Freeholder refusing request for dog unreasonably

HP1234

Hi everyone,

I’m looking for a bit of guidance about the situation I’m in.

We bought a flat in September. The leasehold agreement has a clause to say that pets are only allowed with the landlord’s prior consent.

We have found the perfect breed for apartment living, and a great breeder, so decided to contact the freeholders to ask for their consent.

They have responded saying that their policy is no dogs, and this has been their policy for some years as they have previously had problems with them (fouling and noise).

We have provided a response to this, providing information about the breed, and how we are responsible owners, basically rebutting these arguments.

They have come back and said that that they have already given their decision, but did not appear to take into consideration any of the points we raised.

I just wanted an opinion as to whether this is unreasonable? Should they not take into consideration the facts of the case? I feel that having this ‘no dogs’ policy (something that we didn’t agree to specifically) is effectively the same as a blanket ban which may be unreasonable.

What action are we able to take if we disagree with their reasoning? Is there anything that can be done, or do we leave it there?

I have wanted a dog for so long, so I’m really disappointed by the news, and I’m just trying to find out what action (if any) I can take.

Thanks so much!

davidmcn

If the clause doesn't say they can't unreasonably withhold consent, then they can be as unreasonable as they like.

HP1234

davidmcn wrote: »

If the clause doesn't say they can't unreasonably withhold consent, then they can be as unreasonable as they like.

Thanks David. Is this not implied though if the clause is silent on it? I'm sure I read that somewhere!

HampshireH

If you have to travel through any communal areas which you dont own and which are maintained by the freeholder or management agent then I cannot see how withholding consent is unreasonable. Doesn't matter what breed it is, you still have to walk it etc.

If however you have your own entrance to a public space then it would be.

I personally don't think having a dog in a flat is fair on the dog. Regardless of breed but that is just my opinion.

Some builds have S.106 in place which prevents pets too.

eddddy

HP1234 wrote: »

Thanks David. Is this not implied though if the clause is silent on it? I'm sure I read that somewhere!

You might be thinking of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1927.

As I understand it, the automatic "consent is not to be unreasonably withheld" only applies to specific types of consent...

• Consent to assign
• Consent for charging
• Consent to sublet
• Consent for Improvements
• Consent for Alterations

See: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/17-18/36/section/19

So consent to keep a pet isn't included (as far as I know).

John_Jones

When you say great breeder were you planning on breeding dogs in the flat?

iammumtoone

you may have researched a breed suited to the conditions but not everyone will do that.


If they say yes to your dog then it makes it harder for them for refuse others in the same block (who just pick any dog and don't consider if it is suitable for a flat).


Pets covers any animal so as long as they are giving consent to keep goldfish, then technically their clause is correct they are allowing pets if permission is sought (just not all types of pets).

G_M

There are pets and.... there are pets.

Goldfish generally cause little disturbance, whereas dogs....

You have to consider the other leaseholders in the block. They may well have had bad experinces in the past with dog-owning leaseholders, and complained to the freeholder, who has, quite reasonably, determined to refuse applications for dogs (whilst approving goldfish applications).

Personaly I dislike dogs. And from my perspective no breed, however small, well-behaved, well-trained, well-cared-for etc would be acceptable to me if I lived in the building.

And breeding? :eek:


So I can fully understand (and if a leaseholder I would support) the freeholder's decision.


Buying a flat in a building with such a term in the lease if you planned/wanted a dog was asking for trouble.

financegeek

I too live in a flat and have always wanted a dog, but can completely understand why a freeholder would refuse consent.

Although you've researched the breed and they're great for apartment living, they can still cause nuisance to the neighbours.

what if your dog develops separation anxiety and barks every time it's left alone? or gets territorial and barks every time someone walks past?

do you have a private garden? or is it just communal garden areas that other residents will be using? as they may not be happy to have a dog using their outside space as a toilet.

Things which can be endearing to a dog owner (such as a dog getting exciting and barking because you're about to go out) can quickly become a nuisance to neighbours and cause aggro for the management / freeholder, so much easier for them to prevent the issue in the first place, rather than try and resolve the problem once the dog is there.

Equally would you be happy to give up the dog if the management company ruled that it's a nuisance and that you need to re home it? i believe there was a case recently that ended up in court and the leaseholder had to rehome the dog.

I'd look into getting a pet that's more suited for apartment life (such as an indoor cat) and focus on saving for a house of your own where you can have as many dogs as you like!

shortcrust

This is a bit ‘don’t they know who I am?!’

HP1234

To be clear, we!!!8217;re not looking to breed any dogs !!!55357;!!!56834; I meant that we!!!8217;d be getting the dog from a reputable breeder.

The points about granting our request opening the floodgates for other people also wanting one are actually really valid. But I think (hope!) that these people should also have to prove that they are responsible owners.

I get that not everyone is a dog person. But do you think if the other leaseholders consented, that would make a difference to the decision?