do they define what an animal is? Goldfish or snake acceptable. Really daft, is this for the management company.

Glaceon

No pets in a house I’d own? Screw that, so glad there’s no OMC here.

Count Dracula

waffle

aoifec250

23. NOT TO KEEP ANIMALS

Not to keep any bird, dog, or other animal which in the opinion of the Developer may cause annoyance to the owners or occupiers of any other Houses or Apartments.

that’s the wording

suvigirl

Ah sure what are they gonna do about it if home owners get animals?

I wouldn't care, buy the house, get the dog/cat/donkey whatevs

dontmindme

Think your in the wrong forum tbh...

Buddy Bubs

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655873#Comment_120655873

I'd interpret that as not allowing your animals to annoy neighbours, not the way you interpreted it as not being allowed to keep animals at all. If it's a house I can't see any grounds for no animals.

Apartments have common areas so that's different

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655873#Comment_120655873

That is the exact wording used on my estate of houses and apartments, but read it again and you will see that the which may cause a nuisance is where it’s at. It means effectively that you might keep a budgie in a cage in your apartment but not a pigeon lift on the balcony. It is standard wording. A well-behaved dog under control is fine, but not an abandoned one which would bark the block down. In my apartment block lots of dogs are in residence, in fact the dog below is now squeaking his toy on the patio. During the pandemic tons of dogs were added, mostly very well behaved, but there have been complaints of fouling on the parkland in the centre of the estate. The Property Management Company sent out a circular to get people pick up after their dogs or else they will have to pay a fine. It’s not that pets are forbidden altogether, but that the ones present should not present a nuisance.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655916#Comment_120655916

Yeah needs to be in accom & property.

Spear

This has nothing to do with boards.ie. Moved to a forum that's related to the topic instead.

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.

thomas 123

Having lived in an estate - I see why this is there. One guy left his dog out on a balcony first thing in the morning, like 4am/5am and it would bark and whine for the entire morning till they got up or returned around 10 or 11am. Kept us all up.

I guess they have it in there since there is always some ass with zero consideration.

em_cat

It’s a fairly standard clause that enables the OMC, which will eventually take the estate in charge, to have court order removal of nuisances caused by animals but it is also there to allow any landlords to prohibit the keeping of pets and what not for renters.

When we bought our apartment our head lease has the same and our Shi Tzu didn’t give a toss nor did we, she wasn’t a nuisance and our OMC didn’t realise just how formidable I can be.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120661940#Comment_120661940

If the OMC was motivated to act, say on foot of complaints about your dog, then it would be a test of contract law versus your formidability. My money would be on whether the terms of the contract were legal, and the indisputable fact that you agreed to them when signing the contract.

Ray Palmer

It can only really apply if the entire estate is managed and how long it will remain so. I don't see how it would be enforceable after the management company goes. The problem is it may never go. I get it for apartments and maisonettes but a house seems crazy

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655873#Comment_120655873

But kids are okay? (And not the goat kind).

I'd walk away. One of the pleasures of owning your own house is having a pet if you want one.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120662669#Comment_120662669

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

em_cat

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120662586#Comment_120662586

No one complained about our dog; The point re my post is that it a standard clause, not really anything to be worried about and if you are then make sure said pet is well trained and is kept well ie not being left on balcony to whine, whimper, bark which most of our undesirable neighbours do, let them roam common areas and foul, all which have led to numerous poor dogs being rehoused or worse in our estate.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120664021#Comment_120664021

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.

Mrs OBumble

OP, I really do not think that the estate you are looking at will suit you: best look for somewhere else that has rules more to your liking.

Ubbquittious

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120664572#Comment_120664572

I think this sort of stuff has a habit of spreading out to other estates. Its a bit like the no hanging clothes outside to dry BS.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120655873#Comment_120655873

IANAL, but it's strange that the wording refers to the developer rather than the management company. If/when ownership transfers from the to a management company owned by the property owners, I suspect that this rule would fade away with the developer, unless the MC agrees to institute a new rule.

It's a crap rule tbh, very intrusive on personal freedoms. There's legislation around noise nuisance and litter nuisance and animal welfare, so I'm not sure why these lads would feel the need to go beyond this.

Your solicitor should be able to advise you more about the potential future impacts on you.

DubCount

If your pet is causing annoyance to your neighbours, you shouldn't need a contract term to tell you what the right thing to do is. If you want an annoying pet, dont live in a housing estate, find somewhere where you are far enough away from other people so that you dont bother them. Your right to a pet in your property does not over-ride your neighbours right to peacefully enjoy their property.

Ray Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120662718#Comment_120662718

I don’t see how a house is a multi unit development. Don’t think it can apply to a house because it was built at the same time as an apartment block.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670180#Comment_120670180

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

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120669449#Comment_120669449

Define "causing an annoyance".

Some people are annoyed simply by the sight of a dog or a cat.

Lots of cranks, when it comes to animals .

newmember2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670315#Comment_120670315

Define "causing an annoyance".

It's literally been spelled out already above in the contract wording, the developer will 'define' it "...which in the opinion of the Developer may cause annoyance". It's a ban on annoying/problem animals but OP has a problem with that.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670373#Comment_120670373

No it hasn't been spelled out.

What constitutes an annoyance? Is it barking? meowing? existing?

Whatever Karen in number 3 who hates dogs feels like complaining about?

What may cause you an annoyance may not cause me one, so it needs to be specific, and fair.

Ray Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670219#Comment_120670219

That isn’t a permanent feature as these entities are meant to be there until they are handed to the council. Yes you are technically correct there needs to be a management company but not for ever. After that the agreement with the management company will not apply as the company will no longer exist. It is a mess long term as council are refusing to take charge. Nobody really wants to end up with HOA situation like the US.

newmember2

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670472#Comment_120670472

eh yeh it has, unless you have reading difficulties - what defines the annoyance will be the opinion of the Developer.

Mitch Connor

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670373#Comment_120670373

I don't think the OP did have a problem with that; they read the clause as not allowing pets at all, rather than not allowing pets which the developer/omc have decided are causing an annoyance.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670533#Comment_120670533

No need to be so rude.

The developer needs to more specific, as to what their opinion of an annoyance is.

I'm sorry the need more clarity from the developer on the subject escapes you.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670477#Comment_120670477

Again, why wouldn’t the OMC exist?

Iseedeadpixels

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670548#Comment_120670548

Agreed, the developer needs to give proper reasons i.e loud barking etc, with vague rules they could make anything up to suit them.

PS. this is boards.ie everyone is angry and rude 🤣

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 Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670591#Comment_120670591

Because the council will take charge. They aren’t decided on as permanent requirement and the owners (people who own the properties) don’t want to paying taxes AND management fees. The idea is that the OMC will be closed down. Why do you think the owners want to keep it?

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670591#Comment_120670591

The OMC may well continue, but the developer won't. Strange that the rule refers to the developer, and not the OMC (which happens to be the developer at the outset, but not forever). Smacks of a rule written by a non-legal person.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670722#Comment_120670722

That doesn't apply to all estates. Many estates, usually mixed apartments and houses, will keep the OMC in place for ever, responsible for common areas and car parks and more.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670664#Comment_120670664

The rule refers to the developer, not the board members of the OMC. And while your friend may not be experiencing issues with the implementation of a similar rule today, they might well have problems tomorrow, if new OMC members come on board, or if there are particular difficulties (such as a dangerous dog attack). Buying a house is a lifetime decision, and you don't want to have someone suddenly deciding that your family pet of years can't be kept in your house.

Mrs OBumble

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670548#Comment_120670548

No the developer doesn't.

If the OP is set on having a companion animal then s/he needs to move elsewhere.

Safe water, food and shelter are human rights. Taking ownership (sic) over an animal and keeping it outside its natural environment are not.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670722#Comment_120670722

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.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670760#Comment_120670760

Well, it seems the concensus on the thread disagrees with you. The condition is not an outright ban.

The issue is if you end up stuck with some Karen or animal hating crank for a neighbour.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670747#Comment_120670747

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.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120671683#Comment_120671683

Fair point on the wording of the rules.

My concern would be the purely subjective nature of the “opinion of” non expert people.

If it required the opinion of an independent vet or the DSPCA , then maybe it could work.

Ray Palmer

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670796#Comment_120670796

Whatever, You know that nothing has been proven in court and many a clause in a contract is null and void before any court case. No firm is going to pay the money to prove it in court. Very cheap to defend but very expensive to defend. The clause might as well say you have to be nice.

OP ignore it, reality says it will never be an issue. This isn't a barbecue on a balcony that is a danger.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120672410#Comment_120672410

Whatever? Put your dummy back in.

OMC’s don’t dissolve just because defined parts of an estate are taken in charge. I gave you two opportunities to put your viewport forward.

Given the fact that the buyer signs a contract, and that document is a legally binding contract, of course contracts have been proven in Court. The residential tenancies act is silent on the right to keep pets, there is however legislation which gives rights to for instance a person who needs a guide dog. And yes, it is an issue, there have been threads on boards in the past (I’m not looking them up for you) by owners/tenants complaining that they have been told that the pooch has to go by the OMC.

Is it costly to enforce in Court? Yes, but that comes after communications with the owners, and costs follow the decision. So if the owner agreed to the contract related to pets when buying the property, it is a very expensive lesson for the owner, and lays down a marker for the OMC.

https://www.irishtimes.com/life-and-style/homes-and-property/how-can-we-enforce-no-dogs-allowed-rule-in-our-complex-1.3131208

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120672321#Comment_120672321

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.

apache

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120670472#Comment_120670472

Excessive barking and defecating in common areas would be the main ones.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120673215#Comment_120673215

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.

apache

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120673286#Comment_120673286

Ah here Loueze you're not serious? Common decency, manners and cop on.

Apart from that heh heh imagine sunning yourself trying to relax in the sun out your back with all that commotion going on? I'd be fit to strangle someone!

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120673302#Comment_120673302

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.

zg3409

The main issue is at a later stage someone could decide the pet is an annoyance and said pet would need to leave the family.

I lived in an ordinary house in a council controlled estate. One if the things in the deeds or whatever was no tv serials on house, cable tv only.

Recently near me in duplex type houses and apartments they decided to enforce the no satellite dish rule. The OMC paid a private contractor to go to people's walls and rip off their sky dishes. Some people had these for years but every and all were removed in the space of 1 day.

It is a risk buying any property that may have an OMC for weird new rules, paying for "public" things like street lighting, and possible fees that can skyrocket over the years to cover public liability, roads resurfacing etc. Some owners may not pay the fees resulting in other owners covering their cost.

Personally I am not a fan of people having dogs in estates as often they let them out at 7am to bark, and a high percentage don't walk their dog daily meaning the dogs are full of energy and will bark from inside at postmen, callers etc. I can usually hear 4 dogs near me mostly at daytime but at night too. Things like cats in the garden can trigger dogs in kennels. Often when I walk down the public footpath the dogs in various back gardens start barking at me. One dog triggers other dogs to bark. At least with this rule there might be a way to enforce the worst owners from annoying everyone around them. Typically the council won't get involved beyond checking the dog has a licence and is fed.