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

chris_m

smigsmag wrote: »

and it DOESN'T smell doggy - this is what I mean about the complaints being unfounded...

Bear in mind that it may well not smell doggy to someone who has a dog and is used to having one around - but that doesn't mean to say that it doesn't smell to people who do not have a dog.

cayennepepper

You were a bit naïve in buying the flat and ignoring the clause about pets and am surprised your solicitor did not warn you? Clauses are there for a reason.
Anyway, I'd like to think that they'd have to prove that it was your dog leaving footprints and/or smell in the hallway, they can't just assume it was your pet, especially since there is another leaseholder with a dog. It could also have been a visitor with a dog , do they have any proof? I am no expert but I'd like to think that the onus is on them to prove your pet is being a nuisance, no the other way round. I'd also try and find out who complained and have a nice word with them.

smigsmag

I did wonder about this so I've actually asked 3 separate friends to give me their honest opinion when they came round. All said that they could not smell anything. You could say they were being polite but they are people I trust to be honest. And like someone else said - I think it's highly unlikely my dog has made the hallway smell by walking through it a few times a day. I think the most likely thing is that someone has taken issue with the breed - staffy - and they want them out. Oh and the dog next door has moved out now - I think his owner had to send him back to his home country - so not sure how useful that is to me now...

anselld

Well the wording seems ambiguous ...

is it ...
(no dog, cat, bird or other animal) that may cause a nuisance
... in which case nuisance is open to interpretation and refers to all animals, or ...
no dog, cat, bird (or other animal that may cause a nuisance)
... in which case nuisance refers only to other animal and dogs are not allowed.

No doubt the the lawyers could have a field day in court!

smigsmag

I did not ignore the clause about pets! As I have said before, I asked the solicitors on both sides to find a way around this clause and said I was going to pull out if they did not. When they said they had, I took their word for it, because they are solicitors and supposedly know what they are talking about. Maybe I was naive to believe that!

silvercar

I think you may have a case. I don't know enough on the law to say whether it is:

a) against your solicitor for not advising you appropriately
b) against the vendor (through their solicitor) for advising you that there wasn't a problem when there is a problem
c) against what the freeholder's solicitor has told you because the correct interpretation is that the dog would only be banned if being a nuisance and you can prove that yours isn't as well as proving that this is the correct interpretation of that clause.

Of course (a) and (b) means that either the dog goes or you and the dog go.

PasturesNew

I think the things to concentrate on are:
1] Nuisance.
2] Paw prints, smells doggy

If [2] is True, then [1] is True

Is your dog leaving pawprints, is there a doggy smell (from the nose of a non-doggy person)?

tomtontom

chanz4 wrote: »

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

OP, can you confirm if this is the case? I read it that the only permission/ interpretation was from the vendor's solicitor? If the latter is true then you need to take this up with your solicitor as they advised this would be sufficient.

tomtontom

PasturesNew wrote: »

I think the things to concentrate on are:
1] Nuisance.
2] Paw prints, smells doggy

If [2] is True, then [1] is True

Is your dog leaving pawprints, is there a doggy smell (from the nose of a non-doggy person)?

And from the nose of an impartial/ non friend non doggy person

AlexMac

Don't panic. Your solicitor is the one to answer all the Qs in your last paragraph, and should do so at no cost initially, especially as the transaction is so recent and they were involved in the correspondence about the dog, and the letter of comfort you received. In fact, they should also be a bit more helpful in that they've arguably got you into this mess- by failing to brief you adequately about whatever it says in the lease.
I'm no lawyer, but while theoretically the freehold company can determine (end) a lease if leaseholders breach conditions, it's a court decision and your freeholder would be mad to waste costs on bringing such drastic action on such trivial grounds; which I'd bet would go your way in court anyway. Especially when you muddy the water by counter-claiming against whoever told you you couldn't speak to the freeholder and thus ended up badly advised.

But legalities aside, you have to live there so maybe there is also a need for a bit of 'constructive creeping' - maybe (and subject to your lawyer's advice) an informal letter, expalining that you'd asked before buying, been reassured, have a small, quite, well-behaved pooch, are apologetic if anyone's offended, know of/were told about other pets having been tolerated (?), will do everything you can to avoid distress , blah, blah.

Anyway - what a worry- |I hope it works out. We had a similar lease clause when selling our last flat to a dog-owner but as it was a shared freehold with no hostile managing agent, we just got the other freeholders on board with a letter of comfort- and reassured our buyer that the other residents were on board