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

G_M

AnnieO1234 wrote: »

Hi OP

As Alexmac said, you would need to be taken to court. The freeholder would need to prove a dog was resident in your home and caused a nuisance. They would need to prove it wasn't an assistance dog visiting your property.

Xxx

and of course thi would be at the expense of the other residents since the legal costs would come from the annual service charge.

As a resident, I'd be furious if another resident breached the terms of the leases we all signed up to and forced the freeholder/mgmt co to use MY money simply to make that selfish leaseholder comply.

I note what vivatifosi says above about MCs being reluctant to take legal action, and I can understand why, but a) not all MCs would take that approach and b) relying on that seems even more selfish!

vivatifosi

propertyman wrote: »

Of course the member vivatifosi is likley unaware of considerable litigation on these matters of pets and nuisance as high as the Court of Appeal. :eek:

Oh no, I'm aware of it, but generally not taken by a management company with a small budget, rather a neighbour with a grudge. Or two neighbours who hate each other, neither will back down and both have deep pockets (or remortgage to the hilt). Not saying that there aren't management companies going down the legal route, but most will look for a pragmatic solution to the common good and at the lowest possible cost (eg going as far as letter before action). There's no point in ensuring that your hallways doesn't have pawprints if the cost to residents is the same as a new roof - that's my point. There's no point in a pyrrhic victory.

If the resident who made a complaint can also enforce covenants though, that could be a problem.

The letter idea is excellent.

[Deleted User]

Personally I wouldn't make the detailed comments re paw marks as it is more or less admitting that you have left paw marks, which you previously said in another posting, hadn't happened.

Leave it to them to prove your dog is a nuisance, if they can. It doesn't seem likely this will proceed any further.

katejo

teddysmum wrote: »

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.

I would have read it the same way. My previous maisonette had similar wording. I shared a garden with the flat underneath. The leaseholder there had a cat but that was ok and I didn't complain. However she also tried having a puppy and it was left out there barking all day as it needed attention. The condition of having a garden doesn't work if you share it with the flat above. I wouldn't want dog mess in the garden.

camptownraces

In my view, the biggest nuisance caused by a dog is its barking when the owner is out.

Owners usually deny this - but they would, because they are not around when it happens.

I_have_spoken

I am of the opinion that the statements are grossly exaggerated if not made up completely

Yes, 99.9% of dog owners would say that.

katejo

I_have_spoken wrote: »

Yes, 99.9% of dog owners would say that.

And how many of those 99.9% have chosen to disregard the rules and try to keep a dog in a flat? I wouldn't be happy if a flat owner/leaseholder had a dog living above or below me and that is nothing to do with a grudge against an individual person.

smigsmag

We have had no complaints about barking - my dog rarely ever does it. If he did, no doubt that would be the first thing I would have heard about. You can say that being a dog owner somehow makes me stupid or ignorant if you want, but it doesn't really answer my questions! And to be honest, I have good reason to believe that people would try to get my dog out without him ever causing any problems. He is a staffy. A friendly, calm, quiet staffy from a dog rescue. But people often cross the road to avoid him and shout abuse at me in the street for no reason. So my past experiences have led me to think that it's highly likely people would have made up something to get my 'monster dog' out of their block. That, and the fact that there WERE/ARE no paw prints. You can say that my nose has somehow become incapable of smelling but my eyes are pretty reliable.

smigsmag

katejo wrote: »

And how many of those 99.9% have chosen to disregard the rules and try to keep a dog in a flat? I wouldn't be happy if a flat owner/leaseholder had a dog living above or below me and that is nothing to do with a grudge against an individual person.

Erm, I didn't 'disregard the rules'! If you'd read my previous posts you would be aware that I was legally advised that keeping a dog was ok.

propertyman

Well then if you are cleaning up after the dog as above then the letter above should work. Dogs do smell and owners often don't realise that, and perhaps investing in a battery powered commercial dispenser with a neutralish smell eg apples outside your door might assuage the complainant and any smells.

Your dog is one of a breed that has attracted a bad perception and perhaps training it to accept a muzzle might also reassure those near you or on the street. which means that your life is more peaceful and a rescued dog is not exposed to the stress (yours and theirs) from aggravation and annoyed people