Pets in leasehold with share of freehold

Giblets

Hi all,
having a bit of a difficult at the moment, currently selling my property, it is a leasehold with a share of the freehold (of three flats).

I have a purchaser who (with just a few weeks to go) has read the leasehold agreement and raised the point that she has a dog.

The lease agreement states that "no bird or other animal may be kept in the property without the written agreement of the lessor".

Having a share of the freehold, I effectively have at least 1/3 voting rights (more on that bit later) of the leasor company, and had agreement from one of the other three freeholders that they would not mind a pet in the property (they are a big dog fan!.

The other tenant, the secretary (who actually rents their property out), wrote back without consulting the other freeholders to advise the buyer that under no circumstances would they be able to have a dog in the property.

having spoken with my solicitor, he has made it very clear that if the majority vote in favour of it, it should be allowed as per the legal documents.

She originally stated that they must "gaining the consent of all current flat owners", having pointed out that her original statement that all residents have to agree argument is not correct (by citing the leasehold agreement, she has gone awol.

Not only is she now saying that because I am moving out, my vote will not count!!! And frankly other crazy arguments, basically saying we would have to get legal advice (though it would appear relatively clear cut).

Previously it has always been noted that myself and the other freeholder have 40% of voting rights each (as we pay more into the kitty, and have larger properties), she is also claiming we now all have 1/3 of voting rights.

I am pretty clear there is a clear legal basis, but her 'views' are proving difficult, I clearly wish to get this to move on, and believe this to be pretty clear cut, but really don't want it to drag on, is there any way I can try and get this moving without it getting worse? She has long been 'difficult' and so I don't believe it to be a one off occurance aimed at myself.
I have requested an AGM (as one has not been held in 18months),so at least all parties will be present.

HouseBuyer77

I guess it depends how much the buyer cares.

If you've got an agreement in writing from the other freeholder they are happy to accept a dog it doesn't really matter if your vote does or does not count. As the buyer will eventually take your share and I assume won't vote against themselves so I don't see how the other freeholder has an argument.

They might make a big show of arguing and writing letters but I don't see they have a leg to stand on (the fact that your solicitor says it's clear that a majority vote is all that is required should give you confidence here).

Of course the buyer may not want to move into a share of freehold property with such an annoying fellow freeholder. But if they don't seem fussed I'd just ignore them (the troublesome freeholder) and carry on.

economic

No! the lease is a legal agreement and there is no voting on going against it. the only way something in the lease can be changed or do something to go against the lease is if ALL freeholders agree.

i certainly would be p*ssed off if a dog were allowed to stay due to an agreement by the other two flat owners given that the lease says otherwise. it would be a breach in the lease.

go and find another buyer who doesnt have a pet.

G_M

This would work if you change the leases - all 3 of them.

And you could not change all 3 leases without the consent of all three leaseholders.

If the leases remain as they are, then even if 2 joint freeholders decide not to enforce the clause, I believe (though not 100% sure) that the remaining joint freeholder could enforce the clause.

Failing that, the leaseholder who is unhappy could force the freeholders to enforce the clause against the leaseholder who is breaching their lease.

I suspect that if one leaseholder/joint freeholder is ademantly anti-dog, this could become a legal nightmare.

Nick_C

I think your solicitor is correct.

The lease allows a tenant to keep a dog with the permission of the landlord. You are not seeking to change the terms of the lease.

This is a simple management decision. It would be unusual and impracticable for management decisions to require the approval of all leaseholders. If there is a management company, you should look at the Articles as these will state hire the company is to be run.

eddddy

Is the freehold owned directly by the 3 individuals, or is it owned via a company?

- If it's owned directly the 3 individuals, have they signed a deed of trust that allows decisions to be made on a majority basis?

- If it's owned via a company, do the articles allow decisions to be made on a majority basis?

If neither of the above, I would have thought all 3 joint freeholders must agree about giving permission for a pet.


(As others say, no changes to any leases are needed, just written permission from the joint freeholders.)

HouseBuyer77

G_M wrote: »

If the leases remain as they are, then even if 2 joint freeholders decide not to enforce the clause, I believe (though not 100% sure) that the remaining joint freeholder could enforce the clause.
.

no bird or other animal may be kept in the property without the written agreement of the lessor

Presumably this all hinges on how the lessor (being the three of the shared freeholders) makes decisions. As eddddy says above if there is something in place allowing such decisions via simple majority then if one of three disagrees permission can be be granted via the agreement of two of them. OPs solicitor seems fairly sure this is the case.

No! the lease is a legal agreement and there is no voting on going against it. the only way something in the lease can be changed or do something to go against the lease is if ALL freeholders agree.

It is indeed a legal agreement, this particular one appears to allow pets under agreement of the lessor. A separate legal agreement may allow the lessor to provide permission given agreement of two out of the three freeholders.

Giblets

economic wrote: »

No! the lease is a legal agreement and there is no voting on going against it. the only way something in the lease can be changed or do something to go against the lease is if ALL freeholders agree.

i certainly would be p*ssed off if a dog were allowed to stay due to an agreement by the other two flat owners given that the lease says otherwise. it would be a breach in the lease.

go and find another buyer who doesnt have a pet.

Hi economic, many thanks for your thoughts, we are NOT changing the lease agreement. It already states that an animal can be kept with written permission from the owner.

The owner is the residents company, which is jointly run by the three residents, the articles of association state that all decisions should be made by a majority verdict, there are no clauses in its arrangements to state that any of the directors have a veto over any particular clause.


My main concern is how to get this moving, I am already getting dubious counterclaims such as:
"Given that you are planning to move and leave the company, it would seem unlikely that your vote would count"

Giblets

eddddy wrote: »

Is the freehold owned directly by the 3 individuals, or is it owned via a company?

- If it's owned directly the 3 individuals, have they signed a deed of trust that allows decisions to be made on a majority basis?

- If it's owned via a company, do the articles allow decisions to be made on a majority basis?

If neither of the above, I would have thought all 3 joint freeholders must agree about giving permission for a pet.


(As others say, no changes to any leases are needed, just written permission from the joint freeholders.)

Many thanks:
The Freehold is owned by a company, which is owned by the three leaseholders, the articles state that decisions can be made by a majority decision, to m knowledge there are no clauses giving a veto over the leasehold.

-taff

If her argument is that you're moving and will not be a member of the company anymore, you should point out to her that your prospective buyer will be gaining a share of the freehold, joining the company, and will be voting to keep the dog and as such, they're back to having a majority vote.
So in either case, she will fail on not having a majority vote.

eddddy

Giblets wrote: »

Many thanks:
The Freehold is owned by a company, which is owned by the three leaseholders, the articles state that decisions can be made by a majority decision, to m knowledge there are no clauses giving a veto over the leasehold.

So in legal terms, it's fairly straightforward. During the selling process, the company (i.e. the freeholder) gives your buyer written permission to keep a dog.


But from a practical perspective, your buyer will be walking straight into a hostile situation - with the possibility of neighbour disputes, disputes between joint freeholders etc.

If I was the buyer, and I realised the situation, I would walk away.