Can I really be forced to remove dog from flat I own?

CFC

In fact I believe that unless an AST specifically says no pets, the landlord cannot evict as someone has pets.

And bear in mind there is a legal definition of a nuisance. It's not a nuisance if one person, or even if several, say that they find it to be an inconvenience to them or they just don't like it.

If it's hard to evict with an AST, times it by 10 for a purchased leasehold interest. I really wouldn't worry about it too much. Bear in mind one of the reasons it isn't too easy is because nobody wants to bring about situation where landlords can sell a lease, evict the leaseholder, resell it, then re-evict. There's a presumption against it. It's a serious thing to evict someone who's paid for a leasehold interest.

Here's the legal definition of a nuisance:


Legal Responsibility

A private nuisance is a tort, that is, a civil wrong. To determine accountability for an alleged nuisance, a court will examine three factors: the defendant's fault, whether there has been a substantial interference with the plaintiff's interest, and the reasonableness of the defendant's conduct.

Fault Fault means that the defendant intentionally, negligently, or recklessly interfered with the plaintiff's use and enjoyment of the land or that the defendant continued her conduct after learning of actual harm or substantial risk of future harm to the plaintiff's interest. For example, a defendant who continues to spray chemicals into the air after learning that they are blowing onto the plaintiff's land is deemed to be intending that result. Where it is alleged that a defendant has violated a statute, proving the elements of the statute will establish fault.

Substantial Interference The law is not intended to remedy trifles or redress petty annoyances. To establish liability under a nuisance theory, interference with the plaintiff's interest must be substantial. Determining substantial interference in cases where the physical condition of the property is affected will often be fairly straightforward. More challenging are those cases predicated on personal inconvenience, discomfort, or annoyance. To determine whether an interference is substantial, courts apply the standard of an ordinary member of the community with normal sensitivity and temperament. A plaintiff cannot, by putting his or her land to an unusually sensitive use, make a nuisance out of the defendant's conduct that would otherwise be relatively harmless.

Reasonableness of Defendant's Conduct If the interference with the plaintiff's interest is substantial, a determination must then be made that it is unreasonable for the plaintiff to bear it or to bear it without compensation. This is a Balancing process weighing the respective interests of both parties. The law recognizes that the activities of others must be accommodated to a certain extent, particularly in matters of industry, commerce, or trade. The nature and gravity of the harm is balanced against the burden of preventing the harm and the usefulness of the conduct.

ruggedtoast

Just tell them the dog is dead.

Then if they complain again you can say you got a new not dead dog and the old hag will have to go back to the beginning complaining it's a nuisance.

All dogs look alike so who is going to know?

Fire_Fox

CFC wrote: »

In fact I believe that unless an AST specifically says no pets, the landlord cannot evict as someone has pets.

And bear in mind there is a legal definition of a nuisance. It's not a nuisance if one person, or even if several, say that they find it to be an inconvenience to them or they just don't like it.

If it's hard to evict with an AST, times it by 10 for a purchased leasehold interest. I really wouldn't worry about it too much. Bear in mind one of the reasons it isn't too easy is because nobody wants to bring about situation where landlords can sell a lease, evict the leaseholder, resell it, then re-evict. There's a presumption against it. It's a serious thing to evict someone who's paid for a leasehold interest.

But the OP asked about being forced to remove the dog not be evicted himself??

moneyistooshorttomention

Fire_Fox wrote: »

But the OP asked about being forced to remove the dog not be evicted himself??

...and anyway I've never heard of any legal niceties about leases being brought up re the owners of leasehold properties.

We all know and take the commonsense view that if you own the place you own the place - be it leasehold or freehold.

I've only seen leasehold comments come up when it comes to questions of extending the lease - and that's to do with how much it will cost to do so.