Help - no dogs, or is it?

dander

I have a friend who lives in a flat above people who recently bought a dog. Apparently the dog is adorable, but it drives him insane. He hears every whimper and every scratch and every yap. Just because a dog lives below you, doesn't mean it won't be a problem. A clause like this is put in a lease for a good reason - it's try to stop anyone having to deal with anti-social behaviour from their neighbours.

Try to put yourself in the position of the other leaseholder - how would you feel if someone moved into the flat next to you and immediately started infringing the terms of the lease - you'd be angry I bet!

Also, if you start deliberately breaking the terms of the lease, then that is something you could be evicted for. Even if you own the flat. It might be fuss and bother for him to take you to court over it, but he'll surely win if he does.

I don't know anything about buying the freehold, but I do know that if I was the other leaseholder I wouldn't be willing to joint buy with you if I knew the reason you wanted to buy it. That clause in the lease is to protect him from annoyance. He'd want it stay surely.

skilful

Hi dander, thanks for your reply

What I was trying to say was that "the other leaseholder" in this case IS the freeholder. The upstairs flat is occupied not by him but by someone who sublets from him (a renter if you will). So my question about buying the freehold was to do with this particular situation, which I can't really figure out in relation to the laws of freehold.

Of course it's as valid to protect your tenant from annoyance as it would be yourself, so your point still stands, I just wanted to clarify the situation.

As for "deliberately breaking the terms of the lease", well that would depend on how you interpret the lease in the first place I suppose, and then subsequently the courts... But risking this would be stupid of course, I know.

I'm not sure what kind of flat your friend lives in, but I've lived in converted Victorian terraces for a long time, and honestly don't think you'd hear a dog whimper on the floor below (high ceilings and all), but I may be wrong. I'm not setting out to be anti-social, we would be dream neighbours in any other respect.

[Deleted User]

OP what type of dog have you got, what age, temperament etc as this could possibly have a bearing. We bought in a leasehold development and got permission prior to exchange. Our dog is quiet and elderly. The people opposite have 3 cats without permission but they mostly remain in their house and apart from making some mess outside they do not bother anyone. No-one has complained about them

If your dog is quiet enough to hide away then I would move him in under cover of darkness. If he is noisy in any way then imo you have a major problem but I think the freeholder would have to prove annoyance. Good luck, it is a terrible dilemma

seabright

Just a note about commas in legal documents - we never use them. Commas (and similar) can cause more misinterpretation than clarity, so we word things in such a way that we don't need them.

This clause is completely standard, I see it in over 50% of leases. The freeholder will also be worried about the effect dogs will have on the common areas and any communal gardens. Each flat will pay a service charge toward the upkeep of these, and dogs may cause more work to be needed.

Your lawyer should have given you a copy of the lease with your Report on Title before you exchanged contracts - did they do that? If not, you should take it up with them.

skilful

Thanks seabright,

We did get a copy of the lease but interpreted it differently from the freeholder, so didn't consider there to be a problem. Clarification arrived too late, in fact I have just seen it myself in writing. Interestingly, the management company have enclosed a copy of that section of the lease, which they have misquoted in their own cover letter as "no bird, dog or other animal shall be kept at the premises". Some proof perhaps that it's not all that clear cut in the lease?

In our case the flat has a very small shared hallway, but its own garden (which is in a complete state).

linda.b_4

Just a point about buying the freehold. You need to have owned the property for 2 years before you can apply to purchase the freehold of a property. we are buying a leasehold at the moment and went into this scenario. Good luck. I would get a note from doctor and try and get the terms of lease changed on medical grounds, but you need to be quick as time is passing! You might be able to postpone the completion date to give you more time but need to speak to your solicitor.

Ian_W

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.

seabright wrote: Just a note about commas in legal documents - we never use them. Commas (and similar) can cause more misinterpretation than clarity

:rolleyes: Erm, but written as it is, without punctuation it has several possible meanings. It could mean - "no bird and no dog may be kept or any other animal that may cause ..." :think:
Or does it mean - " no bird may be kept or dog or other animal that may cause ... " :doh:
Or does it mean - " you can keep a bird or dog or other animal if it doesn't cause ... " _pale_
Or is it refering to the American phase "bird dog" as in THIS SITE? :wall:

It's so clear without commas that only lawyers can understand it then 2 lawyers will understand it differently take different views go to court and argue it out for a very reasonable fee which the punter has to fund thereby making the case all along that if you don't use punctuation you dont create clarity you create something open to several interpretations which lawyers will get well paid to argue over. :eek:
Rest my case, M'lud!! :rotfl:

asharon

I hope you get this sorted. I'd would never be able to move into a property and forgo my two.

sleepy

Hmmm, can't help thinking that even if the dog isn't excluded by the use of the phrase "bird dog", it is by "any other animal". I'd definately argue the health grounds.

Meeten

HI there,

really fee lfor oyu re: dog.
I am coning from a situation where I am selling a flat, and the potential owner has a dag. In he lease it states that no animal shall be allowed without the prior permission of the freeholder .

When I contacted him, he was only going to allow the dog, on the condition that it did not cause annoyance to the other people in the building. I therefore made a point of contacting all the people (5 others - of which 2 live in OZ, but rent their places out), 2 of them said they had no problem, 2 said that they did not want it, and 1 I got no response from. This, i thought would jepordise the sale, but pleading to the freeholder, he allowed permission. Now the sale is going through ....

The point I was trying to make is that there is perhaps some value in contacting hte others in the house, as it is complaints from them that the freeholder will not want - if they are not going to complain, then this may be half the battle won. Gotto be worth a try.

As for the leasehold purchase ... it is quite complicated, as there are certain criteria that have to be met. This thread will help to see if you qualify (I personally don't think you do).

HTH,