For more than a decade I have assisted pet owners who have fallen foul of corporate body bullies in complexes. I have seen some astonishing behaviour from Trustees, who seem for the most part to be petty tyrants rather than benevolent leaders seeking to find equitable solutions that serve the interests of all their members.
My most recent case was that of Jennifer Sills and her ongoing battle with the Trustees at Glenwalk in Durban North.
Jennifer needed to get her daughter, who has suffered trauma, a therapy dog, and after conducting research, settled on a cocker spaniel, thinking that the approval would be a mere formality. She applied on the 19th Dec and was only declined on the 29th and since they knew full well that it was arriving on the 25th as a Xmas gift, the delay seemed strategic.
When she applied, she was unaware of an Annexure to the Conduct Rules, which had purportedly been added and approved by the body corporate at a previous AGM.
Annexure D: “The mass weight of any pet, when fully grown, may not exceed 7 kg”
When Jen challenged the denial of permission on the basis of weight because another member had a dog weighing more than that, the response of Greg Stevens, the Trustee who deals with pet issues, was condescending in his response, which was little more than tap dancing:
“Obviously this dog is above the weight limit and as such should not be allowed, but in mitigation the owner, who you rightfully said was a Trustee, did request permission for this dog before he brought it into the complex, and based upon the type of dog and the fact that he specifically informed us he was choosing the smallest of the litter, permission was granted, in the hope it would not exceed the 7kg weight limit.
As Trustees we undertake to ensure all abide by the complex rules, and yet understand there may, from time to time, have to be some leeway. Unfortunately, the leeway you are requesting is nearly double the acceptable weight limit and therefore as Trustees we unfortunately have to deny permission for you to bring a Cocker Spaniel into Glenwalk.”
The dog in question at unit 8 is a mini–Australian Shepherd, and the owners Son of whom friends with Jen’s daughter is that the dog weighed 26 kg. The owner is also a Trustee and a known rule breaker. Apparently, Trustees are not subject to the Rules…
Here is a picture of the dog in question (on the right) and it is clearly a LOT more than 9 kg’s as Greg Stevens claims. And this “Trustee” is seen shooting at monkeys using a BB gun, which is illegal.
It seems “leeway” is only given to certain people.
But the Conduct Rule is itself problematic, because it is arbitrary. There is no condition or behaviour that changes when a dog is over 7 kg that has any bearing on member’s rights, nor can the extra weight have any animal welfare implications; it is a rule that protects no rights. The Sectional Titles Act states that consent “must not be unreasonably withheld”. Their denial, based on an arbitrary rule, was clearly unreasonable.
There are other provisions in the Conduct Rules are arguably unlawful, including limiting pets to a single animal (dogs are social animals), and prohibiting cats completely (a blanket ban is unlawful, each case should be assessed on its merits) and arguably unconstitutional.
Annexure 2 to the Sectional Title Schemes Management Act states, with regard to Conduct Rules:
Prescribed in terms of section 10 (2) (b) of the Sectional Titles Schemes Management Act, 2011 (Act No. 8 of 2011).
Keeping of animals, reptiles and birds:
(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.
Jennifer had previously mentioned to the Chairman and the Trustee (mentioned above) that the dog was a therapy dog for her daughter, which was conveniently ignored by the Trustees. When this was raised again with the Managing Agent, Adele Ackermann, she asked for a medical report: “there is usually a medical report and circumstances where an emotional support dog is a necessity, which would need to be provided and relating to the specific breed of animal you are wanting. Emotional Support Animals are very specific and technically trained, e.g., when a person has epilepsy. Thereby, the trustees cannot unreasonably withhold approval, provided the information is supported by medical reports etc.” There was no place on the pet approval application form for information pertaining to support animals.
When the information was duly provided, the Trustees then denied permission again, completely side-lining the therapy dog issue and relying on the 7 kg rule. What kind of person does this? Denying a 10-year-old girl an emotional support animal because it doesn’t fall under an arbitrary weight limit, which is unlawful anyway? How petty. Surely there are more important things to stand by than compliance with small-minded, incoherent rules.
In cases where an owner or occupier provides supporting documentation from a licensed mental health professional recommending that they would benefit from keeping a therapy pet or emotional support animal, the trustees should consider the request carefully. While Prescribed Conduct Rule 1(1) does not explicitly cover these types of animals, it could be argued that they serve as assistance animals for individuals with mental health disabilities.
As such, trustees should evaluate each case individually, taking into account the specific needs of the owner or occupier concerned, the type of animal, and the potential impact this animal may have on the community. They should also consider any reasonable conditions that may be imposed on the keeping of the animal to mitigate any potential nuisance that it may cause.
The Managing Agent in this case, Adele Ackerman of Accumin, then raised what was effectively a diversion, querying the qualifications of the Doctor who had stated that Jennifer’s daughter needed an emotional support animal: “…please advise if Dr Rees is a GP or a licensed mental health practitioner?” This was an almost desperate attempt to set aside the support animal issue. An anxiety disorder can be diagnosed by a primary care doctor. In severe cases, you will be referred to a mental health specialist (psychiatrist) for follow-up and treatment.
It’s worth noting that Adele Ackerman seemed to be prejudiced in both her attitude and her actions, taking the side of the Trustees in every instance rather than taking a neutral position. And the Chairman of the Board, Andrew Marriott, who behaves like a petty tyrant, was heard to make derogatory comments about Jenny behind her back.
When Jennifer told them that her Doctor is indeed qualified to diagnose and treat patients with Anxiety and PTSD, the issue seemed to have been resolved.
it is crucial for trustees to approach the issue of therapy pets and emotional support animals with sensitivity and understanding.
They didn’t do any of this; they merely sought a way to avoid the emotional support animal issue entirely, by invoking the weight limit rule. It means they certainly didn’t consider the circumstances or the needs of Jennifer’s daughter; they just sought a means to get their own way.
Apparently, these Trustees, and especially the four males, tend to discriminate against single women, and their condescending attitude towards Jennifer betrays their bias.
There is also some doubt as to whether the Conduct Rules were registered anyway. The Rules were apparently changed previously by Special Resolution, but there was no record of the vote, nor could the registration of the Rules be confirmed with CSOS. This was repeatedly requested from the Managing Agent and somehow never surfaced. This is extraordinary and suggests that they buried the information or that the Rules were never registered, which would make their denial null and void.
After consideration of the circumstances, which included her daughter’s rising anxiety and a negative prognosis of the relationship between Jennifer and the Trustees, Jennifer recently decided to sell and move elsewhere.
What I found disturbing about this case was the insistence, by the Trustees, on a Rule that defies logical or ethical legitimacy. There is nothing that happens at 7.1 kg that is of legal or moral significance – what exactly is the intent of such a rule? Do other corporate body members need to be protected from dogs weighing more than 7 kg? Is there something magical that renders such animals as potential threats to social harmony? Where is the ethological evidence for this absurd proposition? Are these people insane or just stupid?
In fact, exactly the opposite is true. Very small dogs are more likely to yap and disturb the peace because of some unthreatening stimulus.
Are there animal welfare implications? How so? I have seen much larger dogs kept in apartments and walked daily, without any undue effects on their welfare – dogs tend to sleep a lot if left to themselves. I live on a plot and we go out several times a day for walks, but in between those times, my pack sleep. A LOT.
It’s difficult to comprehend the thinking that went into the creation of such a rule, but it’s even more difficult to understand the motivation behind needing to deprive a 10-year-old of the therapy and companionship provided by a dog.
My experience over the last decade with Managing Agents has also been underwhelming. They mostly serve their masters, which is anyone who is paying them; any ethical responsibility seems beyond them.
As for the Trustees, they seem invariably to come from a particularly insecure sector of humanity, who need to control everyone and everything. And they are allowed to because the other members let them, some to ‘keep the peace’, really a form of moral cowardice, and others because if it doesn’t affect them personally, they don’t care.
Lastly, this scenario arises far too often and it happens because there is no provision in the law that forces Estate Agents to disclose, before the purchase of a given unit in a Sectional Title complex, the Conduct Rules that govern that complex. It’s about time that law was promulgated.
To anyone considering buying a Sectional Title Unit: trust nobody, ask lots of questions. Nobody is looking out for you, even CSOS, which is toothless and incompetent.
