Does this clause in the lease mean I can't own a cat?

ManuelG

I can think of one poster who'd consider your cat annoying...

HappyMJ

My cat howled quite loudly in her later years. She would have been annoying to the neighbours and a cause of complaint if I were living in a flat at the time.

moneyistooshorttomention

It looks like you shouldn't have a problem - as most of the neighbours seem to be cat-lovers too and the others to not be bothered.

So it's a bit of a gamble as to what any future owners of other flats would be like. If a future owner finds that your cat is being an "annoyance" they might or might not tolerate it if they generally get on okay with you. If they don't like the cat and there have been problems between you on other matters - then cat ownership would likely be used as a "stick to beat you with" by them.

It's luck of the draw and some neighbours just don't function logically anyway and will act in a way that has you severely doubting their mental health (ask me how I know...or rather don't:rotfl:).

Your choice ...

Davesnave

The clause means that you shouldn't keep a cat if you live in the property; it's as simple as that.

As you have found, what people actually do, is different.

In living situations where people share a building and/or the grounds, various rules are normally drawn up with the purpose of making this sharing experience run as smoothly as possible.

Then real people move in, and for their own reasons, decide not to follow particular rules. They may park in the wrong place, store things where they are not meant to be stored, pay very late for maintenance charges, dispute maintenance bills and, of course, keep pets.

How do I know this? I live near a rural 'community,' like the one you describe, but larger. On the surface, it's a desirable enclave, as in a physical sense it looks well-managed. Scratch below the surface, however, and it's not hard to see that the tensions there are basically because people do not follow the rules. Things are so bad that locals rarely purchase the properties when they come up for sale.

Now I'm not saying every development is like this, but if management is weak and people decide to choose what they will and will not do, then it's down to luck regarding the reasonableness of what they choose.

Good luck!

KRB2725

I wouldn't concern yourself with what a court/tribunal may rule. If your neighbours did object, the bigger issue would be trying to enjoy your home when you have annoyed your neighbours. It is much easier to live in close proximity to people who you have a pleasant relationship with.

If having a cat is that important to you then I would buy somewhere else. I appreciate the waters have been muddied with the community cat, but a third of the residents are not cat lovers, so I think it is unfair/unwise to get one.

robatwork

It's a really daft clause in the lease.

Annoyance is very subjective. If your near neighbour is allergic to cats, then it would be pretty easy for them to argue your cat is an annoyance, and with medical evidence could force you to get rid of the cat. It may be that someone in the flats finds cats annoying in general - and by the terms of the lease you shouldn't have one.

I would keep looking - or insist the clause is changed prior to buying.

kinger101

freeisgood wrote: »

Worth searching this forum as this clause "claws "has come up a fair few times. Search pets in flats.

I had a feline someone would use the claws pun. If it was me'ow some future resident might regard cats would also be a problem. Just because the current residents don't purrsonally have issues with cats, doesn't mean a future resident might not get in a flap about it. And they'd be entitled to interpret the same lease litter-ally.

moneyistooshorttomention

It won't be possible to try and change that clause. It needs to be there "just in case".

When I rented in public sector housing one of the clauses boiled down to "no pets". Despite that - a lot of dogs appeared early each morning being taken for walks. I knew the next door neighbour got a dog at one point.

However, the thing was that that rule was there as a fail-safe in case any pets did cause annoyance. I said nothing about the dogs and turned a blind eye - because they weren't allowed to bark or foul the grounds. If they had been allowed to do so - then I would have invoked that clause to get the offending dog removed.

So - most of the time clauses like this are probably there on a "just in case of need" basis and the majority will turn a blind eye - unless that need arises.

I only wish I had a clause like that where I am now - as I would certainly invoke it against the nearby louts that don't know/care about how to look after a dog properly and the darn thing frequently barks.

Just because there is a "community cat" doesn't mean it would be troublefree to get your own cat. In fact the community cat might not get on with "own cat".

ManuelG

FWIW my parents' cats came from someone who lived in a small block of flats in a converted house... whose neighbours had forced him to get rid of them. It can happen.

Fast forward two decades(!) and one of them is a bit deaf and howls loudly and lengthily to announce his presence, at all times of the day (and night!). It sounds like a baby being strangled.

Now that's annoying!

Sometimes, through no fault of their own, cats can be annoying to some. If the community cat will end up in your flat a lot, is this enough to sate your desire for a cat?

ManuelG

HappyMJ wrote: »

My cat howled quite loudly in her later years. She would have been annoying to the neighbours and a cause of complaint if I were living in a flat at the time.

Ah, just read up and found this. Glad it's 'normal':D