Community Schemes Ombud Services overturns dog poo fine against tenant

A pile of dog poo came at a cost for a tenant living in a complex in Sea Point when his landlord received a R250 fine for the messy heap - but the Community Schemes Ombud Services (CSOS) was clear that the fine cannot stand if there is no specific evidence that the dog in question was the culprit.

You simply cannot fine someone without evidence, the adjudicator said in ordering the body corporate to remove the R250 fine from the levy account of the owner of the unit.

Kobi Baribi, who owns a unit in a sectional title scheme property, told the CSOS that the offending poo is not from his tenant's dog.

He said the tenant always picks up after his dog and he explained, after looking at the offending mess, that this is probably from another animal, possibly large birds.

Baribi told the ombud service that neither he nor his tenant were even given a warning before they were simply slapped with the fine - this while there was no proof linking his tenant’s dog to the incident.

The tenant said the colouring and size of the poo, shown in a video recording, is totally inconsistent with his dog. He also mentioned that his dog never makes a poo on paving either (where this was found), only on grass.

The body corporate, in defending the fine it had issued, claimed Baribi’s tenant was the only one with a dog on the premises. It said when the faeces were noted, it was assumed that his dog is the culprit.

According to the body corporate, there had been various complaints in the past from residents about urine on the steps as well as excrement found on the concrete in the shared area of the property.

The body corporate also denied that the excrement comes from birds, as claimed by the tenant. In its defence, it attached a page showing pictures of excrement from the only two birds large enough and that are found in the area of Sea Point. These being the Egyptian Goose and Hadeda – which again based on photos they received did not “match” the excrement as found at Victory Court.

While the tenant said he had seen other dogs on the premises, the body corporate maintained that no excrement of any type had been noticed there prior to the tenant moving in with his dog.

It was adamant not to remove the R250 fine, as it fully believed the offending heap was from this dog. It told the ombud that the building’s stance is that it is a “no pets allowed” building and that the tenant willingly brought a dog.

Dr MA Chicktay, the adjudicator in this matter, remarked that having dog poo interferes with other owners' use and enjoyment of the common property. “There is, however, no real evidence before me that proves that the poo for which the applicant was fined was from the Applicant’s tenant’s dog. It was merely an assumption made by the Respondents.”

Without any significant evidence, one cannot hold the applicant liable for the dog poo in relation to this specific fine. Each allegation must be dealt with on its own merits and with evidence, the adjudicator said in ordering that the fine must be removed from the levy bill.

Cape Times