Lease & Pets Major Issue

G_M

steampowered wrote: »

In reality, I'm not sure there is a lot the managing agent can do. No-pets clauses are almost impossible to enforce in the real world. Personally I would keep the dog.

You would technically be in breach of your lease. The legal remedy for breach of a lease is to claim damages. Damages are paid according to the loss suffered.

This is not so. The legal remedy could be to enforce tthe terms of the lease via the courts. If the court found in favour of the freeholder/management company, and instructed the leaseholder to remove the dog, failure to do so would be Contempt of Court. Contempt is punishable by imprisonment.

This is backed up by the link provided above by InterestedParty2018

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

tbarson1

G_M wrote: »

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.

I bought from the previous owner of which his details are on although I never signed a final version.....plus the nit pets clause us clearly in the original and final

sheramber

steampowered wrote: »

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.

Who is the landlord since the OP has bought her flat?

G_M

tbarson1 wrote: »

I bought from the previous owner of which his details are on although I never signed a final version.....plus the nit pets clause us clearly in the original and final

So you bought a lease that was granted, some years go, to someone else. Maybe the previous owner, or maybe the one before that, or...

So you would NOT sign the final version. That was signed by the first leaseholder some years ago. Subsequent owners, like you, do NOT sign the lease. You simply buy it off the previous owner.

And there would be no 'draft' for you or your solicitor to review. The lease was created X years ago and could not be changed.

So your ealier statement that 'the final version' may be different makes no sense.

I'm afraid I believe that

a) you do not understand the process by which leases are created, bought and sold
b) you therefore almost certainly misunderstood what the solicitor said and/or the implications

tbarson1

G_M wrote: »

So you bought a lease that was granted, some years go, to someone else. Maybe the previous owner, or maybe the one before that, or...

So you would NOT sign the final version. That was signed by the first leaseholder some years ago. Subsequent owners, like you, do NOT sign the lease. You simply buy it off the previous owner.

And there would be no 'draft' for you or your solicitor to review. The lease was created X years ago and could not be changed.

So your ealier statement that 'the final version' may be different makes no sense.

I'm afraid I believe that

a) you do not understand the process by which leases are created, bought and sold
b) you therefore almost certainly misunderstood what the solicitor said and/or the implications

Regardless the solicitor said Pets were allowed.....

steampowered

sheramber wrote: »

Who is the landlord since the OP has bought her flat?

The freeholder.

steampowered

G_M wrote: »

This is not so. The legal remedy could be to enforce tthe terms of the lease via the courts. If the court found in favour of the freeholder/management company, and instructed the leaseholder to remove the dog, failure to do so would be Contempt of Court. Contempt is punishable by imprisonment.

This is backed up by the link provided above by InterestedParty2018

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

What you are describing is a application for an injunction. Not an action for breach of the lease (which would only result in damages).

It is sometimes possible for the landlord to get an injunction. But there are some important caveats:

- Even if the lease is clearly being breached, that is not enough for an injunction. Injunctions are hard to get and there are other criteria which need to be satisfied.

- Getting an injunction is expensive. Injunctions cannot be obtained through the small claims process.

That is why, in the case you linked to, the initial hearing was 3 days long. And that was before the two appeals that were heard.

The freeholders burned over £100k of legal fees in that case (the details are public), and will be tens of thousands out of pocket. It was a highly exceptional case driven by a personal vendetta of the tenant directors of the leasehold management company.

I suppose its possible the Op could end up in the same position if this kept getting escalated, but extremely unlikely I think.

Aylesbury_Duck

tbarson1 wrote: »

Regardless the solicitor said Pets were allowed.....

So become a tenant of the solicitor.

I don't see how you proving the solicitor was wrong - if indeed you can - will help you. What do you expect him to do to make amends? Adopt your dog?

tbarson1

No not at all I was just advised incorrectly this if I had to move I would seek costs.idont see how your ridiculous comments help. I cane in here for advise not sarcasm. If you do not have anything constructive to say then do not post here.

tbarson1

steampowered wrote: »

What you are describing is a application for an injunction. Not an action for breach of the lease (which would only result in damages).

It is sometimes possible for the landlord to get an injunction. But there are some important caveats:

- Even if the lease is clearly being breached, that is not enough for an injunction. Injunctions are hard to get and there are other criteria which need to be satisfied.

- Getting an injunction is expensive. Injunctions cannot be obtained through the small claims process.

That is why, in the case you linked to, the initial hearing was 3 days long. And that was before the two appeals that were heard.

The freeholders burned over £100k of legal fees in that case (the details are public), and will be tens of thousands out of pocket. It was a highly exceptional case driven by a personal vendetta of the tenant directors of the leasehold management company.

I suppose its possible the Op could end up in the same position if this kept getting escalated, but extremely unlikely I think.

I live in a small city and the man co don’t have that kind if funding