New build house rules - no pets

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.

Dav010

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.

Dav010

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.

Dav010

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.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120673341#Comment_120673341

OMCs would have rules to cover most other annoyances too such as loud music, unruly behaviour and noise at unsociable hours. The purpose of these clauses in the head lease or contracts of sale is to enable the OMC to react to anti social behaviour in estates where houses and apartments are tightly packed together.

There is going to be noise in an estate during the day but a dog barking all night or a dog being sent out to the balcony of an apartment to do its business is an annoyance and the OMC needs these clauses to react.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120673555#Comment_120673555

Well, yes, that all sounds very nicely worded and reasonable, (and easily open to abuse) but try to make a complaint about kids behaviour or loud music or BBQ smoke and then you'll be told that's not anti-social - but pets are fair game.

So, OP my advice to you, is unless you have literally no other options open to you, look for a second hand home in an established estate where your neighbours can't dictate your life to you - even if they are cranks.

Best of luck.

patmac123

What a brilliant idea, Wish this rule was in my area.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120673998#Comment_120673998

Sounds like you are unhappy where you live. It might be wise to consider your own advice and look for a dwelling that is more remote or established so you don't have neighbours to contend with, some people are just not suited to living in high density developments. Its not worth the hassle if its making you unhappy.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120674220#Comment_120674220

Predicatable response.

No actually, you're wrong. I'm very happy where I live, been here for 26 years. It's just a bit of sun and it tends to bring out the worst in some people.

It's fine, I'm used to it. In a few days it will blur into white noise - much like barking dogs. I don't even notice the dogs. And in the interim, there are earphones. Then, come the winter it will be all blissfully peaceful again.

AndrewJRenko

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120673174#Comment_120673174

In theory, the three independent members of the OMC sounds fine. In practice, it is likely to be two overworked and underappreciated members following the suggestion of the other director who has a bee in their bonnet about a particular dog or cat. It is entirely subjective, which isn't a great idea.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120674288#Comment_120674288

That hasn't been my experience and I'm a director on a number of OMCs at the moment.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120674244#Comment_120674244

Im delighted for but thats the impression you gave with your previous posts. You didnt come across as somebody who was very happy with their current situation.

There lies the problem majority of these issues you face are temporary. A bad pet owner could cause annoyance all year round for many years. There is no harm in the OMC having a clause that allows them to deal with a situation like that if it does arise.

suvigirl

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/120674503#Comment_120674503

A bad neighbour can cause annoyance to people forever, can the OMC do anything about that?

No.

Sure they can. If there is a clause in the head lease it can be enforced.