I read with interest the article Body corporate evicts pet from complex and would like to respond on this.
It is nice to have an article like this written where one can say everything, but I am subject to a ‘short letter’ as I have much more to say about it!
I am no animal hater, but as a trustee in a complex I am tired of ‘baby sitting’ dogs for other people.
We have encountered that people buying a sectional title unit actually just dump their pets there and we as the body corporate have to put up with the continuous barking, yapping and smell of faeces lying around.
Most owners/ tenants work all day with the result being their dogs are left home alone and the continuous barking drives one absolutely mad when watching TV or having visitors. On many occasions I have closed my door because of this, as the owners don’t worry or care about their neighbours at all.
Another incident was when a tenant ‘smuggled in’ a small puppy for her children without us knowing. How did we find out? By hearing continuous yapping and crying for hours on end. The woman in question had locked the puppy in the house and gone to work and there was nothing we could do until she returned. When confronting her about this, we were made out to be the ‘bad guys’ once again.
We do implement conditions when applying, plus a signboard on our entrance gate, but despite this we have irresponsible and careless estate agents who are the actual culprits and give the go-ahead by saying it is a “pet-friendly complex” just to make a sale and leave the buyers/ tenants sitting with the problem when they already have moved in, instead of first checking what the conditions are.
This is totally irresponsible and reckless.
The Friends of the Dog statement in the article is uncalled for and inexcusable by saying that our tactics are underhanded and so forth, as it is so clear they are not staying in a sectional title complex themselves to endure what we have to be put up with by unruly and irresponsible people who have dogs and who do not look after them properly or control them.
Ultimately, the blame should be put on the irresponsible estate agent as well as the tenants/ owners who should have called for the rules of the complex that clearly should state something about pets, including applying before moving in! Why lay the blame on the body corporate when they should be held responsible for wrong information given before moving in.
The blame and comments attributed to the body corporate/ sectional title in the initial article is totally impolite and uncalled for as we also have rights according to the Sectional Title Act and Body Corporate’s rules.
So yes, there are two sides to every story, and the article should have gotten the other side before printing a ‘one-sided’ opinion!
* Dear anonymous, thank you for your letter and for being the voice of the many bodies corporate in Krugersdorp. In the initial article it is stated very clearly that the News did contact the body corporate in question. What we did not include in the article was how the journalist was assaulted verbally by the said person who refused to speak to us, or anyone else about the matter. Even when we decided to write a more proactive article in order to inform future sectional title owners, again the person sweared and cursed at us. I hope this gives you more clarity to the ‘one-sided’ article you are referring to. Ed.
