dispute with freeholder over Leasehold

sara37

Hi, i am a leaseholder with 156 years lease on a flat i bought july 2018.
My freeholder in the block of 4 flats is quoting terms of the lease on a weekly basis to me. only 1 is relevant and with substance. no animals. I have a dog and through my ignorance did not spot the clause on the lease. However, the freeholder is not challenging 2 other leaseholders who have sub let their properties which is also against the terms of the lease. I feel i am being targeted by the freeholder. can i challenge the lease . i know i signed it, i know i should have made sure i knew everything i was signing, i know its my responsibility to make sure before i sign it. this is causing me serious issues and i have felt i had no choice but to put my property up for sale. any advice would be appreciated . thanks in advance

Slithery

sara37 wrote: »

only 1 is relevant and with substance. no animals.

So get rid of the dog or move. You should have picked up on this before purchasing.

sara37 wrote: »

However, the freeholder is not challenging 2 other leaseholders who have sub let their properties which is also against the terms of the lease.

How do you know this? Have you read their leases?

sara37

very helpful. thank very much . your a true people person as well as a dog hater. x

sara37

yes i have read their leases. thanks

HampshireH

He isn't a dog hater don't take your frustrations of a completely self created situation out on others. It isn't the forums fault you are in this situation.

It's unlikely you can challenge your lease. However you CAN challenge the enforcement of the lease in that if the freeholder is intending to enforce the pet element then they must be expected to enforce other breaches.

You can insist on this. I expect once you start creating a nuisance of yourself by jnsisting that your neighbours are evicted for subletting the flats you may start being heard.

You may not however enjoy the outcome

HampshireH

What does your pet clause specifically say as often they are a bit flimsey such as including reasonable consent being required.

AdrianC

The other leases may well say "no subletting", but it's possible that the freeholder has granted an exception to that. Perhaps those leaseholders were occupiers for years before circumstances meant they needed to move, while you have moved in in instant breach.



Have you even asked the freeholder for an exception to the "no pets" clause?

Since they are different clauses, it's not possible to say that the freeholder is being unfair to you in refusing permission - it's entirely possible that there have been previous issues with pets, and no previous issues with tenants.

NeilCr

AdrianC wrote: »

Since they are different clauses, it's not possible to say that the freeholder is being unfair to you in refusing permission - it's entirely possible that there have been previous issues with pets, and no previous issues with tenants.

Or one of the other residents has complained about the dog. Freeholders tend to react more to complaints than being proactive about enforcing the rules if all seems to be running smoothly.

eddddy

Does the lease essentially say "no pets" or "no pets without consent"?

(If it says "no pets without consent", the law states that consent cannot be unreasonably withheld.)

Similarly, does it say "no sub-letting, or "no sub-letting without consent"?

Most (good) leases also say that if a leaseholder tells the freeholder that another leaseholder is "breaking the rules" (i.e. breaching a covenant), the freeholder must take enforcement action.


i.e. If a neighbour has complained to the freeholder that you are keeping a dog in breach of the lease, the freeholder has no choice - the freeholder must enforce the terms of the lease.

(Otherwise, the neighbour could take legal action against the freeholder.)

G_M

sara37 wrote: »

very helpful. thank very much . your a true people person as well as a dog hater. x

What no earth leads you to believe Slithery is a dog hater........:huh:

You asked for advice on a legal issue and Slithery told you what your legal options were.

.:huh:


Just because you are a dog lover does not mean those who interpret the law in a way that penalises a dog, is a dog hater.

I, however, am a dog hater - though that is totally irrelevant.

Slithery

sara37 wrote: »

very helpful. thank very much . your a true people person as well as a dog hater. x

Not at all, some of my best friends are dogs. I'm not the one that didn't care enough about their animals to bother reading the lease of the flat that I was planning to move them into.

I gave you your only 2 legal options, whatever clauses your neighbours may or may not be breaking of their leases is none of your business and nothing to do with your issue.

Sorry if that's not what you wanted to hear.