Leasehold clause no cats which may be a nuisance...

Greenone

Hi - I am thinking of purchasing a leasehold property. I have 2 cats, and so I am concerned about one particular clause in the lease which states "not to keep any...cat...which may be a nuisance or annoyance to the lesee or occupiers of the [flat downstairs]". Does that mean I can have cats as long as they don't cause a nuisance?

Also wondering what the difference is between a covenant like this and the common law duty not to cause a nuisance...?

Thank you!

agrinnall

That's what I would understand from the way you have (selectively - what's in the missing bits?) quoted the clause. I think it would be hard to enforce, who decides what is a nuisance or annoyance?

ognum

Greenone wrote: »

Hi - I am thinking of purchasing a leasehold property. I have 2 cats, and so I am concerned about one particular clause in the lease which states "not to keep any...cat...which may be a nuisance or annoyance to the lesee or occupiers of the [flat downstairs]". Does that mean I can have cats as long as they don't cause a nuisance?

Also wondering what the difference is between a covenant like this and the common law duty not to cause a nuisance...?

Thank you!

What does your solicitor say?

Greenone

Ok - full quote for the avoidance of doubt:

"Not to keep any dog cat bird or other live animal or pet which may be a nuisance or annoyance to the lessee or occupiers of the adjacent maisonette"

My solicitor originally said "no cats allowed" - until I pressed her on the "...which may be a nuisance" point... I get the feeling that she misread the clause, or is entirely risk averse... but don't want to bet on that...

There is a similar clause in respect of spin washing machines and televisions etc (replace cats, pets etc. above). - to which she said as long as they are not noisy, it would not be a problem.

I am finding it difficult to digest her initial response that cats are not allowed.

davidmcn

You'd need to have a spectacularly annoying cat for someone to go to the trouble and expense of taking you to court about it - and yes, it probably would fall under the common law (or other) definitions of nuisance anyway. I'd try to find something else about your purchase to worry about

Greenone

haha - exactly! that's what I thought - but a bit annoying to have a solicitor tell you it means "no cats allowed"(!?) Just wondered if I was missing something...

ManuelG

davidmcn wrote: »

You'd need to have a spectacularly annoying cat for someone to go to the trouble and expense of taking you to court about it

Best hope condoghost isn't their new neighbour.

Lord_Baltimore

Greenone wrote: »

"Not to keep any dog cat bird or other live animal or pet which may be a nuisance or annoyance to the lessee or occupiers of the adjacent maisonette"

Seems to me there are two ways of reading that statement:

1. That you can't have pets that are a nuisance to others (i.e. your interpretation); and

2. You are not to have pets fullstop because they may be a nuisance or annoyance to others.

My guess is that the intention is 2 but it should have been worded more carefully.

Greenone

hmmm... by that reasoning, I am also not allowed a spin washing machine...

Lord_Baltimore

Greenone wrote: »

hmmm... by that reasoning, I am also not allowed a spin washing machine...

Well, 'not a noisy one' was her clarification. To be fair, some washing machines can vibrate violently and noisily (especially if you sit on them ladies )

Pixie5740

Are your cats house cats or are they outdoor cats? In other words are your cats likely to dragging dead birds into the building and !!!!!!!! in the communal grounds?