'House Rules'

unforeseen

ReadingTim wrote: »

Procedurally speaking, one or more of the other leaseholders would have to take their complaint to the freeholder, who in turn would need to enforce the conditions of the lease upon you.

There are plenty of other posts about the enforceability, even the legality of such no pets clauses, so I'm sure you can read up on the letter of the law. However, there's also the spirit of the law and the general sense of reason and toleration necessary for living in flats etc - I'm sure no-one minds gerbils, guinea pigs even a cat for a pet, in addition to the aforementioned tanked fish. An Alsation with separation anxiety and a loud bark on the other hand probably won't be so welcome....

Finally, while you might own your own home, so does everyone else who has a leasehold interest on the ground on which it sits. And one of your neighbours might like to get his own pet too. With a loud bark and separation anxiety. Or decide he has the right to have little drumming party with forty or so of his closest mates on a Sunday night. But that's fine because he owns his own home, and can decide what and who goes in it. Right...?!?

Thought not.

But there is nothing in either the deeds or the lease about pets

dtrowlands

ReadingTim wrote: »

Procedurally speaking, one or more of the other leaseholders would have to take their complaint to the freeholder, who in turn would need to enforce the conditions of the lease upon you.

There are plenty of other posts about the enforceability, even the legality of such no pets clauses, so I'm sure you can read up on the letter of the law. However, there's also the spirit of the law and the general sense of reason and toleration necessary for living in flats etc - I'm sure no-one minds gerbils, guinea pigs even a cat for a pet, in addition to the aforementioned tanked fish. An Alsation with separation anxiety and a loud bark on the other hand probably won't be so welcome....

Finally, while you might own your own home, so does everyone else who has a leasehold interest on the ground on which it sits. And one of your neighbours might like to get his own pet too. With a loud bark and separation anxiety. Or decide he has the right to have little drumming party with forty or so of his closest mates on a Sunday night. But that's fine because he owns his own home, and can decide what and who goes in it. Right...?!?

Thought not.

Keep your hair on Tim!!


The freeholder hasn't been seen for 30+ years. Can only assume that he/she has passed away and didn't pass on the freehold.

marksoton

Whilst it seems by contract you're not obliged to comply i'd tread very carefully.

Living next door / near a very p155ed off neighbour can be a very unpleasent experience...

quotememiserable

I think people are missing OPs point. None of the 'house rules' are in the lease. It's just an unsigned letter popped through the door, and has no status. Although as has been said, upsetting the neighbours maybe a problem. Or it may not. The rules may be down to a single busybody. I have that in the flats where I live. One resident is constantly putting up signs and complaining about people parking 2 inches to the left or not putting their rubbish in all bins equally. By general consensus we leave her to it and take no notice. Why not gently introduce the topic to another neighbour. One you've spoken to already who seems reasonable.

marksoton

dtrowlands wrote: »

The freeholder hasn't been seen for 30+ years. Can only assume that he/she has passed away and didn't pass on the freehold.

Then i'd say you have far bigger problems.

What happens when major repairs are needed? Who's organising and getting quotes?

Who will provide the freeholders management pack if you wish to sell?

You really need to clarify who the freeholder is and their status.

System

I'm surprised you managed to buy it in absence of a freeholder to do their paperwork for the conveyance, can be hard to get a mortgage without a freeholder

davidmcn

quotememiserable wrote: »

Why not gently introduce the topic to another neighbour. One you've spoken to already who seems reasonable.

And then distribute your own competing set of "house rules".

HappyMJ

dtrowlands wrote: »

Nuisance - No pets of any sort (except tanked fish) are allowed. Parties are not allowed. '

That has got to be unenforceable.

According to Wikipedia - Quote - "A party is a gathering of people who have been invited by a host for the purposes of socializing, conversation, recreation, or as part of a festival or other commemoration of a special occasion." So that would mean you could never have more than one person (yourself) in your flat at any time for the purposes of socializing. What a load of rubbish. I would ignore it.

No pets (except tanked fish). Forget that one too. I've got a tenancy that specifically says "no pets" and I ignore that. You've got to weigh up what's the worst thing that could happen. The LL in your case the freeholder could be so annoyed they take legal action to get you and your pets out. In your case you've got a leasehold property and it will be very difficult for the freeholder to get you out. You can have as many pets (not agricultural animals such as a sheep as was mentioned in a previous reply) as you want. If you know someone with a large dog then invite them around for a party and make sure your neighbours see you.

A pet or a party can be a statutory nuisance in any property there's local laws to comply with. You don't need "house rules". You could live in a freehold detached house and complain to the local council about your nuisance neighbour's loud dog and constant 4AM parties. You'll get nowhere really but if the dog or loud parties are very very bad then eventually you can get a court order against your neighbour requiring them to stop and if they fail they would be in breach of a court order and civil action can then be taken. That's extremely rare.

moneyistooshorttomention

dtrowlands wrote: »

One of my neighbours is the maintenance administrator. It is basically whoever is the longest serving person to live there, nothing official.


Thanks for your help.

Crikey! No democratic election or anything to see who will be said maintenance administrator?:eek: Just Buggins Turn?

But said "longest serving" is quite likely to be the oldest (ie might be developing health problems - and not necessarily of the physical variety either! What's those statistics again about proportion that start developing dementia as they get older? Wasnt it a 1 in 2 chance for those over 85?) Longest-serving could mean oldest and the chances of that raising its head.

Add that - at any age - that sort of system is highly unlikely to result in the most capable person in the place being that administrator.

An election system would be much more likely to produce someone that was both capable and healthy enough - and not a Buggins Turn person.

Self-elected means self-appointed = they have no authority whatsoever.