Lease & Pets Major Issue

Aylesbury_Duck

tbarson1 wrote: »

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.

It would help you get advice if you could answer the questions posed in various posts, including in post #55. My sarcasm was in direct response to your response to G_M's closing remarks. He quite clearly said:

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

To which your response was:

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

So, how do you expect to benefit from the advice people are giving when you don't listen and keep repeating "the solicitor said..." at every opportunity?

And I'll post as I like, thanks, as long as it's within the forum rules. Feel free to block me if you wish. I won't be upset. If challenged, I'll just say I'm using my friend's account and it doesn't belong to me.

InterestedParty2018

tbarson1, you came to this forum to seek free advice/direction/information/opinion. This particular forum is visited by tenants, owners, surveyors, solicitors, estate agents, managing agents etc, all with their experience, be it personal or professional.

I suggest you review the comments and tally up the opinions. Those that believe you have a right to keep a pet and grounds for action against your solictors, versus those that believe you have no grounds for either.

NeilCr

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.

Another link with a few comments on what it means for leaseholders and what you should do if you have a pet in this situation. To be clear this isn't aimed at the OP

http://www.bishopandsewell.co.uk/leaseholder-to-remove-dog-from-flat/

As a director of our estate I don't have that much sympathy with the Kuehns if I'm honest based on this report

We have the same covenant re pets for our leaseholders. I am an animal lover and my natural instinct is to agree to requests for pets to be allowed in the flats. However, you run the risk of falling foul of other leaseholders and you have to be aware of their views - and the practicalities.

A couple of years ago we had an enquiry from a prospective purchaser of one of the flats. She (sensibly) wanted clarification of how we would deal with her situation. She wanted to buy a flat with no outside access and she had one cat and two dogs. Or the other way round! We, unanimously, said no because we thought it was too much - and there was a real risk of disturbance for the other neighbours - something which, of course, is hard to judge in advance.

If we'd said yes and the animals became a nuisance I am well aware of the pressure we would have been under from other flat dwellers. And we may have ended in court. And it would have been an unpleasant experience for all concerned.

In this, as has been said, lying low is the best bet. Neighbours haven't complained so I'd be surprised if the manco took it much further. Lying to them wasn't the best idea, though

steampowered

Aylesbury_Duck wrote: »

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?

The Op's conveyancer/solicitors owed the Op a duty of care.

As it seems they gave the Op an incorrect answer to a very specific question, they will be liable for professional negligence to pay costs incurred by the Op as a result of their wrong advice.

tbarson1

Can you pm me steam? Tried to but it won!!!8217;t send my end

Gilead

If you are going down the negligence route you need to have evidence that they advised you that pets were permitted. If you don't have that then there is no case to answer.

Negligence happens, but because you remember a conversation a certain way does not mean that is enough never mind correct.

tbarson1

Gilead wrote: »

If you are going down the negligence route you need to have evidence that they advised you that pets were permitted. If you don't have that then there is no case to answer.

Negligence happens, but because you remember a conversation a certain way does not mean that is enough never mind correct.

I have the email which says “I have read through the paperwork and the restrictions and it does not appear that digs and domestic animals are not allowed”

The lease totally contradicts this

gingercordial

OP, what do you want to happen here?

The solicitor being wrong will not mean you can keep your dog if the management company insist you can't have one.

You are very unlikely to get the management company to agree to amend your lease, but they may ignore it if (as you say) the dog is not a nuisance. The solicitor being wrong won't help you either way.

You've suffered no loss at this point as you have not incurred any costs. Therefore you have nothing to claim back from the solicitor. Wait and see if anything else happens, and keep the e-mail in case you need it in future.

If what you are really after is compensation, I would think that's pretty unlikely at this stage and even if they offered you something it would almost certainly include terms that this was the end of their liability which you really wouldn't want to accept in case you do suffer losses in future and want to claim those.

tbarson1

I am not planning on doing anything currently. It is negligence in terms of incorrect information given. I would only seek compensation if I was forced to have the dog removed and had to move as a result.

need_an_answer

However in order to get to the point that the dog were "removed and you forced to move" there is likely to have been a costly legal battle on both sides.
Would you be expecting your solicitor to fund a portion of this or what compensation would you deem adequate?

It is also worth remembering that the management company whom which you would propose to have this dispute is in part funded by yourself as a leaseholder.
They potentially have only minimal funds put aside for challenging leaseholders who don't comply with the lease.Ultimatly if you were to take them to the max you would end up paying at least a portion of their costs by default being a leaseholder and potentially prove yourself very unpopular with your neighbours who as leaseholders also would have to foot the bill.

Whilst it may not seem a huge thing for you to keep a pet and potentially none of your near neighbours object what it does do is show that there can be little regard for upholding any element of the lease.

So presumably if there I a clause in the lease regarding an aspect you are unhappy with someone breaking the terms there is very little you can do to prevent it if you yourself are doing likewise