In a previous article titled “Application for permission to keep pets in sectional title schemes”, we dealt with all matters relating to applications for permission to keep a pet in a sectional title scheme. In this article we will deal with how trustees may withdraw their consent, and how the pet may be legally removed from the scheme.
Prescribed Conduct Rule (“PCR”) 1 deals with the keeping of pets, and states:
“1. Keeping of animals reptiles and birds
1. (1) The owner or occupier of a section must not, without the trustees’ written consent, which must not be unreasonably withheld, keep an animal, reptile or bird in a section or on the common property.
(2) An owner or occupier suffering from a disability and who reasonably requires a guide, hearing or assistance dog must be considered to have the trustees’ consent to keep that animal in a section and to accompany it on the common property.
(3) The trustees may provide for any reasonable condition in regard to the keeping of an animal, reptile or bird in a section or on the common property.
(4) The trustees may withdraw any consent if the owner or occupier of a section breaches any condition imposed in terms of sub-rule (3).
In the same way that trustees need to take care when it comes to considering an application by an owner or occupier to keep pets, the trustees must take special care when they withdraw their consent in circumstances where the owner has breached the conditions.
Where an owner breaches any of the reasonable conditions imposed by the trustees in granting their consent, the trustees can withdraw their consent. The trustees can only withdraw their permission if it is reasonable to do so. It would be reasonable if:
- the conditions are not being met (for example an owner keeps four dogs instead of two);
- the pet is causing a nuisance to other owners or occupiers (for example where a dog is barking persistently); or
- the pet is considered dangerous to other owners or occupiers (for example where the dog bites another dog or child).
If the condition is breached the trustees can, after ensuring that they are aware of all the relevant circumstances and issues, and have given the owner or occupier a reasonable opportunity to put forward their case, withdraw their approval. Whether or not there was a breach must be decided based on natural justice. The owner must be given:
- notice of the breach;
- an opportunity to remedy the situation;
- a hearing where evidence is given;
- the trustees’ must be decided by majority vote;
- the trustees’ decision must be minuted;
- the owner must be given written notice of the withdrawal of consent; and
- the pet owner must be given a reasonable time to remove the pet.
In principle, where the trustees have reasonably, after following due process, withdrawn their consent to keep a pet the person concerned is then not entitled to continue keeping that pet in the scheme. However, the enforcement of this is not so simple for the trustees. The body corporate is not entitled to forcibly remove a pet from a person’s possession.
The trustees have to obtain on adjudication order for the removal of the pet from the Community Schemes Ombud Service (“the CSOS”). In terms of section 38 of the CSOS Act it is possible that any person may make an application to the CSOS if such person is a party to or affected materially by a dispute. The Body Corporate can therefore make an application to the CSOS to declare a dispute against the owner who has kept their pet in the scheme despite the trustees having withdrawn their permission.
An application must be made in the prescribed manner and as may be required by practice directives; lodged with an ombud; and accompanied by the prescribed application fee.
The application must include statements setting out:
- the relief sought by the applicant, which relief must be within the scope of one or more of the prayers for the relief contemplated in section 39 of the CSOS Act;
- the name and address of each person the applicant considers to be affected materially by the application; and
- the grounds on which the relief is sought.
The appropriate prayer for relief is contained in section 39(2)(b) and/or (c) in the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011, which states that:
“An application made in terms of section 38 must include one or more of the following orders: In respect of behavioural issues
(b) if satisfied that an animal kept in a private area or on common areas is causing a nuisance or a hazard or is unduly interfering with someone else’s peaceful use and enjoyment of his or her private area or common area, an order requiring the owner or occupier in charge of the animal-
(i) to take specified action to remedy the nuisance, hazard or interference; or
(ii) to remove the animal;
(c) an order declaring that an animal is being kept in a community scheme contrary to the scheme governance documentation, and requiring the owner or occupier in charge of the animal to remove it.”
The trustees can also get the assistance from the local SPCA. If, for example, there are too many dogs being kept in an inadequate space, the trustees can approach the local SPCA, who can be contacted to come to do an inspection at the scheme. If it is justified they will implement legal process to have the dogs removed.
It is unlikely that any action by the trustees to remove a “service animal”, such as a seeing-eye dog owned by a blind or partially sighted occupier, would be held to be reasonable in the absence of a clear nuisance caused by the animal.
If you require assistance in drafting the letter to an owner regarding their pet or require assistance in drafting the application to the CSOS then please contact us at consulting@paddocks.co.za.
Article reference: Paddocks Press: Volume 14, Issue 01.
This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution license.
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
- Graham Paddock on Body Corporate Functions: Insurance
- Graham Paddock on Spending body corporate funds
- Graham Paddock on The Levy Clearance Certificate: The Body Corporate’s Cheap & Effective Weapon
- Graham Paddock on The benefits of online sectional title meetings
- Heinz Wiesner on The benefits of online sectional title meetings
Archives
- January 2025
- December 2024
- November 2024
- October 2024
- August 2024
- July 2024
- June 2024
- May 2024
- April 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- January 2024
- December 2023
- November 2023
- October 2023
- September 2023
- August 2023
- July 2023
- June 2023
- May 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- January 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- August 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- April 2021
- March 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- November 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- February 2019
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- February 2008
- February 2007
4 Comments.
Thank you for the due process in managing the pets application and managment in a sectional titel complex.
One resident was granted permission to keep a cat until it dies. Now a tenant has a cat, a nuisance which enters units and sleeps on beds. The tenant has been asked to get rid of the cat but instead threatened to take legal action because cat 1 is allowed. Cat 2 catches at least five birds in our garden per week.
Hi Elizabeth,
Thank you for your comment. We would love to help, however we do not give free advice. Here’s how we can help:
– We offer consulting via telephone for R490 for 10 minutes. Please call us on 021 686 3950.
– We have Paddocks Club, an exclusive online club, to help you get answers to your questions about community schemes.
Kind regards,
Paddocks
We live in a dystopian world where people would try get others to get rid of their pets….. Not a world I want to be part of,