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

N1AK

smigsmag wrote: »

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.

You're absolutely right that you didn't disregard the rules. Unfortunately, give some people the internet and they lose the ability to make points without sounding rude in the process

My expectation is that the wording does exclude dogs, and thus unfortunately even though you did ask for advice you are in breech of the rules. For that reason it is important that you take it up with your solicitor and get clarification.

It isn't the fault of the other tenants or the leaseholder if you got legal advice from the vendors solicitor and it turns out to be wrong.

As well as seeking advice I would suggest redoubling any effort to minimise any annoyance your dog might cause. Even if it turns out you shouldn't have the dog in the property, I can't imagine leaving and suing the vendor is a course of action you wish to take, in which case you need to do whatever you can to calm the issue.

BitterAndTwisted

propertyman wrote: »

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.

Actually, I wouldn't do this. Greyhound owners have been known to be abused by members of the public when out with their muzzled pet. They are muzzled in case they decide to chase small dogs, as their very strong prey-drive dictates, not that they're in danger of biting children or anything like that. A muzzled dog is invariably seen as a dangerous one when it isn't necessarily anything of the sort. Well, often only to bunnies and squirrels for the most part.

Has anyone been viewing the TV progs currently being transmitted about dogs left at home? And how many of them bark and whine in distress for hours on end when their owners go out? A lot more than you'd imagine. Now, that really is what I'd call a nuisance

poppysarah

A dog that there is no trace of is not a dog.

cloo

I think the complaint sound incredibly petty. I could understand if the problem were constant barking or something, which affects quality of life. But alleged pawprints? Solvable. Smell of dog? OK, a lot of people don't like this but I have difficulty believing that dog passing through a place could cause an offensive degree of it.

Sounds to me like you have someone who just has a serious problem with dogs, and I don't imagine they can force you out on account of it.

smigsmag

Exactly my point. Thank you. I have contacted the Leasehold Advisory Service - just waiting on a reply...

cloo

I've had dealings with LAS and one thing I remember from it is that generally, if a clause of a leasehold seems unreasonable, like this is, it's not going to get legal backing. If someone has stumped up the money to buy a property, it is theirs, and they can't be deprived of it or other things because of clearly antiquated clauses.

propertyman

BitterAndTwisted wrote: »

Greyhound owners have been known to be abused by members of the public when out with their muzzled pet. They are muzzled in case they decide to chase small dogs, as their very strong prey-drive dictates, not that they're in danger of biting children or anything like that. A muzzled dog is invariably seen as a dangerous one when it isn't necessarily anything of the sort. Well, often only to bunnies and squirrels for the most part.

But a dog which is wearing a muzzle is of course OF no danger at all.

Unless it wees on you :rotfl:

I think you could look at it as non dog owners do, a sensible precaution, rather than as a dog owner and how they view reactions, many of which are just as driven by their imagination and perception as theirs are.

fablanta

One of your neighbours has obviously taken a dislike to you. Here is my (non-legal) interpretation of the situation.

If the particular clause in the lease was intended to absolutely forbid the keeping of dogs it would have just said no dogs, period. The ‘that may cause a nuisance’ bit gives you your out. You have only broken the terms of the leasehold if it can be proved that your pooch is a nuisance.

The obvious nuisance that everyone would agree on is a dog barking for an absent owner. They have not gone for this instead you say, “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”.

The paw prints complaint might just about have stretch to validity as dogs do have a tendency to go off-road. Even if this had been a problem before I bet it isn’t now as you will either be wiping paws; carrying the canine through the hallway or have found some other way round the problem (I cannot condone murdering the suspected whistle-blower).

The ‘dog smell’ complaint is really ridiculous. I doubt whether your pet spends even 15 minutes a day in the hallway but they are saying this is enough time to build up lingering odours and that they spend enough time in the hallway (perhaps inspecting for paw prints) for this to be a significant nuisance.

Now we come to enforcement. The management company, MC, will want as little trouble as possible. The easiest way out of this for them is for you to get rid of your dog so they send you a letter telling you to get rid (which of course you will politely refuse to do stating that you have not breached the terms of the leasehold by merely having a dog).

So what is the next step? For you, you should not ask the freeholder (or MC) for retrospective permission to keep a dog as that will be as good as admitting that you have breached the leasehold. For the MC the next step is going to cost money. Are they able to access the management fund to pay for legal advice/costs or do they have to seek permission (perhaps from the residents' association) if the expense will be over a certain level?

It sounds to me as though permission to keep a dog was a bit of a deal-breaker for you. If your solicitor did nothing about varying the lease when instructed and instead relied on the opinion of the seller’s solicitor, that he was being negligent in his duties.


Questions

Were the complaints by separate leaseholders?

How many flats use that particular hallway?

Is there actually another dog living in a flat off the hallway (or in the building)?

What is the relationship between the management company and the residents' association?

ging84

fablanta wrote: »

If the particular clause in the lease was intended to absolutely forbid the keeping of dogs it would have just said no dogs, period. The ‘that may cause a nuisance’ bit gives you your out. You have only broken the terms of the leasehold if it can be proved that your pooch is a nuisance.

I would say quite the opposite
If it wanted to allow dogs, cat or birds which don't cause a nuisance, it wouldn't need to mention them at all, as these are all animals
it could simply read
no animal that may cause a nuisance
dogs cats and birds have deliberately been singled out as simply no

burnoutbabe

Yes, I take it as cats and dogs are NOT allowed and other animals that may cause a nuisance are also not allowed (to cover all the random animals people may choose to have, ie a llama!). A gerbil would be okay. or fish.

But I'm also a director of a management company (28 flats) and agree that it would be costly to do much more than send letters saying to get rid of the dog.

Now if it was a barky dog, I'd be complaining a lot more (as a resident and a director) than if it was just some mess (as that is gets done by people moving in/out, dirty bikes/pushchairs).