Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What can a management company do about us having a dog

Options
  • 19-04-2011 12:05pm
    #1
    Undercover_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 57 ✭✭


    Heya,

    I have been planning for the last while to get a small dog. My husband works from home so there would be someone there most of the time to look after one.

    I live in a ground floor appartment with a decent sized patio, plenty of parks and beaches nearby to take on daily walks..

    Now, obviously dogs in this environment would have the potential to cause annoyance, we would be careful to choose a breed which is fairly small, not too yappy as a rule and would have it fully trained to minimise any barking etc.

    When we bought our appartment around 4 years ago there was a note in the contract not to have animals which may cause a nusience.

    The management company has since changed and they have recently sent out a newsletter stating clearly, 'no dogs' I also noticed yesterday that they have added new signs on the complex gates saying 'no dogs'

    I was just wondering if anyone can advise what the legalities of this are? I would hate to get a dog and be forced to give it up, but in an appartment which we own, what rights do the management company have here?

    Any advise greatfully recieved!

    Thanks


«1

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    TurkeyBurger
    Registered Users Posts: 58 ✭✭TurkeyBurger


    Undercover_ wrote: »
    The management company has since changed and they have recently sent out a newsletter stating clearly, 'no dogs' I also noticed yesterday that they have added new signs on the complex gates saying 'no dogs'

    I was just wondering if anyone can advise what the legalities of this are? I would hate to get a dog and be forced to give it up, but in an appartment which we own, what rights do the management company have here?

    The Management Company are unlikely to have changed - the Managing Agent may have changed. They seem to be fairly explicit with the 'No Dogs' rule.

    Legally, you probably don't own your apartment. The Management Company own the apartment and you have a lease of about 1000 years on it from the Management Company.


  • Options
    #3
    ElleEm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,981 ✭✭✭ElleEm


    It sounds like they're fairly strict on no dogs then. Don't chance it!


  • Options
    #4
    micdug
    Registered Users Posts: 152 ✭✭micdug


    Undercover_ wrote: »
    Heya,

    I have been planning for the last while to get a small dog. My husband works from home so there would be someone there most of the time to look after one.

    I live in a ground floor appartment with a decent sized patio, plenty of parks and beaches nearby to take on daily walks..

    Now, obviously dogs in this environment would have the potential to cause annoyance, we would be careful to choose a breed which is fairly small, not too yappy as a rule and would have it fully trained to minimise any barking etc.

    When we bought our appartment around 4 years ago there was a note in the contract not to have animals which may cause a nusience.

    The management company has since changed and they have recently sent out a newsletter stating clearly, 'no dogs' I also noticed yesterday that they have added new signs on the complex gates saying 'no dogs'

    I was just wondering if anyone can advise what the legalities of this are? I would hate to get a dog and be forced to give it up, but in an appartment which we own, what rights do the management company have here?

    Any advise greatfully recieved!

    Thanks

    It depends on the management company, but if they are strict, they can enforce it under your tenancy agreement. It's really down to how much it irritates the neighbours. In our case they let the dog roam and it barks at all hours in the common area as well as doing it's business all over the place.

    As an aside, regardless of your "picking a small dog that is barky" is difficult and it can be very annoying for other property owners. Be prepared to give him back if it causes trouble.


  • Options
    #5
    jd
    Registered Users Posts: 5,681 ✭✭✭jd


    All it takes is one owner to insist that the leasehold conditions/ house rules are enforced and you may find that the dog may have to go. I wouldn't chance it.

    By the way the management company would not have changed - this is made up of the owners. A new managing agent may have been hired to look after the day to day running of the development.


  • Options
    #6
    silja
    Registered Users Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭silja


    Agreed I wouldn't chance it, it would be a pitty to get attached to the dog and then having to re-home it (one of my cats came from a situation like that- after a few weeks, the owner got a solicitor's letter through the door and had to get rid).

    One option may be to bring the issue up at the next AGM, especially if you can get a few other owners on your side. Have you seen other dogs in the complex? if so, try knocking on some doors and see if you cannot get a motion tabled to change this...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    jd
    Registered Users Posts: 5,681 ✭✭✭jd


    By the way, the fact that signs have gone up recently would indicate that they have been directed to enforce these conditions, and, perhaps, had recently dealt with someone who was keeping a pet.


  • Options
    #8
    Faolchu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭Faolchu


    silja wrote: »
    One option may be to bring the issue up at the next AGM, especially if you can get a few other owners on your side. Have you seen other dogs in the complex? if so, try knocking on some doors and see if you cannot get a motion tabled to change this...


    that probably wouldnt work. its one thing changing the house rules its another changing a legally binding contract. as the OP stated it's in their contract, that means it's in other peoplss contracts, to get this rule changed would mean having to change all contracts for all owners.

    restrictions such as no pets, no cloths outside, no BBQs etc are the joys of apartment living unfortunatly but it also means that if you are one of those people that are annoyed by yapping little mutts, offended by someones cloths drying or dislike the smell of someone elses BBQ coming into your home then these rules are a god send. If the MC enforces them that is. More and more MCs are now starting to impose penalties for breaches of these rules and continual breachs could result with the person in question being taken to court for breach of contract.

    also if you are considering getting a motion tabled be sure you follow the correct protocol, just sticking your hand up at a meeting isnt how its done.

    to answer teh OPs question, what can the MC do? they can firstly ask you to remove the animal. they dont need someone to actually complain about it either, they just have to know about it. if you refuse they can take you to court for breach of contract, I'm no lawyer but to me it would be an open and shut case. contract states no pets, you signed contract in full knowledge of said clause (failure to read/understand is not usually a defence), you got pet so you breached the contract.


  • Options
    #9
    MissFlitworth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,057 ✭✭✭MissFlitworth


    Undercover_ wrote: »
    When we bought our appartment around 4 years ago there was a note in the contract not to have animals which may cause a nusience.

    If your contract says 'no animals which may cause a nuisance' can they change that to 'no dogs' just like that? I would have thought you would be bound to the terms you had agreed to unless there was some majority vote to change the rules. It might be worth looking into, maybe someones just taken it into their head that they can say 'no dogs' even though it's not in your contract


  • Options
    #10
    Faolchu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭Faolchu


    MissFlitworth wrote: »
    If your contract says 'no animals which may cause a nuisance' can they change that to 'no dogs' just like that?


    Dogs would be considered more likely to cause nusaince than say gerbals. technically if the contract says no pets then it includes gerbals and goldfish which IMO have should not cause nusaince. dogs on the other hand can with noise, being let run free and crapping all over the place and people not cleaning up after them, cats also to a lesser degree.

    the OP also already said there was a no pets clause in their contract


  • Options
    #11
    jhegarty
    Registered Users Posts: 6,436 ✭✭✭jhegarty


    Faolchu wrote: »
    the OP also already said there was a no pets clause in their contract

    Not in the post I read.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    MissFlitworth wrote: »
    If your contract says 'no animals which may cause a nuisance' can they change that to 'no dogs' just like that?
    No, they can't.
    You are only bound by the terms which you have agreed to. If your original leasehold agreement stated that no animals could be kept which cause a nuisance, then that's all you are bound by.

    The management company owns the property and your leasehold agreement is a contract between you and the management company. This cannot be changed without your express agreement.
    The management agent is a 3rd party company who works for the management company and who cannot introduce any rules or changes except when directed to do so by the management company.

    Our management agent tried this last year, effectively adding in a rule which said that dogs were not permitted anywhere within the entire development. So we got in touch and told them in no uncertain terms to remove it. Which they did, apologising for the "oversight".

    Usually this kind of thing is caused by one guy who sits on the board of the management company and who has taken it upon himself to run the property like his own personal fifedom. That the agent has put up signs indicates that someone has directed them specifically on this matter.

    First thing to do is to send a letter (email or phone call are too easily dismissed) to the management agent bringing the error in the newsletter to their attention and asking them to send out a correction notice to all leaseholders.

    If they refuse to remove it, then when you receive notice for the next AGM, you will be given a window in which you can apply to have items added to the agenda, and you should do so, again via letter so that it can be publically debated at the AGM.

    You'll find that most leaseholders don't read these newsletters and won't have noticed it. We were the only people out of 650 units to spot it in our case.

    The main problem here is that if you just ignore it and say, "Ah sure it'll be fine", then 4 years down the road the rule is still in place and the management agent will claim that it's "always" been there.

    There's a fair argument to say that a prohibition on keeping a common household pet in your home is an unreasonable and unenforceable clause in any contract, but you don't want it to get that far.

    Have the management agent remove the erroneous rule and then go off and get a dog :)


  • Options
    #13
    MissFlitworth
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,057 ✭✭✭MissFlitworth


    Faolchu wrote: »

    the OP also already said there was a no pets clause in their contract

    Unless I'm missing something all the OP mentions is the 'no animals which may cause a nuisance' part of their contract, can't see anything about 'no pets' there. To me 'no animals which may cause a nuisance' is wide open to interpretation, a well behaved, well trained dog who isn't let poo around the apartment grounds and isn't constantly barking isn't causing a nuisance. I do concede that that is open to interpretation though


  • Options
    #14
    Paulw
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    seamus wrote: »
    Have the management agent remove the erroneous rule and then go off and get a dog :)

    Until it barks and causes a nuiscence to someone, then you're in breach of that clause and will be asked to remove the dog, at a point at which you're attached to it. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #15
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Paulw wrote: »
    Until it barks and causes a nuiscence to someone, then you're in breach of that clause and will be asked to remove the dog, at a point at which you're attached to it. :rolleyes:
    Not all dogs bark. :)

    And a single bark couldn't be considered a "nuisance". It would have to be a pattern of barking or otherwise seriously inconvenient occurences to be considered a nuisance.

    For the record, this "nuisance" rule is in place in our development, and after we got our dog, tonnes of others equally saw us with the dog and got their own. And there have been no complaints or evictions.


  • Options
    #16
    Undercover_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 57 ✭✭Undercover_


    Thanks guys for the great responces! I dont know how many things boards has helped me with!

    Himself has dug out the original documentation- the management company rules do say 'no animals causing a nusiance' but on looking at the original properly contract there is a straight 'no dogs' clause :(

    Im very dissapointed but i think you are right in saying its not worth the risk.

    Thanks!:(


  • Options
    #17
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Undercover_ wrote: »
    Himself has dug out the original documentation- the management company rules do say 'no animals causing a nusiance' but on looking at the original properly contract there is a straight 'no dogs' clause :(
    Well that's pretty crap.

    You're right, it's not worth the hassle. You could be OK. But you could also find yourself on the receiving end of a pattern of harrassment from some bellend who's not being affected by it but just likes to complain.

    As Paulw points out, you'll end up attached to the dog but consistently having to pay fines and the like from your management company because you don't want to rehome it.

    In addition, if you were thinking of adopting a dog from a shelter or rescue, most of them specifically will not adopt a dog to people in apartments without a written letter from the management company stating that dogs are not prohibited.


  • Options
    #18
    Faolchu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭Faolchu


    MissFlitworth wrote: »
    Unless I'm missing something all the OP mentions is the 'no animals which may cause a nuisance' part of their contract, can't see anything about 'no pets' there.


    last i checked a dog is an animal and are prone to causing nusaince through barking, fouling all over the place and being let run free by their owners. that to me is a nusiance
    jhegarty wrote: »
    Not in the post I read.


    well in the very first post it states
    Undercover_ wrote: »
    When we bought our appartment around 4 years ago there was a note in the contract not to have animals which may cause a nusience.

    Dogs would fall into that catagory
    seamus wrote: »
    It would have to be a pattern of barking or otherwise seriously inconvenient occurences to be considered a nuisance. .

    noise isnt the only form of nusaince that animals can create, foulding in the common areas, hair in the common areas causing a flair up in someones alergies, chasing cars, digging in common areas, just running about the place all these could be considered nusiance.
    seamus wrote: »
    For the record, this "nuisance" rule is in place in our development, and after we got our dog, tonnes of others equally saw us with the dog and got their own. And there have been no complaints or evictions.

    maybe becuase no one on the board has decided to enforce it because it isnt considered a serious issue or because they have bigger problems if that's the case you're lucky. in our estate they send out house rules every so often and it clearly says no pets, the clauses in the contracts usually state "no animals which in the view of the company causes a nusanice" or something like that.

    OP sorry to hear about it, to be honest I wouldnt risk getting one because you will become attached as all owners do and may end up having to rehome it if the company decided to enforce the rules


  • Options
    #19
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    Faolchu wrote: »
    noise isnt the only form of nusaince that animals can create, foulding in the common areas, hair in the common areas causing a flair up in someones alergies, chasing cars, digging in common areas, just running about the place all these could be considered nusiance.
    Agreed. But any dog which is responsibly owned won't do any of these things.
    "animals which in the view of the company causes a nusanice"
    They would be still required to justify it. They couldn't just decide that the dog was a nuisance.

    I know of a dog trainer who was having a similar argument with his management company which he brought to court. He had two large dogs living in his apartment and the management company claimed that they were causing a nuisance both inside the apartment block and outside.

    The management company were unable to provide any evidence of hassle outside the apartment but claimed that the dogs were constantly barking when left alone. So at the request of the court, a video camera was set up while the dogs were left alone in the apartment for a few hours. And lo, no barking or nuisance caused and the apartment owner won, including costs.

    So the management company or management agent can't just decide when they do or do not want a dog gone. The dog has to be causing a measureable nuisance, not some perceived possible nuisance or general discomfort.


  • Options
    #20
    silja
    Registered Users Posts: 2,921 ✭✭✭silja


    I believe the "no nuisance animals" clause is pretty standard, it gives the landlord/ MC an out if someone is being irresponsible as a animal owner. We had that clause in our contract, and I had four cats in a one bedroom apartment (which I owned), there was never any issues as they did not miow loudly and of course furniture damage was my own. There were also several dogs in the apartment complex, but the only way to know this was to see their owners walking them, there was never any barking heard (a combination of good sound proofing in this particular apartment complex and responsible dog ownership) or poop in the common areas.


  • Options
    #21
    Faolchu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭Faolchu


    seamus I think in your example that may be the exception. but to be fair most dogs wont be as well behaved as this. also what is inaudible from where the camera/recording equipement was set up may be fully audible elsewhere. but eitherway in this case the ruling was made in favour of the owner. i think if it went to court then the ruling would go the other way in most cases

    I also know owners who walk their pets all the time, groom them, keep them on leads, have what ever papers are required and in generl would be considered responsible owners yet the dogs bark like crazy, they chase birds around the garden etc.
    We had a dog when i was younger and it was well looked after never off a lead in public, didnt try to chase cars or kids on bikes, wasnt barking all the time etc but if a cat or bird sat on our back wall it went ape****.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Undercover_
    Closed Accounts Posts: 57 ✭✭Undercover_


    Ugh it is just so annoying, I completely agree with protection against dogs who mess in common areas and are left alone all the time so bark essessively etc, but its so unfair for people who live in very well sound insulated places, who would be good owners and not allow the dogs to run mad or to make a mess everywhere.

    Particularly when in the current market we'll probably be living here for the next 20 years!

    At least we have a frequent visit from a lovely stray cat :)


  • Options
    #23
    Faolchu
    Registered Users Posts: 1,740 ✭✭✭Faolchu


    Undercover_ wrote: »
    Ugh it is just so annoying, I completely agree with protection against dogs who mess in common areas and are left alone all the time so bark essessively etc,


    but its not just dogs is it, cats can be a nusiance because they are often left to roam freely, but also birds. someone where i live has one and often puts its cage outside and the squaks out of the yoke are unreal, if its inside you cant hear a thing but on the summer evenings they always put it outside, I guess for air or something.

    things liek would i like to have a cat/dog/horse should all be considered when purchasing in an apartment even the decision to have children should be considered when buying an apartment, many a person will buy a top floor apartment, pop out a sprog and think it acceptible to leave their buggie in ground floor hallway.


  • Options
    #24
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    The OP now has clarification on the specific issue but on the others there is a general lease clause that the directors can bring in other rules/or change rules at their discretion where such a rule is in the best interest of the development, with such rules being binding.

    In general dogs and high density living are a non starter. To be honest, few developments are built to a high enough standard that the human inhabitants do not cause a nuisance, not to mind adding in animals who don't stop making noise on request.


  • Options
    #25
    Pkiernan
    Registered Users Posts: 4,315 ✭✭✭Pkiernan


    Get a tortoise.

    Easy to keep, quiet, don't eat or crap a lot, and won't pose any threat of a nuisance (unless you drop it on your foot).


  • Options
    #26
    conorhal
    Registered Users Posts: 6,983 ✭✭✭conorhal


    seamus wrote: »
    Not all dogs bark. :)

    And a single bark couldn't be considered a "nuisance". It would have to be a pattern of barking or otherwise seriously inconvenient occurences to be considered a nuisance.

    For the record, this "nuisance" rule is in place in our development, and after we got our dog, tonnes of others equally saw us with the dog and got their own. And there have been no complaints or evictions.

    Yet.


    The thing is, sooner or later people's behavior eventually trends towards the lowest common denominator.
    We had a similar situation were I live. You had a few responsible pet owners that brought dogs into the complex, they were quiet, cleaned up after their animals and were generally respectful.
    Then because a few dogs were around others felt entitled to get one. It culminated in several tenants with a young dogs that would bark incessantly from balconies for hours and animals that were often dumped out the door to roam around crapping everywhere and jumping all over people.
    Complaints were made and there was a crackdown on all dogs in the complex as a result, so even if you are a responsible pet owner, it doesn't mean that you are immune from a broader enforcement.
    Same with satellite dishes, a few people started by put up discrete small black dishes in the corner of a balcony, and as soon as they went up of course they began to proliferate. Eventually you have enormous dishes (that wouldn’t have looked out of place at the VLA in New Mexico) on poles attached to the side of the building… and they all had to come down. So I wouldn’t risk it as there are no shortage of idiots that will eventually spoil the party for you.


  • Options
    #27
    Grolschevik
    Registered Users Posts: 3,472 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    Undercover_ wrote: »
    At least we have a frequent visit from a lovely stray cat :)

    That cat wouldn't happen to be pure white, by any chance? :)


  • Options
    #28
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    If you sign a lease that says no dogs that means no dogs. Ditto no dishes. There is no middle ground, you're either in compliance with your lease or you're not. So "discreet" dishes and "responsible" pet owners mean nothing if the lease says no.


  • Options
    #29
    HardyEustace
    Registered Users Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭HardyEustace


    I think this is a really interesting post as it highlights several important points.

    On reading this post first, I thought, "no, follow the management company rules and don't have a dog". However, the more I thought about it, the more I realised that my initial reaction wasn't correct because of several points:

    1. management companies shouldn't be able to chop and change rules at the drop of the hat.
    2. management agents can be very lazy and instead of adequately doing their job and ensuring responsible pet ownership, it's easier for them to introduce a blanket ban which will punish everyone.
    3. by the same token, you need to have adequate policing policies in place in order to ensure that people aren't disturbed by bad pet ownership (in this case).
    4. Because of the recession, people will be in their apartments for many years to come and thus should be able to make the place "a home" provided it doesn't impact on other people.
    5. Irish people aren't used to viewing apartment living in the same way as house living (somewhere permanent that is your home as opposed to somewhere to live till you move to a house).

    So provided the OP is a reasonable and responsible dog owner I don't think they should be prevented from having a dog.


  • Options
    #30
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    HardyEustace wrote: »
    I think this is a really interesting post as it highlights several important points.

    On reading this post first, I thought, "no, follow the management company rules and don't have a dog". However, the more I thought about it, the more I realised that my initial reaction wasn't correct because of several points:

    1. management companies shouldn't be able to chop and change rules at the drop of the hat.
    2. management agents can be very lazy and instead of adequately doing their job and ensuring responsible pet ownership, it's easier for them to introduce a blanket ban which will punish everyone.
    3. by the same token, you need to have adequate policing policies in place in order to ensure that people aren't disturbed by bad pet ownership (in this case).
    4. Because of the recession, people will be in their apartments for many years to come and thus should be able to make the place "a home" provided it doesn't impact on other people.
    5. Irish people aren't used to viewing apartment living in the same way as house living (somewhere permanent that is your home as opposed to somewhere to live till you move to a house).

    So provided the OP is a reasonable and responsible dog owner I don't think they should be prevented from having a dog.

    As an owner & director of our management company I would give these answers:

    1 - rules can't be brought in at the drop of a hat. The directors are legally accountable for the MC and any changes to rules need to be able to stand up in court.

    2- management agents cannot introduce any rules but it is their job to ensure that lease conditions are complied with. The owner signed a legal document saying they agreed not to have a dog.

    3 - if the lease says no pets this comment doesn't apply. If the lease says no pets that cause a nuisance, the agent can only act on the foot of complaints about disturbance.

    4 - this has to be done in the context of the legal documents signed at purchase. These are what the owners signed up to and what they are obliged to comply with whether they live there for a day or a decade. Recession or not, it amazes me how many people didn't consider the implications of what they were signing.

    5 - this is absolutely true. The lack of consideration I've encountered in apartment living is partly explained by people not being used to living in high density situations, that will change in time.

    On your final point I disagree 100%. The OP signed a lease that explicitly says no dogs. So therefore, as long as they are living in that property, they are legally obliged to not have a dog. They have posted already that they will comply.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    HardyEustace
    Registered Users Posts: 1,462 ✭✭✭HardyEustace


    athtrasna wrote: »

    On your final point I disagree 100%. The OP signed a lease that explicitly says no dogs. So therefore, as long as they are living in that property, they are legally obliged to not have a dog. They have posted already that they will comply.

    Sorry, I think I'm misunderstanding the context. From my reading of the mails, I thought that the original contacts stated no animals that cause a nuisance, and then the contract was changed to no pets without any consultation by the management company/agent.

    If it was in the contract from the get-go then I would agree with all of your comments about the matter.


Advertisement