Problems renting with pets?

Closed Thread
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
  1. #11

    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Darkside
    Posts
    1,589

    It's called 'Caring for the animal' rather than 'Thinking only of number 1'.

    Animals don't choose to be ex-pats - cats tend to be comfortable in a certain familiar environment and being able to wander (a generalisation but not too far off the truth). The OP might know little of HK and may not be familiar with the fact that unless they are spunked full of cash they'll prolly be in a rabbit hutch 20 floors up. The cat may well need a cat-o-chute.


  2. #12

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,561
    Quote Originally Posted by Load Toad:
    It's called 'Caring for the animal' rather than 'Thinking only of number 1'.

    Animals don't choose to be ex-pats - cats tend to be comfortable in a certain familiar environment and being able to wander (a generalisation but not too far off the truth). The OP might know little of HK and may not be familiar with the fact that unless they are spunked full of cash they'll prolly be in a rabbit hutch 20 floors up. The cat may well need a cat-o-chute.
    Again, OP didn't seem to ask for opinions on whether to move their pet, which is a very personal decision. They asked about housing that allows cats. Do you leave your kids at home when you relocate just because there is a better school system or the air is cleaner? No. Keeping an animal with its family is the quite often the best way to care for the animal. Cats adapt. Cat proofing an apartment is pretty easy and cheap. Plenty of non-profits in HK explain how to do it if any questions.

  3. #13

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    HIGH UP IN THE SKY
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by PDLM:
    Your source for that assertion?
    check TSANG CHI MING v. BROADWAY-NASSAU INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER - [2008] HKDC 261; DCCJ001704/2007, 30 September 2008

    it goes something like this:
    "In my Judgment keeping a pet in one’s premises is within the right and privilege of the owner/occupant in enjoying his premises. By prohibiting the owners/occupants from keeping dogs in their flats, I find that Rule 3 does interfere with the owners’/occupiers’ right to exclusive use occupation and enjoyment of their flats provided under Clause 1 of the DMC. The fact that some dogs may cause nuisance to other residents is no justification for adopting a broadbrush approach in disallowing all owners to keep dogs (however small). In particular, when taking into account Clause 9(1) DMC have already provided means/measures against possible nuisance that may be caused by dogs."

    i aint no lawyer. get a lawyer for legal issues.

  4. #14

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    HIGH UP IN THE SKY
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by hello_there:
    There was a court case a while back on this, but I can't remember the details. I think the ruling was very limited - to a specific building and may have involved a former public housing estate. Let me ask some of the HK lawyers at work if they remember more details.
    I don't think the ruling has been challenge since. The dog lived at Mei Foo, that huge estate in west kowloon. Since this case, Housing Authority and/or dept of fisher & ag have allow dog owners to register their dogs in public housing estate.

  5. #15

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,561

    That's right, you are not a lawyer and you are reading way too much into this case.

    Like I said earlier, the ruling is VERY limited, to a particular set of facts at a particular property. Basically, there was a "House Rule" (Rule 3) at that estate made by the management company that said "no dogs". The authority to make House Rules at the estate comes from a binding deed of mutual covenant. This particular deed of covenant only allowed the management company to make rules for the common areas and did not allow the management company to make rules for the owners' units. Because the house rule (no dogs) applied to owners' units, it was void. Deeds of covenant in HK can still prohibit keeping of animals or allow management companies to make the determination by granting them the proper authority.


    Quote Originally Posted by thundacatchergo:
    check TSANG CHI MING v. BROADWAY-NASSAU INVESTMENTS LTD AND ANOTHER - [2008] HKDC 261; DCCJ001704/2007, 30 September 2008

    it goes something like this:
    "In my Judgment keeping a pet in one’s premises is within the right and privilege of the owner/occupant in enjoying his premises. By prohibiting the owners/occupants from keeping dogs in their flats, I find that Rule 3 does interfere with the owners’/occupiers’ right to exclusive use occupation and enjoyment of their flats provided under Clause 1 of the DMC. The fact that some dogs may cause nuisance to other residents is no justification for adopting a broadbrush approach in disallowing all owners to keep dogs (however small). In particular, when taking into account Clause 9(1) DMC have already provided means/measures against possible nuisance that may be caused by dogs."

    i aint no lawyer. get a lawyer for legal issues.

  6. #16

    Thank you all for your replies. It's good to know that Bel Air and Baugio Villas allow pets, as I was considering those places.

    Like some of you said, it sounds like it's down to the individual landlords so let's hope I'll be able to find some pet-loving landlords there.

    I'll also look into the legal ramifications a bit more.

    Thanks again.


  7. #17

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Pampanga, Philippines
    Posts
    31,266
    Quote Originally Posted by thundacatchergo:
    I don't think the ruling has been challenge since. The dog lived at Mei Foo, that huge estate in west kowloon. Since this case, Housing Authority and/or dept of fisher & ag have allow dog owners to register their dogs in public housing estate.
    Certainly my estate (not public housing - MTR owned) has a blanket ban on all pets of any shape or form and the notices go up regularly to remind people that if they are caught with pets then legal action will be taken against them.

  8. #18

    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    位置位置位置
    Posts
    50,032

    Can confirm that there are a ton of options in Pokfulam (including Baguio, Belair, Scenic Villas... smaller two / three floor apartment bldgs).


  9. #19

    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Posts
    1,561
    Quote Originally Posted by acidming:
    Thank you all for your replies. It's good to know that Bel Air and Baugio Villas allow pets, as I was considering those places.

    Like some of you said, it sounds like it's down to the individual landlords so let's hope I'll be able to find some pet-loving landlords there.

    I'll also look into the legal ramifications a bit more.

    Thanks again.
    Many landlords allow pets no questions asked. Just tell the estate agent you have a cat and they can rule out apartments based on building or landlord restrictions on animals before you even view. Also, the area you are looking at is quite pet friendly in general and you will have tons of options. Best of luck.

    Wouldn't worry about legal issues unless you are moving into a building that has a management imposed pet ban (usually huge and older estates and public housing but also some very new buildings), but in that case, the landlord would likely not allow pets before it even gets to the stage of dealing with the building management.

  10. #20

    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    HIGH UP IN THE SKY
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by hullexile:
    Certainly my estate (not public housing - MTR owned) has a blanket ban on all pets of any shape or form and the notices go up regularly to remind people that if they are caught with pets then legal action will be taken against them.
    so no goldfish or parakeets? but we can buy live fish and (used to) chicken for consumption.