Freeholder refusing request for dog unreasonably

G_M

saajan_12 wrote: »

Morality aside, on what basis do you say
1. Freeholder can't withhold consent without reason
2. Witholding consent would be unreasonable

Indeed I see many reasonable reasons to withhold consent:
1. defecating in communal garden
1b. presence in communal garden where children (or other adults) wish to relax

2. damage to common areas
3. fear / aversion of other residents as the dog passes through common areas
4. barking / noise disturbing other residents

5. smell, either from the flat, or from dog passing through communal areas (dog-owners never notice the smell of their own dogs in my experience)

NeilCr

6. Creating a precedent.

I am a director of the management company where we own the freehold. We have the same clause re pets. As a group of directors we are "animal friendly" and quite relaxed about pets in leasehold flats But we had someone who wanted to have two dogs and a cat in a flat (she, sensibly, asked how we would view this before she bought) with no direct access to the outside. We thought that too much.

To an extent, though, we have created a rod for our own backs by allowing some animals. Although a pet lover myself I can completely see that it would be hard to justify allowing a cat but not a dog, for example.

Especially with dogs noise is an issue. We have freehold houses too where there are no such restrictions. Two of my neighbours have dogs and they can be quite yappy. I'm fine with it but I can see others would find it aggravating. Personally, I was more irritated by a baby crying late at night - they left the window open.

To the OP. I find it hard to see what evidence you can provide that you are responsible owners. I am not saying you aren't but how do you, actually, prove it. And to be honest it's much easier (and sensible to be honest) for the freeholder to hold the line at no dogs than having to work out whether or not a resident is a responsible owner and if a dog breed is okay for a flat.

I think it's probably easy to say that you should have asked before you moved in. Given that, as has been said, you've been thinking about a dog for quite a while I'd say you should have checked (like our prospective owner) but, sometimes, it's not something you consider at the time.

When I moved into my last flat I had recently separated and didn't want animals (much as I love them). I didn't want the responsibility and to be tied if I wanted a night out, a week away. After a couple of years I missed having cats. Again,there was the same clause but by then we owned the freehold and the directors were cool with me having cats.

While I agree that some dogs can be fine in flats I'd say the general rule is more likely to be no dogs but cats are okay.

Red-Squirrel_2

saajan_12 wrote: »

Morality aside, on what basis do you say
1. Freeholder can't withhold consent without reason
2. Witholding consent would be unreasonable

Indeed I see many reasonable reasons to withhold consent:
1. defecating in communal garden
2. damage to common areas
3. fear / aversion of other residents as the dog passes through common areas
4. barking / noise disturbing other residents

3 is certainly not relevant, as a guide dog or other medical/service dog would have to be allowed and it wouldn't matter at all what the other residents thought!

1 & 2 are tricky, some dog owners are selfish and irresponsible and would let this happen, but not the vast majority.

4. Well, communal living in flats means noise. Unless the dog is barking literally constantly I don't see why this would be considered differently to allowing residents to practice musical instruments, do DIY or say a woodworking hobby, have the volume up on the TV or indeed have children, who are usually much noisier than dogs!

As for the lease, if the clause says 'consent shall not be unreasonably withheld' but they are in fact saying there is a blanket 'no' to all pets then I think that counts as unreasonable personally.

saajan_12

Red-Squirrel wrote: »

3 is certainly not relevant, as a guide dog or other medical/service dog would have to be allowed and it wouldn't matter at all what the other residents thought! - other residents could take comfort in the fact that service dogs are much more trained. Plus the number of service dogs needed in an avg block of flats is much less than the number of dogs if all pets were allowed, so the chance of encountering a dog is much reduced by restricting to service dogs - so very relevant.

1 & 2 are tricky, some dog owners are selfish and irresponsible and would let this happen, but not the vast majority. - the freeholder has no reliable proof which type you'll be.


4. Well, communal living in flats means noise. Unless the dog is barking literally constantly I don't see why this would be considered differently to allowing residents to practice musical instruments, do DIY or say a woodworking hobby, have the volume up on the TV or indeed have children, who are usually much noisier than dogs! - Children grow out of crying/screaming as the only way to communicate, dogs are always dogs, will always bark. Dogs are left alone when owners are out, when they can ramp up noise, children rarely. DIY is a one off and usually only at daytime, dogs can bark at all hours. The lease has a restriction on pets, not children so neighbours signed up for and should expect noise from children, not necessarily pets. Finally, freeholders can't stop everything but can avoid some likely causes of noise disturbance and then act on other issues tactically as and when it happens.


As for the lease, if the clause says 'consent shall not be unreasonably withheld' but they are in fact saying there is a blanket 'no' to all pets then I think that counts as unreasonable personally.

IF the lease says that - OP just stated they needed freeholder's consent, with no mention of reasonableness. However even if it does have your wording, banning all dogs is not banning all pets. They could ban dogs for the very reasonable points above, but allow other animals e.g. fish, hamsters, etc.

Aylesbury_Duck

buzzyzoe wrote: »

This comment makes no sense to me. There are plenty of flats that are bigger than houses. There are houses with no garden and flats with private gardens. You cannot blanket say that it's cruel to keep a dog in a flat.

I agree. Perhaps the accuser believes dogs should have access to stairs to run up and down?

YoungBlueEyes

OP - what is "the perfect breed for apartment living"?

vicki2221

It is not necessarily cruel to have a dog in a flat. My oldest dog lived with us in a flat the first 18 months of her life. My husband worked from home and she got 5 walks a day (I did 2 and he did 3) and she was happy as anything. Now she lives in a big house with large garden and gets 2 walks a day. I think she was just as happy living in a flat.

robatwork

Lorks, 3 pages to tell the OP that it isn't unreasonable to refuse.

As to "what can I do?" As Judge Judy would always say (shout) MOVE.

quantumlobster

Perfect dog for apartment living = retired racing greyhound.

20 minute walk morning and evening, sofa for the rest of the day.

PhilE

You may be a responsible dog owner and civilized sort of person, who would never dream of letting your dog bark and disturb others. Barking dogs disturbing others is after all, something that belongs in third world countries together with undrinkable tap water, and feces on the street. If you go to countries with very prosperous economies, the laws on barking dogs are very strict.

Unfortunately, the owner of the apartments doesn't know whether you are a civilized person or not. And with the laws of the UK regarding noise pollution being the farce that they are, if you do turn out to be a knuckle dragger unfit for civilization (I'm sure your not) it becomes very difficult for them, and the rest of the neighborhood.

You can blame irresponsible dog owners and a negligent government for this.