Pets, leaseholders and 'unreasonably' withholding consent

moromir

totallybored wrote:

I think the LL is being entirely reasonable. His own lease probably states no cats and dogs.

I think this is probably the most likely scenario and one that hasn't been mentioned much in this thread.

The headlease (i.e. the lease between the flat's owner and the management company) may very well forbid any pets on the development.

Fire_Fox

Agreeing to pay for any damage or cleaning is not the same as actually paying for it, many tenants sign a contract agreeing to pay rent and then don't. The landlord has to take them to court which he can only do if he has an address for you, even if he gets a judgement you might not have the money to pay.

We cannot categorically state the landlord is being unreasonable in withholding permission because we don't know (or need to know) his reasons, he might be being unreasonable in not informing you of his reasons but that is not what that sentence in the AST nor the legislation says. If you wanted a cat you should have requested consent at the start.

Even as a cat lover myself I don't think it's unreasonable to not want cats in your let property, they scratch and vomit on carpets, climb curtains, many people are allergic to the dander, some tenants also let their pets wander the corridors or gardens so impacting on other leaseholders. Also it can take more than one treatment to deflea - I once moved into an infested house and had the professionals in three times before it was clear! The only cats I have ever known to miss the litter tray either had health problems or a tray that was far too small.

Jellybean_Jo

JamesWright1987 wrote: »

I'm not trying to 'win', I'm merely wanting to know where I stand on something I thought I was allowed to request. Had the flat said from the start "no pets" I would have accepted it and gone about my business. What I take offense to is being allowed to request permission, only to have the door slammed in my face without any explanation, even though the contract states that he can't say no without a reasonable explanation.

Also, while I appriciate people posting to help clarify the decision, I can't understand why you're making me seem like the unreasonable party in this situation for simply enquiring about something that's not been properly explained or followed by someone else.

Maybe the bit I've put in bold is where the problem is; interpretation. I've read your OP quoting this section of the contract and as I've interpreted it, it doesn't say anything at all about him having to explain his decision.

"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.

It just says the consent isn't to be unreasonably withheld. It doesn't say he has to explain what he feels is reasonable. As has been mentioned by a previous poster, if you had asked to keep a goldfish for example you might have had a very different answer as he feels that is a reasonable request; there's certainly a far smaller chance of damage.

Either way, I don't imagine you'd get far with it as it's not a blanket ban on pets. Even by pushing repeatedly for an explanation you're more likely to get yourself a section 21 for your troubles, so in your position I would just forget about it and move on.

princeofpounds

The reason why no-one is giving you entirely unequivocal answers on the legal stance is that in many respects there isn't really much case law on the matter, so no-one has a clear idea of what might be interpreted as reasonable or not by a judge.

The reason there is no case law is that very few such disputes are settled by the courts in this area. Either the tenant just gets a pet and the landlord gives up hassling about it, or the landlord turfs them out on an S21 a few months later, or the tenants gives up. All of which is easier and quicker than starting an actual court case on the basis of pets.

My memory is a bit hazy on this, but I did investigate it myself once. The OFT guidance is not law, but it is constructed on the basis of case law and legal advice, and so it's often possible to find out the cases behind the clauses specified as unfair.

If I remember right, the blanket pets clause was assumed to be likely unfair not specifically due to UK case law but european case law. A tenant somewhere in Europe was pursued for eviction because they had a goldfish or something stupid like that. The judge took the view that a blanket ban on pets in a lease couldn't reasonably be enforced because it was a dumb idea that someone could be technically be turfed out of their home for owning a stick insect.

The legal advice was presumably that a judge would take the same view in the UK. A clause that is unfair in one respect becomes totally invalid in a consumer contract, it doesn't 'only apply when it would be fair'. So that's why a less unfair, but technically more ambiguous wording is recommended.

Note that's just an imprecise recollection so the details might not be quite accurate, but the general point is there is a good reason you are getting answers you perceive to be insufficiently profound.

Richard_Webster

To me the clause means that there is an absolute prohibition on cats and dogs and other animals/birds etc need consent which cannot be unreasonably refused.

pmlindyloo

Richard_Webster wrote: »

To me the clause means that there is an absolute prohibition on cats and dogs and other animals/birds etc need consent which cannot be unreasonably refused.

Well spotted

krlyr

jjlandlord wrote: »

Not too sure that whether landlord is allergic is relevant.

It's not, but as OP accepts the actual ban, it seems they're only objecting to the lack of a reason. Hence my suggestion to pretend there was a reason (allergy, whatever) and move on, because the outcome will be the same.

propertyman

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 explanation and I wanted to know if the landlord can flat out say no without explaining and without a 'reasonable' excuse.

It's a little over a year since this was considered and the Court decision, which postdates the wailing of the EU and the OFT, that the decision itself need not be reasonable, but that they must consider such applications in a reasonable way and reasonable criteria.

The reason why is the goldfish issue- a small bowl is likely to cause little damage to a flat, adjacent flats or affect the building insurance. A large aquarium, it's load, flood risk and keeping certain fish, would likely be refused.

In the case of a cat its an absolute prohibition unless he says so.

Your right is that he must be reasonable in considering it, not giving a knee jerk reaction.
Reasonable criteria and requirements could include being reassured it came from a reputable source, and not a wild stray; that the deposit be increased or additional cover put in place to protect furnishings and carpeting, and that it is house trained, and not left to soil outside.

I am a happy to say that I have been owned by two Cats and am very fond of them, but I do see how your darling kitten can suddenly end up caterwauling outside and turning a neighbours balcony or garden into a stinking pee ridden area, and tearing up a nice little flat or home that was rented to you.

Slinky

We rented our house out for a while and said we wouldn't accept cats or dogs. My reason was I was moving in with my OH and taking my cat with me. If it didn't work out, I didn't want my cat to have to return to our home when the tenants moved out, with the smells of strange cats or dogs in the house.

As it turned out, my OH and I both moved back into the house along with the cat, so I was glad for his sake having had the stress of moving house twice, that he didn't have to return to his former home finding other animal smells in it.

tbs624

pmlindyloo wrote: »

Did you read the link that I gave you in post 8?

This is what it says:

The OFT considers any blanket ban on keeping pets in a property unfair under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. Therefore landlords should not include a ‘No Pets’ clause in their tenancy agreements anyway.

So your landlord has an unfair clause in his contract.

Print off the article and show him.

Check out the full OFT wording rather than just quoting someone else summarising it on a random website. Here's the full OFT quote:

“Our objection is to blanket exclusions of pets without consideration of all the circumstances. Such a term has been considered unfair under comparable legislation in another EU member state because it could prevent a tenant keeping
goldfish. We are unlikely to object to a term prohibiting the keeping of pets that could harm the property, affect subsequent tenants or be a nuisance to other residents.”

(My bolding.)

OP - seek out a LL who is happy to let to Ts who like to share their home with cats.