Leasehold: Directors trying to ban parent's visiting pet

prawnchip

I was wondering if somebody could provide some advice, perhaps based on experience.

I live in a block of flat with a covenant restricting keeping of a pet, the usual no pets policy. The precise wording states that "no pets shall be kept on premises".

Of recent, we have been bringing our parents dog over on occasions on the weekend for few hours and thereafter returning it later in the evening.

The management agency instructed by the directors have now told us that no pets can be present on the premises at all, whether visiting or visiting accompanied by my parents. The dog is a small 6-7kg thing, rarely barks and spend time in our flat only. Initially they granted us permission when we wrote to them, but since then this has been revoked.

I am considering getting legal advice, and contemplating fighting this out. Has anybody run into this situation before?

anselld

No pet clauses in leases have generally been found to be enforceable when litigated.

"Fighting it out" could prove very expensive and it seems to be a battle which is not worth the risk of losing.

davidmcn

What exactly are the enforcement measures they're proposing to take?

prawnchip

I am not sure what the enforcement measure would be when we don't actually have a pet. What would they get an injunction to remove? Nothing has been proposed beyond willingness to engage in a legal challenge

eddddy

prawnchip wrote: »

The management agency instructed by the directors have now told us that no pets can be present on the premises at all, whether visiting or visiting accompanied by my parents.

It's what the lease says that counts - not what the directors say.

prawnchip wrote: »

The precise wording states that "no pets shall be kept on premises".

I guess it depends how you define "kept" ("keep").

To me, "allowing a pet to visit" is not the same as "keeping".


The problem is: the Freeholders might decide to write letters claiming breach of covenant, and then instruct solicitors to write letters etc - and then charge the leaseholder fees for doing this.

The leaseholder can challenge the fees at a tribunal - but if the leaseholder loses the challenge, the fees could have reached hundreds of pounds by then.


But if you feel strongly enough, I guess you could warn the freeholders that you would take them to tribunal, if they try to take action against you.

Lunchbox

prawnchip wrote: »

I am not sure what the enforcement measure would be when we don't actually have a pet. What would they get an injunction to remove? Nothing has been proposed beyond willingness to engage in a legal challenge

Ultimately, they could ask the court to forfeit your lease for breach of covenant.

There is a precedent for a finding of breach of covenant for a dog staying occasionally; https://www.todaysconveyancer.co.uk/guest-writers/forfeiture-leases/

I agree with you though, ‘visiting’ shouldn’t be seen as being ‘kept’.

Jarviscocker

Put it in a bag and sneak it in.

NeilCr

Probably, another resident has complained

I am a director of a ManCo and, as others, I'd agree visiting isn't the same as "kept". As a board it wouldn't bother us but we tend to be animal friendly. The issue, I guess, is setting a precedent. A few hours become a few more hours etc etc. And, if you "get away with it" then others might follow. In general, it's easier to stop these things at the outset

Whether or not the dog is small and quiet is kind of irrelevant. It's still a dog!

How far they take it depends on them. We, usually, find a letter or two does the trick and it's rare that we have had to go as far as a solicitors letter. We did take one resident to court for non payment of service charges and got a charge on his house but that was pretty extreme (he also caused damage around the estate)

Previous posters are right. It could prove expensive for you. Your choice on whether you want to tough it out and see what they do.

unforeseen

I'm puzzled as to why you are 'borrowing' your parents' dog for a few hours each week. To me that sounds like somebody testing the waters in preparation for getting their own.

AnotherJoe

Indeed, thin end of the wedge, once you start trying clever wording about the difference between 'keeping' and ''present' and 'visiting', perhaps over time the dog is there all week except on Mondays and you are being clever and arguing its just visiting so isn't covered by the lease.
As for 'rarely barks' that means it barks. Annoying if you moved into a place where there arent meant to be dogs. What happens if half the residents start doing this, now theres always a dog barking despite the leases saying no dogs
Look at it from neighbours perspective, no doubt they are out most of the week so on 50% of weekend days (or is it even both days you have the dog?) when they expect peace and quiet, there's a dog in a neighbouring flat that barks! Yet they moved here because they didnt want a dog barking so doubt they are onto management pressing them to fix this.

I certainly would be because once its been established its OK to have a dog 'visit' and bark because its not "being kept' , where does it end?

What level of barking do you think the neighbours should put up with when quite possibly they moved into a no dogs flat for that very reason?

prawnchip wrote: »

I am not sure what the enforcement measure would be when we don't actually have a pet. What would they get an injunction to remove? Nothing has been proposed beyond willingness to engage in a legal challenge

Ultimately it could be forfeiture of your lease if you keep bringing a dog in.

My advice is, stop bringing a dog into a flat with a no dogs lease.

Davesnave

AnotherJoe wrote: »

....once its been established its OK to have a dog 'visit' and bark because its not "being kept' , where does it end?

It ends with the situation in a rural complex near me, originally planned as holiday accommodation with a 'no dogs' clause, but because that wasn't enforced, it's now unenforceable, as more than half the residents own one or more dog.

Some of them bark, which is normal in the country, but one owner has three and lives by the entrance to the complex, so these animals frequently challenge every person and vehicle that arrives. The people next door, who don't have a dog, have been trying to sell for around 3 years!