Help - no dogs, or is it?

skilful

Hi,

Me and my partner have just exchanged on a leasehold flat in Stoke Newington, North London, to complete in about a week. The flat is a ground floor garden flat, half of a 2-storey, 2-flat conversion of a small victorian terrace. It is very near the lovely local park, and the vast mojaority of other houses in the row are not conversions. Looking through the lease, we found a condition which, depending on how you read it, either prohibited mythical "bird dogs", dogs that may cause annoyance, or dogs altogether. Obviously the latter was the worst case scenario for us and our dog. For clarity, our solicitor contacted the management company who claimed the lease prohibited all dogs but would ask the freeholder if they would be willing to allow it. Today I have heard that "with regret" the freeholder insists the terms of the lease are upheld.

So.

Seeing as removing the dog is not an option (we were actually recommended to get a dog by the Doctor for health reasons) and we are committed to buying this place by now (being too optimistic for our own good) I can see only two glimmers of hope:

Good Cop:

The first would be attempting to contact the freeholder directly to state our case. I actually do understand the freeholder's concern, which is mainly due to the fact that, as I understand it, he is also the leaseholder of the other flat, which he sublets. Therefore he is trying to protect this asset I suppose. The current tennant who I met once, seemed like a friendly, youngish italian fellow, and he has been there for 4 years. He rents the place through the same estate agents who are the managment company for the lease.

I was thinking of writing to the managment company and asking them to forward a letter to the freeholder, in which we would basically beg him to reconsider on the grounds of compassion, but also giving assurances on the behaviour of the dog, and stating the fact that there are plenty of dogs living on the street which are just as likely to cause annoyance to his tennant, but which clearly don't. Stoke Newington, if you don't know, is a very family oriented place, full off remarkably well-behaved dogs, and people. I am considering actually asking the tenant too, in the hope he'll say he wouldn't mind. We are intending to do a lot of work to the property ourselves (it's quite tatty and needs new bathroom, kitchen, windows, heating, etc.) which can only have a positive effect on his investments, we are a very tidy, quiet and consiencious couple (we hardly ever stay up after 11pm anymore, let alone to play the pianola), and we are only intending to stay for a few years, by which point we will be in need of more space for human puppies. I am also not averse to overstating the health benefits.

Bad Cop:

Of course I hope it doesn't come to it, but if all this fails, I will need to play hard ball (which I believe is a like rounders but meaner). Firstly - and as I asked in another thread - is anyone aware of the situation regarding Collective Enfranchisement where the one other leaseholder is actually also the freeholder? The law seems to state that if all parties want to buy the freehold then they can. But in this situation, our one other party already did. Is there any way we can take advantage of this law, or at least threaten to, to get a share in the freehold, and then be able to grant our own permission?

The main thing though would be the actual wording or this lease, as I hinted earlier. The freeholder insists the terms of the lease are upheld, assuming that dogs are banned outright. However I find the phrasing of the term to be dubious at best:

"No bird dog or other animal which may cause annoyance to any owner lessee or occupier of the other flats comprised in the Building shall be kept in the Demised Premises."

To me this fails to exclude all dogs - dogs which may cause annoyance perhaps. Also there's an obvious comma missing between "bird" and "dog" if the intention was to suggest no birds and no dogs. Grammatically this is saying no "bird dogs", which is either a bizarre hybrid creature (and no wonder you'd ban it - imagine the mess) or a dog used to hunt birds. We can safely suppress both our hunting and genetic-modification urges, so no problems there then.

Furthermore, we are actually in the process of having the lease extended (it was part of the deal when buying the place). This means he'll be expecting us to pay him a cool 11 and a half grand soon. I'm not sure if that's something I can use to twist his arm.

Our solicitor suggested a bit of both, i.e. a begging letter which also quotes the lease and questions its scope, which on reflection would probably be the best course of action. But if that still fails, what would be likely to happen if we moved in with the dog anyway? Would we realistically be able to argue my point at all? Would it come to court action, and if so how would they find? And then what would happen? Could we suggest we're looking to move out, and then slowly look for a new place while keeping the dog?

I'd really appreciate some knowledgable advice. After all the stress of buying it in the first place I'm just about ready to go nuts (which is where the dog first came in actually).

Many thanks in advance.

Dora_the_Explorer_5

Hope this helps. If the dog acts as a 'support' dog and this is why you have him you (he prevents you from feeling anxious/panicky) you could try and win the leaseholders sympathy along those lines - bit like a guide dog or hearing dog for deaf people. Haven't a clue about the rest of it, but it looks a bit sticky. Personally if I was a leaseholder and didn't want animals I'd say so in the lease, which is what your leaseholder has done. It's really not their fault that you didn't understand what you signed for. Good luck.

skilful

Dora_the_Explorer wrote:

Hope this helps. If the dog acts as a 'support' dog and this is why you have him you (he prevents you from feeling anxious/panicky) you could try and win the leaseholders sympathy along those lines - bit like a guide dog or hearing dog for deaf people. Haven't a clue about the rest of it, but it looks a bit sticky. Personally if I was a leaseholder and didn't want animals I'd say so in the lease, which is what your leaseholder has done. It's really not their fault that you didn't understand what you signed for. Good luck.

Maybe I could claim to be blind, which is why I couldn't read the lease properly :rolleyes:

You're bang on about the anxious/panicky bit though, and I reckon I could get a Doctor's note to support this

Cheers

xela_17

I sympathise as I know how upset I would be to be in this situation with my pet. However, did you have the lease before exchange and if so did you read it? You would have been in a much better position for negotiating before exchange.

However, I would now try to appeal to the freeholder's better nature by using all the points you mentioned above. Could you get a letter from your vet saying that your dog is well behaved? Could you get a letter from your doctor saying you need the dog for health reasons? Could you get a letter from the other tenant saying he doesn't mind the dog? All of these may help change the freeholder's mind in the first instance. If this doesn't work then you could try the other route.

hth.

skintchick

"No bird dog or other animal which may cause annoyance to any owner lessee or occupier of the other flats comprised in the Building shall be kept in the Demised Premises."

You're reading this wrong. It means that any animal that might, or could conceivably, cause an annoyance is banned. A dog could cause an annoyance, and therefore all dogs are banned.

It's legalese but it does ban any animal that could be an annoyance now or at some point in the future.

You haven;t got much hope of getting round this I'm afraid. It was your responsibility to check the lease.

Sorry to be the bearer of bad tidings

skilful

humans are the most annoying animals of all...

Ian_W

humans are the most annoying animals of all...

Many a true word ... !!

Typical poor legalese to omit commas and leave what I think is a simple proviso open to various interpretations. I'm sure they [lawyers] only do it to ensure a future supply of work!! :whistle:

I take it to mean "no birds, no dogs and no other animals that might cause ...." though I would go along the route suggested by your lawyer but it is rather late in the day to be doing this now you've exchanged.

Wouldn't like to be in that position with our dogs, I'd give up the property before I'd give them up so BoL to you. :grouphug:

skilful

by the way skintchick, i know what you are saying, but i thought legalese was supposed to be complex, but at least watertight. my point was that this doesn't even hold water grammatically. it seems to me to be open to interpretation, but i'm a layman, not a lawman. my solicitor tended to agree, though cautiously - just wondering if that is your interpretation in any sort of professional capacity? i know it sounds like grasping at straws, but it might be the straw that breaks the camel's back. oh dear, my metaphors are all over the place here

cheers

vicstar_2

I had a similar situation when I was in the process of buying a new build flat. I have two cats and the lease prohibited the keeping of any pets in the flat. After much argument with the freeholder (prior to exchange) I eventually walked away. There was no way I was going to part with my cats and if the freeholder refused to compromise before exchange I didn't hold out much hope of them doing so afterwards.

It all worked out for the best in the end as I finally bought a house with a bigger garden for the cats. The flat I was going to buy was on the market for ages after I pulled out which made me really happy;)

I know leases have these restrictions in for the benefit of other tenants but if the animals are not causing a nuisance I'm not sure what the problem is really.

If I were you I'd just move in with the dogs and let the freeholder go to the fuss (and expense) of doing something about it - if there are no complaints from the other tenant he may decide to save his money.

V

skilful

Thanks again all, the problem here is we're buying from an existing leaseholder, not the freeholder. So really we had and have nothing to negotiate with, save the £11,500 we're due to pay him when the lease is extended, which may not be for a few weeks. Of course we shouldve sorted this all out earlier, and walked away if necessary, but the pressure was piling on at the time. No excuse though.

In this case the one other tenant in this property is above us, and far less likely to be disturbed by a dog 12 feet below him than any which are in either neighbouring terraces.

jobbingmusician

Bird dogs are hunting dogs. And it is possible to train them so they don't cause annoyance by buyingthis book. (Not my book, no interest, I promise. I just googled 'bird dog' to see if it meant what I thought. It did)

Badly worded lease, I agree. A shame you have exchanged as your best negotiating time is behind you - I think the 'support dog' idea is a good'un!