How can anybody not love a dog? Or a cat I suppose (I personally don’t take to cats but I don’t dislike them).
This is the question asked so often when people learn that some retirement villages don’t permit pets – or they will allow goldfish but not birds, cats and dogs.
And on paper it sure does seem mean hearted. The operators must be bastards in fact. And I personally would agree with this if they are going to prevent a new resident bringing their long time best friend, Fluffy the dog or Licker the cat.
But like all things, there is a reason or should I more properly say, there is history.
No-one wants pet disputes
After many conversations with operators, and some state resident associations, it is not so much dislike of animals which drives such a policy but the behaviour of residents.
Simply put, pets frequently create disputes between neighbours which then calls in the village manager to adjudicate. This is a ‘no win’ situation for the manager and the operator. So they make it easy for themselves and have a ‘no pets’ policy.
Before you get angry, let me tell you of a real life story.
A resident in a village in Queensland bought a bird which happily sang in its cage in the sun each morning. This annoyed her neighbour intensely and she complained to the village manager who explained the pet policy allowed a bird; case closed.
The neighbour however was not satisfied and took the issue to the operator who also sided with the bird owner. Not satisfied, the neighbour went to the tribunal who ordered mediation. The operator pointed to the contract which allowed pets and also argued the bird gave great comfort to its owner and it was only fair she be allowed to keep it. The neighbour could not agree and the dispute was elevated to a full tribunal hearing.
Court costs can go into the thousands
The operator engaged lawyers in effect to fight on behalf of the bird owner at a cost to the operator of $50,000.
The tribunal found in favour of the neighbour. It looked at the contract and the clause which stated the operator was duty-bound to provide a quiet and supportive environment. The singing bird was not required and it disrupted the neighbour’s environment.
So the operator was out of pocket $50,000 fighting on the principle that pets were ‘good’ on behalf of the bird owner, who invested no money. The bird had to go.
Operators will tell you disputes between neighbours around noise, friendly dogs that jump up on you, dogs that chase cats, cats that get into other people’s gardens and eat lizards and birds e.t.c., create nightmare/no win confrontations which have nothing to do with the operator.
Net result: no pets.
Another ‘rule’ which appears unfair is the non-replacement of pets. Here, a new resident brings their pet dog or cat into their village home but the rule says once it dies it cannot be replaced. This seems particularly harsh but there is a reason.
The operator is concerned that a younger animal will outlive the resident and then – who will look after it them? The animal will be accustomed to 24/7 unconditional love and then it would have to be sent to a new home with no guarantee of what will happen.
The majority of villages have pet policies which do allow all animals up too small to medium size dogs, proving this policy can work. The same is the case for most apartment buildings. It may require a bit more effort by the operator and reasonableness by some residents, but clearly it’s worth it.
Get with the program.
