I refer to the article by Marizka Coetzer, dated 4 November, regarding a pet being evicted.
If I may, I would like to be short, sweet and frank in this regard.
It is important to know when one is misled by the obvious. Letting and property agents and some property owners need to generate selling points. Whether it is true or not, we as consumers selectively accept the nonsense dished out by those who are scrupulous.
We will not buy a bad tomato but put our foot in it otherwise. Relying on others is not a good enough excuse either.
Nowhere in any act, rule, legislation, common cause or anticipated situation is there a definition, or whatever is pulled out of the hat to exonerate the term ‘pet friendly’, or any other ‘-friendly’ for that matter.
From the article, one deduces that the affected family will be tenants in the complex. Then, instead of starting an action against the body corporate, which is not always innocent either, the family should address the matter in terms of the Consumer Act with the agent or property owner who misrepresented the complex with a nonexistent ‘pet friendly’ sales point.
This misrepresentation by agents and property owners, are the most common factor for problems afterwards. The body corporate and new residents must resolve the matter, at cost of the good neighbour principle, while the agent or property owner collects the money.
Lastly, did the new residents read their contract, which may well hide in the small writing the fact that they agreed to accept the fabricated problem?
