Pets, leaseholders and 'unreasonably' withholding consent

JamesWright1987

Hi guys, first post. Basically me and my GF want a cat in our flat. We've checked our contract and it says:

"Not to keey any cats or dogs at the property and not to keep any other animals, reptiles or birds (or any other creatures that may cause damage to the property, or annoyance to neighbours) on the property without the Landlord's written consent, not to be unreasonably withheld. Such consent, if granted, to be revocable on reasonable groudns by the landlord. in circumstances where pets are permitted, the lanlord unconditionally reservces the right to have the carpets professionally cleaned and sprayed for fleas at the expirry of the tenancy with the cost being deducted from the damage allowance."

Now, we wrote a letter (via the Lettings agent) asking for permission and agreed to have any and all of the apartment cleaned at the end of our tenacy.

we first recieved this response from the L.A:

"I have had a response from the landlord and i am afraid he has informed me that no pets are to be kept in XXX. He is not prepared to discuss this any further."

I replied last night asking for clarification on the reasons for the decision. I said that having read the contract I was under the impression that the decision on whether or not a tenant could keep a pet would not be "unreasonably withheld" or at the very least, explained.

I've now recieved a second response from the L.A which says:
[FONT=&quot]
"I am afraid i can not elaborate on the reasons why as he made it very clear by saying "No and I do not want to discuss this any further". I was not given a reason. As the owner of the property he is well within his right to say no without an explanation."[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So my question really Is: Is my contract being breached? Is the Landlord in the wrong? Where do I stand? Does the landlord have to give a reasonable explanation for the decision?

thanks guys![/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]James Wright
[/FONT]

Gingernutty

Edit your post - you've given away your address!

JamesWright1987

just noticed that. Tah.Edited!

DiscoCat54

Hi there. The wording ' without unreasonably witholding consent' is because you're no longer allowed a blanket ban on pets. I found the below on the lawpack website:

Prohibitions and permissions

One important drafting point worth mentioning here is in
relation to prohibitions in tenancy or Lodger Agreements. If you
are prohibiting something (such as keeping pets), it is very
important that the clause includes the words along the lines of,
‘save with the written permission of the landlord, which will not
be withheld unreasonably’.
Now in the case of pets, for example, many landlords will say
that they do not want this wording in the agreement as they
know that they will never want their lodger to keep a pet.
However, the effect of this will be that the clause will be unfair
and invalid (and the tenant/lodger will be able to keep a pet if
he wants). We know this because of a Spanish case (which
applies to all EU countries, as these regulations came from an
EU Directive). This case said that an outright prohibition
against pets would be unfair because it would prevent a
tenant’s keeping a goldfish in a bowl.
Therefore, in any clause including a prohibition, unless it is
something the tenant should not do anyway (such as keep
illegal drugs), it is important that the wording providing for the
tenant/lodger to request the landlord’s permission and the
statement that permission will not be withheld unreasonably is
included. It does not mean that the landlord has to grant
permission if asked. If you don’t want a tenant to do something,
this will normally be for a reasonable reason anyway (e.g. that
you are allergic to cats, or just don’t like them – it is, after all, your
home). So long as your reason for refusing consent is justifiable,that is fine.

Werdnal

If you went ahead and got a cat against the LL's specific wishes, it is unlikely he could evict you on that breach alone whilst you still have a fixed term tenancy. However, expect a section 21 notice in the post and eviction proceedings as soon as your fixed term ends, and a poor reference from said LL for any future let

JamesWright1987

FYI - I'm not intending to get a cat without first getting consent. My issue here is that I haven't been given any explanation and I wanted to know if the landlord can flat out say no without explaining and without a 'reasonable' excuse.

G_M

Agree with the above. There are many reasons for a LL not wanting cats (as opposed to goldfish in a bowl!). Fleas have been mentioned.

As a LL I would feel obligated to de-flea the property at the end of the tenancy to ensure there is no possibility of the next tenant complaining of fleas - NOT a good way to start a new tenancy!

Allergies are another issue. If next tenant is allergic, even if the cat has gone, and the flat been cleaned, the carpets curtains etc may well still cause a reaction.

And that's before considering smell, 'accidents', damage to soft furnishings.

This of course is even more of an issue in a flat where the cat may be permenantly indoors.

Finally, in a flat there will be a (legal) lease within the building, which your landlord must comply with. This too might prohibit cats, so he may simply be enforcing on his tenant, you, a prohibition to which he is subject himself by the building freeholder.

As for the 'not to be unreasonably witheld' wording, if the LL is reluctant to actually put in writing his reasons, the only way to force him to explain (perhaps with a view to contesting the 'reasonableness' of his decision) would be in court.

pmlindyloo

Have found this also:

http://www.tenantstips.co.uk/Latest-News/Pets-in-rented-property-can-be-good-for-the-landlord

Very difficult one.

Even if you did go ahead and keep a pet or 'badger' your LL with the 'law' you would most likely be very open to the LL ending your tenancy as soon as he can.

Why not just move out at the end of your contract and find a place which would accept a cat?

We had a cat when we rented and despite a similar clause in our agreement we had written agreement from LL to keep the cat and also fit a cat flap (as long as we 'made good' at end of tenancy.)

Just saying this as not all LLs are against pets and even if a 'no pets' clause is in the contract this is often a standard clause and is entirely 'negotiable'.

Werdnal

JamesWright1987 wrote: »

FYI - I'm not intending to get a cat without first getting consent. My issue here is that I haven't been given any exploration and I wanted to know if the landlord can flat out say no without explaining and without a 'reasonable' excuse.

Alright, keep your hair on.

Landlord does not need to justify anything to you. As I said, the breaching of a tenancy by getting a pet does not give the LL much leverage to end the tenancy as courts do not consider ignoring a non-pet clause is enough to grant possession. I was not accusing you of attempting to breach the tenancy, just advising that the LL cannot do anything against you if you do, until your FT ends. Sorry I spoke .....

As pet tenancies frequently require additional cleaning, and possibly de-flea treatments before new tenants, you could offer to pay an additional deposit amount to cover any extra work, damage or expense the LL feels this cat could bring. Might make the LL rethink his decision ...

martinsurrey

JamesWright1987 wrote: »

FYI - I'm not intending to get a cat without first getting consent. My issue here is that I haven't been given any exploration and I wanted to know if the landlord can flat out say no without explaining and without a 'reasonable' excuse.

Your lease doesn’t say you are entitles to know the reason, just that it wont be withheld without reason.

The only way to force him to tell you would be to take him to court for breach of contract, and his defence of "I don’t like cats and the risk of a cat smell communal areas" would land you with a + costs loss.

just forget about it, or move into a house with the express permission for pets.

JamesWright1987

Hey Werdnal - Hair fully on. I wasn't having a go, I appriciate you offering your advice. I was simply saying I wouldn't go down that route just in case. Thanks for the input though