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

Herbalus

There are two ways of reading the clause, and it all boils down to semantics. To what does the "which" refer?

"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"

If the "which" refers just to the preceeding word "pet" then it means you can't have a dog, you can't have a cat, you can't have a bird, and you can't have a (another) pet which may be a nuisance.

If the "which" refers to the whole clause, then you can't have any animal that may be a nuisance i.e. nice cats allowed.

My reading is the latter, but I suspect they mean the former. But because I'm argumentative I'd be confident enough to trust the vagueness of the wording to allow me to have a cat there. And I'd trust that nobody would take me to court over because that'd be silly.

But I'm not you.

agrinnall

Herbalus wrote: »

There are two ways of reading the clause, and it all boils down to semantics. To what does the "which" refer?



If the "which" refers just to the preceeding word "pet" then it means you can't have a dog, you can't have a cat, you can't have a bird, and you can't have a (another) pet which may be a nuisance.

If the "which" refers to the whole clause, then you can't have any animal that may be a nuisance i.e. nice cats allowed.

My reading is the latter, but I suspect they mean the former. But because I'm argumentative I'd be confident enough to trust the vagueness of the wording to allow me to have a cat there. And I'd trust that nobody would take me to court over because that'd be silly.

But I'm not you.

I don't think it can refer to just 'pet' because the preceding 'other live animal' makes the word 'pet' redundant. Whatever the intention was the way it is written means that 'which' applies to everything after 'any' - I'm not a lawyer but I cannot see how a court would apply any other interpretation. To get a different meaning punctuation would have been required.

Conrad

Cat poo, meowing, scratching certain areas, I can think of many things that could be an annoyance to others just as you might deem someone sawing wood with an electric circular saw for their carpentry hobby could be an annoyance to you. That's the thing with irritants, we all have our particular list. My neighbour thinks nothing of all the cat poo we have to clear up, but she is all to quick to point out when my shrubs need a prune back. Classic, cannot see the world through the eyes of others.

Greenone

Thanks guys - it's on old victorian coversion so there's only the first floor flat (which I am buying) and the ground floor flat. We both have a garden (the land has been split down the middle) and both have direct access. The cats are currently house cats, as we don't have a garden at the moment, but our intention is to put in a cat flap so that they can go outside of they want to.

I'm probably worrying over nothing - but I think I will approach the landlord - if he/she intends to be a nightmare over this clause then I doubt I want to be buying the place anyway!

breaking_free

Perhaps this sentence has been poorly drafted, but that's not your fault and will act in your favour.

"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."

The lack of a comma before the word "which" means you can't keep animals that cause a nuisance.

"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."

This second sentence, with the comma, means you can't keep animals because they cause a nuisance.


So your animal would have to be a known nuisance in order to enforce this condition.

Remember, commas are important people.

Let's eat grandpa. (We're going to eat grandpa)

Let's eat, grandpa. (Grandpa will be eating with us)

Correct punctuation could save someone's life. :rotfl:

pinkteapot

You do need to speak to the freeholder/management company and get permission for the cats.

I have a friend who rented a flat. His LL said his cat was fine (it's elderly and mostly sleeps - doesn't have scatty hurtling around time any more, is indoors only, and doesn't scratch). However, the leasehold had a 'no pets' clause. The neighbour downstairs complained and his cat had to go and stay with a friend until he moved. He was upset as some other people in the building had cats, and someone even had a dog!

As you're buying, not renting, if the cats are important to you then you do need to get confirmation from the freeholder or management company, in writing, that you can keep the cats. Your issue isn't them - it's your potential current and future neighbours and how anal they are. You're more likely to have an issue as you plan to let the cats out, so they may poop in the neighbour's garden and upset them.

Pixie5740

Greenone wrote: »

Thanks guys - it's on old victorian coversion so there's only the first floor flat (which I am buying) and the ground floor flat. We both have a garden (the land has been split down the middle) and both have direct access. The cats are currently house cats, as we don't have a garden at the moment, but our intention is to put in a cat flap so that they can go outside of they want to.

You need to get it clarified by the freeholder. If you were talking about house cats that would remain house cats then I doubt they'd be much of a nuisance but you're talking about letting them out into the garden where they might start taking a dump on your neighbour's side. If I were your neighbour that would constitute a nuisance to me.

Greenone

If the clause/restrictive covenant means "absolutely no cats", then it isn't a matter of getting "consent" from the landlord - I would need a deed of variation to release me from the restrictive covenant - which would cost about £1k.

If the clause means "no annoying cats", then I would be willing to take the flat on risk, in the hopes that we have lovely neighbours, and that my cats do not annoy them.

Even in the absence of this "annoying cats" (as I interpret it to be) clause, if my cats were causing a nuisance to a neighbour, I would be taking that seriously - and perhaps keeping them as house cats anyway.

Just looking for a bit of certainty as to whether it really is a strict "no cats allowed" clause - but as has been mentioned in a few of the posts here - the uncertainty of the clause will probably work in my favour - so as long as I'm willing to keep them as house cats in the unlikely event that they annoy my neighbour - I'll be fine.

fairy_lights

breaking_free wrote: »

Perhaps this sentence has been poorly drafted, but that's not your fault and will act in your favour.

"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."

The lack of a comma before the word "which" means you can't keep animals that cause a nuisance.

"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."

This second sentence, with the comma, means you can't keep animals because they cause a nuisance. :rotfl:

It could also be interpreted as saying you can't keep any pet which may deliberately be a nuisance...if the cat was an accidental nuisance would that be ok? Would any complaining neighbours have to prove the intent of the cat in order to claim the terms of the lease had been broken? Could this end up with a cat in the docks defending himself against allegations of nuisancy?


It really is such a vague term and I agree you need to speak to the Freeholders to clarify what exactly it means.

Cornucopia

These legal contracts do not use punctuation - the clause is to be read continuously and in its entirety as a single intention - in this case, no nuisance pets.

Legal clauses are drafted with a single, specific meaning (they'd be pretty useless otherwise). So there is no requirement to get permission, because there is no permission clause.

Not sure about all this talk of a "landlord". There is no such entity in a normal Leasehold arrangement. Typically, there is a Management Company and a Freeholder. Quite often, these are corporate entities rather than individuals, and they will only be interested in the issue in the case of persistent and serious nuisance (and only then to avoid more significant work later).

The situation may be trickier to manage if it is a single block arrangement where the Freeholder is also a resident. It's not clear whether this is the case here.