Bought leasehold flat and now they say my dog is a nuisance

smigsmag

I purchased my flat in December and moved in at the end of January. I was concerned about a part of the lease that said 'no dog, cat, bird or other animal that may cause a nuisance' could be kept at the property and I asked my solicitor to try to vary the lease, because I had a dog that I was not going to get rid of. The vendor's solicitor, however, said that this would not be necessary, and sent a letter to my solicitor (which I have a copy of) stating that the lease did not prohibit the keeping of pets - it only prohibited pets that were deemed to be a nuisance. He also said that the flat next door had a dog. So this put my mind at rest and I bought the flat.

However, a few days ago, I received a letter from the managing agent stating that they had reason to believe I had a dog and, if this were the case, I needed to get rid of it immediately. I called the agent and explained my situation, and she said that I had been stupid to rely on the word of the vendor's solicitor. (If I remember rightly, I was not allowed to speak to the freeholder during the sale and was told that I had to rely on contact from the vendor's solicitor.) She said that there had been two complaints that my dog had left muddy paw prints in the hall and that there was a 'dog smell' in the hallway. I have reason to believe that one of the complainants was a member of the residents' association. I do not in any way think that the complaints are justified - I am of the opinion that the statements are grossly exaggerated if not made up completely, but because a member of the residents' association was one of the complainants, he was trusted over me. The managing agent said that she would advise us to get retrospective permission from the freeholder and then get back to her if the freeholder agreed to let me keep the dog.

I would like to know what my rights are before doing this, and I am wondering whether I should do this at all. If the freeholder says no, then I will have to move out. And does the letter from the vendor's solicitor hold any legal sway? Because if this is so, surely I should not need permission from the freeholder? Also, surely any complaints made against me should be accompanied by evidence - is it up to me to prove them wrong, or is it up to them to prove that what they say is true? And finally, what are the processes that managing agents and freeholders legally have to go through in relation to matters like these? What would they have to do to obtain forfeiture of the lease, and how long is this process likely to take? Would it be likely to happen? I am desperate not to lose my dog or my home. Any advice greatly appreciated.

chanz4

as the solicitor is the freeholders on behalf of, tell them to take a walk

chris_m

smigsmag wrote: »

And does the letter from the vendor's solicitor hold any legal sway? Because if this is so, surely I should not need permission from the freeholder?

A leaseholder's solicitor cannot make any form of statement implying a variation of a lease without documented agreement of the freeholder.
The vendor's solicitor's letter on this matter has no legal basis whatsoever and your own solicitor should have made this clear.

If you wish to contravene the terms of your lease without any comeback, then you must seek the freeholder's permission, and get it in writing.

smigsmag

It wasn't a variation - more an interpretation of the wording... So they cannot be held liable for this?

G_M

You bought the leasehold to a flat.

That lease has certain conditions.

You must eiher comply with those conditions;
or obtain permission from the freeholder (formally or infomally) to have the conditions varied;
or breach the conditions and risk the consequences.

Any agreement or assurance provided by a 3rd party (eg a previous leaseholder or their solicitor) is totally irrelevant.

spacey2012

You right to peaceful enjoyment trumps this.

G_M

spacey2012 wrote: »

You right to [STRIKE]peaceful[/STRIKE]quiet enjoyment trumps this.

not if it contravenes the neighbours' rights to quiet enjoyment. Hence the word 'nuisance' in the clause.

teddysmum

You should clean up any muddy pawprints, anyway, but I can't see how a dog just passing through a hallway can make the place smell doggy.


The wording of the lease is vague, but I'm afraid I would have read it as allowing no dog, cat, bird or any other animal capable of causing a nuisance as being not allowed, rather than allowing them provided that they don't cause a nuisance.

franklee

You've got the document and the issue is important to you so suggest you type up the relevant paragraph and post it here.

Is there a dog next door? Is that in secret or have the residents' association complained about that dog? I'd say that dog sets a precedent that dogs are OK which leaves you down to arguing the details of what constitutes nuisance. I would say muddy paw prints are nuisance so why not ensure your dog doesn't leave any. Ditto smell although harder to prove. Have you made a friend of next door, can you chat to them to see if they had any problems.

ognum

Did you read the lease, do you have a copy of it to refer to. Leases are many and varied so it is impossible for anyone here to interpret your lease.

For any one else buying a leasehold property please read the lease yourself as well as getting your solicitor to talk with you about it.

Some leases have so many clauses it's hard to breathe in them others have few.

Check your lease and respond accordingly.

smigsmag

That is the exact wording of the lease - my point was that it seems open to interpretation. There were no muddy paw prints, and if there were then I would have cleaned them up... and it DOESN'T smell doggy - this is what I mean about the complaints being unfounded...