No Pets Policy Unreasonable

A recent decision holding that a "no pets policy" was unreasonable.  See Palm Grove Village.

In another recent decision, Bay Vista Apartments, the adjudicator decided that it was permissible for a potential resident (owner or tenant) to obtain approval prior to becoming a resident:

"I see no reason why a lot owner could not seek approval for a pet on behalf of a prospective owner who would like to keep a pet if they became an owner, or indeed for a prospective lot owner directly seeking approval for a pet. Similarly I see nothing to prevent an owner seeking approval on behalf of a current or prospective tenant. Of course any approval would be conditional on the person actually purchasing (or leasing) the lot. ...

In my view, preventing consideration of pet requests by or on behalf of a prospective lot owner or occupier creates unreasonable difficulties for an owner in selling or leasing their lot. It is entirely understandable that people with pets would not wish to rent or buy a lot without the prior assurance that they will be able to keep their pets. If they are not permitted to seek approval until they move in, they will be in an invidious position if approval is not then given.

I am at a loss to see what possible disadvantage there could be to the Body Corporate from deciding the matter before a sale or lease is completed. It could seek reasonable further information about the prospective occupant or pet if they wished. If approval is given conditional on the sale or lease being completed, it lapses if the sale or lease does not proceed. By deciding the issue before the occupancy commences, they also avoid the situation of an unapproved pet being brought on the scheme while a decision is pending."