Heavy-handedly dealt with for having someone visit with a pet (tenancy)

DaveTheMus

kasabain21 wrote: »

Hi,

No, never really speak to them expect for saying 'hi'.

Always pick up the mess and it never goes to toilet anywhere near the buildings.

It is the most obedient, friendly and quiet dog you'll ever meet. Never barks, growls or anything along those lines. Plus, the dog is never left alone. We go out most of the day then come back at night, go to bed then get up and go out again.

It's worse than I thought, You've made an enemy but don't why or who.....
Cape Fear style.......

Be careful councilor

kasabain21

Thanks for all the responses.

I have told them they are incorrect, but they just keep responding saying that all animals and pets are forbidden 'on site' and keep quoting the same part of the contract I have and referring to the head lease which says the same thing.

The flat is always kept 100% clean, the dog is not messy, not does it smell etc...I have gone out of my way to make sure of this. As stated above it has never caused any problems whatsoever.

The part of the contract I quoted however is ambiguous. 'To keep' - that to me implies something permanent. It doesn't explicitly forbid any animal on the site or state that visitors cannot bring animals - it simply states I cannot 'keep' them. This could be interpreted many different ways.

It just frustrates me that they are palming me off without offering much help or assistance, and assuming i am 100% in the wrong, plus knowing they are not enforcing this on others with actual pets is very frustrating!

lighting_up_the_chalice

Guest101 wrote: »

Which has been said already

Just clarifying the point as you seem to suggest there was nothing the LL could do as S8 would probably fail.....

Guest101 wrote: »

You're quite right, but you couldn't do anything about it really. S8 is unlikely to succeed on that basis alone.

I'd say issuing S21, the first step in a process which may result in the loss of ones home, was hardly an inability to "do anything about it", wouldn't you?

lighting_up_the_chalice

kasabain21 wrote: »

Hi,

No, never really speak to them expect for saying 'hi'.

Always pick up the mess and it never goes to toilet anywhere near the buildings.

It is the most obedient, friendly and quiet dog you'll ever meet. Never barks, growls or anything along those lines. Plus, the dog is never left alone. We go out most of the day then come back at night, go to bed then get up and go out again.

Could it be that a fellow resident has, say, an allergy to pet hair and only chose to secured that accommodation because of the clause in the contract?

lighting_up_the_chalice

kasabain21 wrote: »

Thanks for all the responses.

I have told them they are incorrect, but they just keep responding saying that all animals and pets are forbidden 'on site' and keep quoting the same part of the contract I have and referring to the head lease which says the same thing.

The flat is always kept 100% clean, the dog is not messy, not does it smell etc...I have gone out of my way to make sure of this. As stated above it has never caused any problems whatsoever.

The part of the contract I quoted however is ambiguous. 'To keep' - that to me implies something permanent. It doesn't explicitly forbid any animal on the site or state that visitors cannot bring animals - it simply states I cannot 'keep' them. This could be interpreted many different ways.

It just frustrates me that they are palming me off without offering much help or assistance, and assuming i am 100% in the wrong, plus knowing they are not enforcing this on others with actual pets is very frustrating!

You've kind of answered your own question there, by referring to the actions of others to excuse or justify your own. Presumably, others may now refer to your actions and get a weekend dog, then a Friday to Monday dog, then an occasional Wednesday dog, or a midweek dog. Then, suddenly, everyone with the same "not to keep any animals or birds (whether domesticated or otherwise) in the premises" clause in their contract has a dog.

G_M

A major potential point being missed. I suspect that this 'rule' originates with the landlord's lease.

Many blocks of flats have no pets policies written into the lease, largely to prevent damage, disturbance by one flat-owner of another etc.

If this is the case, the LL has rightly written a corresponding clause into the tenancy agreement.

A neighbouring flat owner, knowing of the prohibition in the leases, has seen the OP with dog, and become annoyed. Potentially could complain formally to the building's freeholder or Management Company, who could take action against the leaseholder (OP's landlord).

I too would be miffed, especially if I'd specifically chosen to buy a flat in a block where dogs were not permitted, if another resident had a dog on a regular basis, albeit not full-time.

However, I agree that the LL's legal options may be limited. A S21 expiring when he fixed term ends (or in 2 calendar months if the tenancy is periodic). Or a S8 which may or may not succeed.

Guest101

lighting_up_the_chalice wrote: »

Just clarifying the point as you seem to suggest there was nothing the LL could do as S8 would probably fail.....



I'd say issuing S21, the first step in a process which may result in the loss of ones home, was hardly an inability to "do anything about it", wouldn't you?

Fair enough, should've clarified. I meant aside from the prev mentioned s21

DRP

quidsy wrote: »

Write back stating they are incorrect. Send it registered. No other explaination required. See what they do.

This is what I would do ^


You are not keeping a dog on the premises so no problem.

[Deleted User]

kasabain21 wrote: »

The part of the contract I quoted however is ambiguous. 'To keep' - that to me implies something permanent. It doesn't explicitly forbid any animal on the site or state that visitors cannot bring animals - it simply states I cannot 'keep' them. This could be interpreted many different ways.

I've always interpreted no pet policies to mean that no pet should be inside the premises at any time. My tenancy has a no pets (without permission) clause which means when family visit their dog is left in their car. I would consider someone that had a dog in the property with regularity to be keeping a pet on the premises.

Approaching it logically: Pets are not allowed in rented accommodation by many landlords because pets can damage fixtures and fittings, because they can be a nuisance to neighbours and because the hallmarks of pets are difficult to remove from a property when a tenancy ends: these are problems that exist even when a pet is only "visiting" the property for two days a week.

Also the fact that your neighbours have noticed the presence of this pet enough to complain should indicate that the pet is present enough to be considered "kept" there at times.

lighting_up_the_chalice

DRP wrote: »

This is what I would do ^


You are not keeping a dog on the premises so no problem.

Yeah. Then just stop paying rent and, when they write to you about your arrears, just write back saying you have paid the rent. Problem solved.

You could always start looking for a place that will accept pets.