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

davidmcn

Cornucopia wrote: »

Not sure about all this talk of a "landlord". There is no such entity in a normal Leasehold arrangement.

Any lease has a landlord and a tenant. They might also be called other things.

bouicca21

The lack of commas is deliberate legal stuff. Leaving several interpretations possible. I think it means no dogs, no cats, and no other living creature that could cause a nuisance.

Agree that you need to ask the freeholder for what he/she understands it to mean, with the answer in writing. Then at least you have a defence when the adjacent maisonette owner complains about the cat crap in their garden, which may or may not have come from your
Moggies.

My lease says I can't have any animal other than 'a small dog or cat'. What is the definition of a small dog? Chihuahua? Is a cocker spaniel small or medium? Does that also mean a small cat? So no Maine coons? Does it mean either a dog or a cat and not both? Fortunately I have no need to find out, but if needed, I could tie everyone up in hours of pedantry. As clearly can OP.

ruggedtoast

Do you have a picture of the cat, or one like it? That would help us decide.

Greenone

It's an old victorian house split into two self-contained flats. The freeholder is an individual, and the leasehold and freehold have both been assigned/sold many times. The original lease is from the 70's and so I doubt the current freeholder will know any more about this clause than you or I.

davidmcn

Greenone wrote: »

The freeholder is an individual, and the leasehold and freehold have both been assigned/sold many times. The original lease is from the 70's and so I doubt the current freeholder will know any more about this clause than you or I.

In which case you're probably better to leave sleeping, er, dogs lie, rather than give anyone the idea that they have the power to withhold consent (or demand an extortionate fee for it).

agrinnall

davidmcn wrote: »

In which case you're probably better to leave sleeping, er, dogs lie, rather than give anyone the idea that they have the power to withhold consent (or demand an extortionate fee for it).

I have to agree with this, just move your cat in and if anyone has the temerity to complain at a later date interpret the clause in the way that is most favourable to you and let them decide if they want the bother of challenging it.

AdrianC

ruggedtoast wrote: »

Do you have a picture of the cat, or one like it? That would help us decide.

Indeed. The internet needs more cat pictures.

lxpeanut

bouicca21 wrote: »

The lack of commas is deliberate legal stuff. Leaving several interpretations possible. I think it means no dogs, no cats, and no other living creature that could cause a nuisance.
.

Wouldnt that be two clauses though

No cats, no dog and no birds

No other pets that may cause a nuisance

AdrianC

Option A : "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."

Option B : "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 problem with the option B interpretation is that the "pet which may be a nuisance" is, by definition, redundant, since you've already explicitly covered any live animal.

19lottie82

Whatever the clause states, would it be enforceable? I doubt it.