Buying Freehold House With Restrictive Covenants - No Pets??

Coin-purse

Hi, we were in the process of purchasing our dream house, a very nice 3 bed semi with parking (nothing extravagant)

The house sits on the grounds of a private estate, the private estate has a hall that has been converted into leasehold flats. This would mean that I share access to the property and have to pay a monthly service charge for the upkeep of the driveway and shared communal gardens.

After having gone through some fairly costly applications for mortgages / legal fee's etc, it has come to light that the freehold has an RC on it that states "no pets without consent of management"

On having approached the management company to gain approval to home my pet, I was met with a rather unreasonable / firm No to my application to house my pet?

Having tried to negotiate further the management company are adamantly sticking to their decision for the following reasons:

• [FONT=&quot]nobody at ************* ********* has ever been granted formal permission to keep animals or otherwise vary any of the covenants in the lease or conditions of sale and this has been confirmed by the developer's solicitor. Several residents either knowingly or unwittingly falsely claimed to have the developer's permission to keep a pet and for this reason alone a temporary concession was granted to those concerned.[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]we do not operate a blanket ban as permission would be granted in exceptional circumstances (eg guide dogs) but we do not consider Mr *********** case to be exceptional as he has two clear alternatives - either proceed with the purchase of the property and accept the conditions of sale or look for another property that does not have the same conditions attached.[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]the Management Company is simply looking after the interests of its shareholders in upholding the covenants and the vast majority of shareholders do not consider ******** ***** to be a suitable environment to keep animals. The property in question has no private garden for a pet to use as a toilet, inadequate sound proofing to shield neighbours from barking or yapping and sits in a leasehold estate whose shareholders do not wish to share their communal environment with animals.[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]the Management Company would be negligent in authorising the transfer of a share to someone who was knowingly and willingly prepared to ignore the covenants or conditions of sale, so the property transfer could not proceed or be registered in those circumstances anyway.[/FONT]

Note: This is not a share of the freehold I am buying, it is the freehold to a property on the land.


I am at my wits end here, there are more than 4 dogs onsite that we already know about, but it does look like, even though we are buying a freehold property, by the letter of the law, the management company are in the right, and I have no case by which I could argue my point. Other than running the gauntlet by quoting human rights. Which is 50/50 at best.

So, I think I already know what the answer will be here, but does anyone out there have any experience with this kind of conflict:? Basically, the RC is in the TP1 doc and it states no pets without prior written authorisation of the management company. I think I'm stumped, and now a few hundred pounds poorer...anyone...?

Hoploz

Looks like it is a No then. What bad luck. Have you spoken to the other owners? I guess because you've already brought it up they will be on to you if you continue - you can't claim ignorance. I can't see a way out of this. I'd make it very clear to the estate agent that this should have been identified at the outset, though.

Coin-purse

The Estate agent involved are strongly at fault here. We were hooked in on the first viewing, took time out to go over for a few visits, met with neighbours etc, all was going well, only after the offer was put in were we told about the RC.!

There are other properties for sale with other agents on the same site that make no reference to the RC's, but as they are all leasehold flats and I suspect you view them already prepared for the obligatory "no pets" rule.

Although seemingly officious the management company have been helpful, but adamant on the directors position. To be fair, if I was a leasholder in the same development, I would be happy to have such an officious set of directors.

Sadly, when your on the receiving end of a misunderstanding it feels like discrimination, especially after having been used to the usual freedoms of my current freehold property. We are truly disappointed, and confused at how such a restriction can find its way into a Freehold property?? it feels so unfare, but I guess without any other legal recourse we would be foolish to knowingly break covenant.

Coin-purse

btw: I was strongly warned against claiming ignorance by my Solicitor who advised upfront negotiation on the basis that no reasonable parties would deny a freeholder the right to own a pet in a fairly large 3/4 bed-roomed house.

Turns out my solicitor was wrong.

I feel for the poor people who purchased some of the larger 5 bedroomed properties when it comes to the time of them needing to sell their houses. Very few families would want to buy one of those.

rpc

What is the pet? A large dog and a goldfish are rather different ends of the scale.

I suspect that the management are in the wrong with such a blanket approach (I think consent must be "not unreasonably withheld"). Particularly when they have given consent in the past and you say that there are pets on the development. The bar is set at "reasonable" and not "exceptional." And I don't really think guide dogs count as pets...

If you are to own the freehold to your house yourself, I do wonder what action the company could take. They could sue for damages, but what loss would they demonstrably suffer? They could attempt to enforce the covenant, but that's long and expensive and you could make a half decent argument that (depending on the pet) they have withheld consent unreasonably.

Regardless, I think you are best to choose between your pets and that house. There will be a lot of aggro involved in trying to have both.

GaleSF63

I live in a freehold flat (Scotland where freehold flats are the norm) with a restriction on it to one animal (though you can move in with more in the first place). However I think you are right - if you are looking to buy a flat you are already alerted in your mind to the possibility of a restriction and will ask at the beginning. How many people would think of asking about a house?

Peter333

No pets! In a house that you are buying? That would be very off putting to me.

If you are planning on having pets (other than goldfish or small caged animals like rodents,) then you'd be best to bail now.

Hope you get this sorted.

Strapped

Frankly, with a communal garden I think no dogs is fair enough. Guess you'll be pulling out then.

jbainbridge

Coin-purse wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]The property in question has no private garden for a pet to use as a toilet[/FONT]

You might be good at picking up all the dog s**t ... but not everyone is. On balance I think the refusal is fair.

Coin-purse

Its a small dog, he's a spaniel cross breed. The thing is there is a park within 200yrds of the house and all we would need to do is walk the dog on the shared driveway, we wouldn't be using the communal gardens at all.

Part of me is wanting to fight this, because I do think that their ruling breached my right for a private life, but there is also part of me that is saying "just move on" If the management company are that up tight about pets, what is living there going to bring?

btw: There is also a small private area of land drawn up on this property in case of emergencies, but the management company have chosen to ignore that fact in their reply.

Its a real shame because it is a beautiful property.

Hoploz

It's a real shame, but as others have said, I can kind of see their point with a dog if you have no actual private garden.

Wishing you the best of luck in finding another lovely house. As you say, you do wonder whether they would end up being a load of interfering old buzzards on the board who won't let you enjoy your home ... Try and look at it that way.