A Queensland couple has lost a bid to let their pet dog ride in their apartment building’s lift, leaving them with no choice but to take six flights of stairs to access their home.
The pair were barred from taking their 4-kilogram dog into the sole lift of their three-storey complex after seeking pet approval from the building’s body corporate.
While permission to keep the dog was granted in November last year, the approval came with a strict condition – the animal was not permitted in the lift under any circumstances.
The couple, who own an apartment on the top floor of the complex, argued the rule was unreasonable and claimed it imposed “significant inconvenience” on their daily lives.
Instead of riding the lift, they said they were forced to navigate six flights of stairs, two locked gates and a basement car park where moving vehicles posed a risk, as well as slippery conditions in wet weather.
The owners, who plan to start a family, also questioned how they would manage the journey with both a pram and a dog.
They argued there was little evidence to justify the restriction, describing claims that another dog had once urinated in the lift as unsubstantiated, while pointing out that other residents had taken their pets into the lift.
In their application to overturn the condition, the couple requested permission to use the lift provided the dog was carried, placed in a secure carrier or kept on a short leash.
They escalated the dispute to the Queensland Office of the Commissioner for Body Corporate and Community Management, but their application was dismissed.
The body corporate committee argued the condition was part of a standard pet policy adopted in March 2023, tribunal documents show.
With 69 apartments sharing a single lift, the committee said the policy was designed to strike a balance between pet owners and residents who objected to animals in the building.
The committee acknowledged other dogs had been seen in the lift, but noted those owners were notified of a breach and had complied.
It also noted that an exemption had once been granted to an owner who was recovering from major surgery, unlike the couple’s bid to have the ban permanently lifted.
Adjudicator Stone accepted the stairs caused genuine inconvenience, but found the committee was entitled to balance personal rights against community interests.
“There is nothing clearly unreasonable about that approach to the decision,” he said.
“It is not illogical to expect that other owners may encounter the dog in the scheme’s only lift, and that some of them might prefer not to.”
One resident had raised a severe allergy to dog dander, while every other owner who made a formal submission opposed the application, agreeing the rule struck the right balance.
The adjudicator addressed the couple’s concerns about managing a future child, but noted that was not their present situation.
“If they have a child and the condition becomes unworkable, they might approach the committee about it,” Stone said.
While the couple questioned the evidence behind the rule, the committee confirmed the building’s onsite manager had twice been forced to clean the lift after a dog urinated inside it over the past year.
Stone dismissed the application, concluding: “I am not satisfied that the committee acted unreasonably.”
Pets have been allowed in Sydney apartments for 5 years. Has it worked?
The decision was labelled one of the top 10 influential court cases of the 21st century by the Australian College of Law, with an amendment made to the Strata Schemes Management Act to formalise the change in 2021.
Landlord’s ‘unreasonable’ pet request sparks rental confusion
Pet rules for renters are changing, but many still don’t know their rights.
‘Get it under control’: Resident receives unnerving complaint despite not having a pet
A note about a barking dog was left on their door. The problem is, they don’t have a pet.
The information on this website is intended to be of a general nature only and doesn't consider your objectives, financial situation or needs.
