Please help! Dog in flat

jjlandlord

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

Even if you didn't have permission, a blanket clause in the tenancy agreement that you CANNOT have a dog is an unfair contract term and unenforceable.

This is debatable and most probably false if the landlord's lease in turn contains such a blanket clause.

If the landlord's lease contains such a clause and the landlord seeks possession under s.8 for breach of contract, I think that the court will give very serious consideration to the claim.

SeduLOUs

I'm not sure all this debate about unfair terms is even relevant as the OP has already stated that the lease has a clause saying that you need to seek permission first. There is no 'no dog' blanket clause.

As permission was saught from the EA prior to moving and OP was assured by them that the LL was aware and happy, and there is evidence to back this up, then the only real complaint the landlord has is with the EA for failing to communicate this information.

ruggedtoast

jjlandlord wrote: »

This is debatable and most probably false if the landlord's lease in turn contains such a blanket clause.

If the landlord's lease contains such a clause and the landlord seeks possession under s.8 for breach of contract, I think that the court will give very serious consideration to the claim.

I think the court would tell the landlord to jog on.

Given that few tenants are ever more than 6 months away from a Section 21 anyway, it would be rather self defeating for a landlord to try and evict based on some petty disapproval of pet ownership in an otherwise good relationship.

jjlandlord

ruggedtoast wrote: »

I think the court would tell the landlord to jog on.

Given that few tenants are ever more than 6 months away from a Section 21 anyway, it would be rather self defeating for a landlord to try and evict based on some petty disapproval of pet ownership in an otherwise good relationship.

I don't think that the court would tell the landlord "to jog on" because it is certainly not "petty" to evict for breach of tenancy when that breach in turns make the tenant's lease at risk of being forfeit.

It seems that you replied without understanding the situation.

ruggedtoast

jjlandlord wrote: »

I don't think that the court would tell the landlord "to jog on" because it is certainly not "petty" to evict for breach of tenancy when that breach in turns make the tenant's lease at risk of being forfeit.

It seems that you replied without understanding the situation.

It seems that you think your rights to turn your tenants' lives upside down for something that has no basis in housing law are at variance with reality.

People have pets, and children, and friends round, and sometimes they spill things and dont tidy up right away.

People live in homes.

If you dont want to rent homes to people then find a different profession.

jjlandlord

ruggedtoast wrote: »

It seems that you think your rights to turn your tenants' lives upside down for something that has no basis in housing law are at variance with reality.

You are clearly in way above your head. I repeat for the last time:

Flats are usually leasehold, this means that the landlord of the AST tenant is himself a tenant of the freeholder.

The leasehold includes terms and covenants. There are often covenants about pets.
Breach of covenants will get the landlord (leaseholder) into trouble up to his lease being forfeit.

That is why any restrictions in the leasehold must also be included in the AST agreement.
These are reasonable, enforceable, and serious terms.

This is housing law.

19lottie82

If you think this may cause a problem, Why not invite your LL round to the flat for a cuppa and so she can meet your dog? Once she sees its a harmless little thing and hasn't caused any damage to the property (presuming this is the case) she may relax slightly?

thesaint

Owain_Moneysaver wrote: »

You will find the Office of Fair Trading (as was) does.

Unfair terms in tenancy agreements

Could you point out where:

a blanket clause in the tenancy agreement that you CANNOT have a dog is an unfair contract term and unenforceable.

?

duchy

None of which has anything to do with the OP's question

LL probably did sound miffed.... because her agent hadn't kept her fully informed.
OP read it was miffed with her and is worrying.
As there were dogs there before logically the LL isn't dog averse so not something to worry about as permission WAS sought by the tenant (as proved by the emails) and the agent (who speaks for the LL) said it was fine.

OP has fulfilled her responsibilities in asking for permission. The rest is between the LL and the agent and not an eviction issue.

thesaint

duchy wrote: »

OP has fulfilled her responsibilities in asking for permission. The rest is between the LL and the agent and not an eviction issue.

It is an eviction issue if the landlord decides it to be. Whether permission has been granted or not will be irrelevant if a Sec 21 follows.