Leasehold Flat Purchase - Not Pets Clause

Bentoben

Me and my partner are in the process of buying a leasehold flat. We're about 95% of the way through and only now has the development managing company sent through the Lease Agreement for the flat. It clearly states no pets apart from guide dogs, however all around the development there are clear signs of pets, our potential future next door neighbour has dogs and there are cat flaps around in doors also. This is incredibly frustrating as we asked for this to be checked before we even viewed the property and we were told pets were fine.

The EA says the clause is only to cover nuisance pets so they can be removed, however I have spoken to the development managers who say:

"The Lease agreement does state in point nine of the fourth schedule under regulations ‘Not to keep any pet on the Demised Premises except for guide dogs’ and unfortunately some people have taken it upon themselves to ignore this covenant or have not actually read the terms of their Lease agreement.

Unfortunately for this to be enforceable by the managements company, one of the Leaseholders at (address) would need to indemnify at all legal costs. While we do on occasion write to the development advising it is a breach of the Lease, we are very limited as to what action can be taken without indemnity."

I have asked for further carification, but my interpretation of this is that a precedence has been set by all the pet owners who have ignored the covenant on the lease. This would mean that all breaches of the leasehold would need to be addressed across the development – not just one individual case. So if a leaseholder who for example did not like pets and wanted to challenge the breach of the lease, they would have to do so at the cost of taking each individual case to court through the development company. So instead of one case it would be x however many people had breached the contract and would pay all costs. Would this be correct?

always_sunny

if the lease has that condition, it would need to be changed to allow pets.
The fact that other LHrs have pets doesn't invalidate the condition, it makes other people breaching it.

If a LHer did not like pets, they could raise it with the FH and make them enforce it.
What are you trying to achieve?

(You're right though, the lease should be made available at the time of viewing a LH property!)

GoodbyeFalcon

I think this is a standard clause to prevent a nuisance situation (barking dog) as I live in a block of 3 flats where there are similar covenants and the other flats have cats. The Leaseholders are also the Freeholders in this case (as it's a "share of Freehold"), but I'm pretty sure they had the pets before they purchased the freehold.

Howevever on a legal basis you are where you are, and I wouldn't rely on any sort of precedence being set by the current pets not being enforced upon. Also I imagine you are buying one Leasehold title, not a series or a share of leaseholds. In this case the landlord could selectively enforce on the covenants under individual titles, such as yours - not on a group basis as you say. It's possible that other leasehold agreements don't have this clause even (but unlikely)!

I would take comfort however that with that many pets the freehold/landlord is very unlikely to enforce their rights as it will annoy the tenants who are the source of all the money...

rtho782

Walk away.

It might be ignored, until someone took a dislike to you/your pet.

Not worth it.

Soundgirlrocks

You might find this useful from the Leasehold Advisory Service

It would be incredibly unlikely that, if the freeholder pursue you for breach of lease you would end up forfeiting the lease, & there are several steps before it got to a point where it would even cost you by going to tribunal, you have numbers on your side as they can't selectively enforce breaches as (far as I'm aware)

I read the development managers response as they wouldn't bother enforcing it

If there are pets there and you are confident yours wouldn't cause an issue personally I would go for it.

G_M

I interpret the development managers differently.

They seem to be saying they cannot enforce the lease due to the cost to them of doing so, unless another leaseholder 'indemnifies' them (ie bears the cost.

So if your !!!!! annoyed another leaseholder, and they complained to the development managers and agreed to cover the cost of enforcement, then action could/would be taken to make you remove your !!!!!.

And if that involved the courts, you might also be ordered to pay the costs the other leaseholder had incurred, since you were the one at fault.

NeilCr

I agree with G_M. And I'd certainly walk away

My lovely, still missed mum had a situation like this. She went to buy a flat in a block that was for the over 60s. She had a cat that she wanted to take with her. She checked and checked and was told that she would be fine - there were other animals blah blah blah

When she moved in there was an outcry from some other residents who, amazingly, had had their dogs put to sleep so they could move into this development (I know, I know). In the end she got agreement that she could keep the cat but couldn't replace it (she was an indoor cat). When the cat died we desperately tried to find an identical moggie and sneak her in!

I think the point is that - as well as the possibility of court action - if it got nasty (not saying it will) living there could become unpleasant too

pinkpiglit

A case recently went to court where the dog owners lost and were initially going to be evicted. They are taking the case to the court of appeal, but I hate to think how much it will all cost them in the end.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/27/court-defeat-couple-bidding-keep-beloved-dog-gated-estate-no/

davidmcn

G_M wrote: »

action could/would be taken to make you remove your !!!!!.

Remove my !!!!!? That sounds drastic.

G_M

davidmcn wrote: »

Remove my !!!!!? That sounds drastic.

Yeah. It seems certain pets are banned from the moneysaving website forum too! No one likes cats apparantly.....

Soundgirlrocks

G_M wrote: »

I interpret the development managers differently.

They seem to be saying they cannot enforce the lease due to the cost to them of doing so, unless another leaseholder 'indemnifies' them (ie bears the cost.

So if your !!!!! annoyed another leaseholder, and they complained to the development managers and agreed to cover the cost of enforcement, then action could/would be taken to make you remove your !!!!!.

And if that involved the courts, you might also be ordered to pay the costs the other leaseholder had incurred, since you were the one at fault.

Exactly, so you have to weigh up how likely it is that one leaseholder would be willing to cover the legal costs of enforcing this clause, (and it wouldn't just be against the OP but all of the residents that have pets, which sounds like several) If the management were serious they would be doing more that periodically writing to leaseholders to remind them that its a breach.