Lease & Pets Major Issue

steampowered

tbarson1 wrote: »

The words were "I have read through the paperwork and the restrictions attached to the property and it does not appear that dogs and domestic animals are not allowed"

Indeed. That is a very specific response to a very specific question.

If the lease your conveyancer had clearly said that pets aren't allowed, and your conveyancer simply missed it, then that is professional negligence and you are entitled to be compensated for any loss suffered as a result.

HOWEVER - you would only be entitled to be compensated for actual loss.

Until such time as the landlord actually takes legal proceedings or claims to be entitled to damages - which I think is extremely unlikely unless your dog is causing a massive nuisance - then I'm not sure you would have any loss to claim.

tbarson1

steampowered wrote: »

Indeed. That is a very specific response to a very specific question.

If the lease your conveyancer had clearly said that pets aren't allowed, and your conveyancer simply missed it, then that is professional negligence and you are entitled to be compensated for any loss suffered as a result.

HOWEVER - you would only be entitled to be compensated for actual loss.

Until such time as the landlord actually takes legal proceedings or claims to be entitled to damages - which I think is extremely unlikely unless your dog is causing a massive nuisance - then I'm not sure you would have any loss to claim.

So would you just take a low profile unless it is raised again?


Re compensation, say I have to move and it cost me £2k to move Could I claim for that compensation?

tbarson1

Hoes doesn't bark or make any noise, he's a good dog. When we first moved in the people who lived in the basement flat also had a dog. Various cleaners and people have seen the dog and this is the first time its been raised.


Anyway I think I will just lay low as suggested steam power

bmthmark

tbarson1 wrote: »

Hoes doesn't bark or make any noise, he's a good dog. When we first moved in the people who lived in the basement flat also had a dog. Various cleaners and people have seen the dog and this is the first time its been raised.


Anyway I think I will just lay low as suggested steam power

The cleaner probably complained about the dog because you complained about the cleaning.

steampowered

tbarson1 wrote: »

So would you just take a low profile unless it is raised again?

Yes, I would.

I also wouldn't be afraid of taking the dog for walks or anything like that - though I would of course take care to avoid causing a nuisance and pick up poop (which I'd do anyway).

While keeping a pet is technically a breach of your lease, the reality is that:

- The fact you haven't found out about this provision in your lease in a year of living in the property suggests it is not big issue.

- Unless your pet begins causing a real nuisance, the landlord is very unlikely to invest the time and resources in taking this further (note that I said landlord - not managing agent).

- Even if the landlord does decide to take it further, their legal options are very limited. If the dog isn't causing a nuisance the landlord won't get an injunction, or be able to claim anything more than a nominal sum in damages.

To put it another way, every lease says things like 'you must not cause a nuisance'. Yet you only have to watch an episode of 'neighbours from hell' to see how difficult sort of clause is to enforce in practice. And that is for really serious cases.

So while there is undoubtedly a risk with keeping the dog, I do not think the risk is too big in the grand scheme of things. It sounds like you are OK for now.

Re compensation, say I have to move and it cost me £2k to move Could I claim for that compensation?

Yes, absolutely. As it sounds like you were given a specific answer which is wrong, it sounds like you would have a good case for claiming costs from the conveyancer's insurer.

But only if you were actually forced to move as a result of the landlord taking legal action (unlikely). If you moved now the insurer may think that moving was a disproportionate reaction.

InterestedParty2018

Worth a read...

https://www.wilsonbrowne.co.uk/victory-place-management-company-ltd-v-kuehn-anr-2018/

This is a recent case (feb 2018) and relevant to your position.

davidmcn

tbarson1 wrote: »

I have the conveyencers reply in writing which says:

"I have read through the paperwork and restrictions attached to the property and it does not appear that dogs or domestic animals are not allowed".

The rather awkward double negative there makes me wonder whether they added an extra "not" by mistake!

tbarson1

steampowered wrote: »

Yes, I would.

I also wouldn't be afraid of taking the dog for walks or anything like that - though I would of course take care to avoid causing a nuisance and pick up poop (which I'd do anyway).

While keeping a pet is technically a breach of your lease, the reality is that:

- The fact you haven't found out about this provision in your lease in a year of living in the property suggests it is not big issue.

- Unless your pet begins causing a real nuisance, the landlord is very unlikely to invest the time and resources in taking this further (note that I said landlord - not managing agent).

- Even if the landlord does decide to take it further, their legal options are very limited. If the dog isn't causing a nuisance the landlord won't get an injunction, or be able to claim anything more than a nominal sum in damages.

To put it another way, every lease says things like 'you must not cause a nuisance'. Yet you only have to watch an episode of 'neighbours from hell' to see how difficult sort of clause is to enforce in practice. And that is for really serious cases.

So while there is undoubtedly a risk with keeping the dog, I do not think the risk is too big in the grand scheme of things. It sounds like you are OK for now.


Yes, absolutely. As it sounds like you were given a specific answer which is wrong, it sounds like you would have a good case for claiming costs from the conveyancer's insurer.

But only if you were actually forced to move as a result of the landlord taking legal action (unlikely). If you moved now the insurer may think that moving was a disproportionate reaction.

Thanks this is really useful. Also landlord mentioned as managing agent less of a threat?

steampowered

tbarson1 wrote: »

Thanks this is really useful. Also landlord mentioned as managing agent less of a threat?

The point is that the landlord (not the managing agent) would need to take any legal proceedings, in the unlikely but not impossible event that things got to that.

G_M

I'm still confused by this 'draft' lease. OP - look at your lease. Are you named at the top of it? If so, this is a brand new lease, issued by the freeholder originally to you. This generally happens with a newly built flat, or a brand new house converson.

This would explain why a 'draft' was issued, for discussion/negotiation, with a 'final' version being issued, and signed by you, later.

On the other hand, if you bought the flat from a previouse leaseholder (a previous owner of the flat), then your name would NOT be on the lease (only the original leaseholder's name would be there). There would be no 'draft', since the lease already exists, in its final form.

This is all relevant because of the solicitor's caveat that the 'final' version might be different from the draft he was reviewimg.