Change of statute

 At our latest AGM the vice president proposed to adopt a statute in the constitution prohibiting rental tenants from housing pets. It was proposed that the community does not become a home for rental owners who have pets and that any tenant renting property is excluded from housing any form of pet.

Surely this is discrimination against tenants...and what is the difference between a property owner having a pet and a tenant?  Surely it is up to the individual owner's discretion on allowing their tenant to have a pet.  As far as I am aware this cannot be applied and that property owners and tenants cannot be treated differently.

Could someone please point me in the right direction to determine if this is legal or not.

 Hello Gitana;  

Firstly the tenant inherits the rights of the owner by way of written contract.The community officers may ask for written consent from the owner from time to time when faced with requests from the tenant. Hence the ammendment sort at the meeting was flawed.

Secondly it is difficult to ammend & introduce new statutes in communities as unanimity is required in the voting.Did this occur at your meeting? Most statutes are created at the incorporation point of the community for this reason.

I enclose below the relevent clause of the LPH which applies.

I hope this helps.

F.Parkinson. Jacksons Administradores SL

Vey interesting F.Parkinson.

This is precisely the situation my friend is in, Owners are allowed dogs, but not in the communal areas. But they banned tenants from having dogs - her tenants arrived with a tiny dog without telling her.

So, provided there was 'unanimity' at the vote, it's OK for the community to enforce the 'no dogs for tenants' rule?

 Hello Aly ; Whilst the community may have fulfilled their requirements of  the LPH with regard to statutes in the voting if unanimity was present ; it does not change the tenant's rights of inheritance of the owner's rights who is the community member. IE if the owners can have a dog but not in communal areas then so can the tenant as they have the use of the owners rights.

Hence the flaw in the ammendment voted on. 

I hope this explains it.

Regards 

F.Parkinson Jacksons Administradores SL

Thank you very much. Something else we will be discussing with the administrators!

Basically, the overiding factor is the Law, so any statutes must be lawful. It doesn't matter how many people in a community vote for something, if it is against the law then it cannot be applied. So the in the case of domestic animals, it is against the law to prohibit them inside a property.

 Thank you so much to all the people who have replied and assisted me with this problem.  It appears that some communities are applying rules and regulations at whim even though they may have checked things out with their administrators.  Apparently the administrators for our community do not see anything wrong in treating property owners and tenants differently.  In most cases, property owners and tenants do not know their rights and are unsure how to ascertain the legalities of them.