Leasehold: Directors trying to ban parent's visiting pet

Cakeguts

I don't understand why the dog has to visit you at your flat which has a no dogs clause in the lease? Why can't you visit at your parents house where it lives?

[Deleted User]

Rename thread

Leasehold: Directors trying to uphold terms of the lease I signed

G_M

Jarviscocker wrote: »

Put it in a bag and sneak it in.

I have a Bag for Life the OP can borrow.

Morbier

G_M wrote: »

I have a Bag for Life the OP can borrow.

Hope there isn't a pond in the garden, with Koi carp. :rotfl:

mabbit

I have a concrete block you can borrow too:rotfl:

ThePants999

I'm surprised at the sentiment in this thread. I feel that this is complete rubbish, and a clause saying "no pets shall be kept on premises" obviously doesn't ban any animal from ever setting paw inside the door. Trying to wield the clause this way is like trying to point to a "no subletting" clause to prevent you from having guests. If someone else's dog briefly visits and leaves with them, you're blatantly not "keeping" a pet - that's not a subtle distinction that's dangerous to rely on, that's basic English!

[Deleted User]

ThePants999 wrote: »

If someone else's dog briefly visits and leaves with them, you're blatantly not "keeping" a pet - that's not a subtle distinction that's dangerous to rely on, that's basic English!

A person isnt visiting with the dog and then leaving again. They are going somewhere, picking up a dog, returning to the property with the dog, and then taking the dog back later in the evening.

That is not the same as a visitor bringing a dog and leaving, they are going out of their way to bring a dog (without its owner) to a property that doesnt allow dogs.



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.

LandyAndy

ThePants999 wrote: »

I'm surprised at the sentiment in this thread. I feel that this is complete rubbish, and a clause saying "no pets shall be kept on premises" obviously doesn't ban any animal from ever setting paw inside the door. Trying to wield the clause this way is like trying to point to a "no subletting" clause to prevent you from having guests. If someone else's dog briefly visits and leaves with them, you're blatantly not "keeping" a pet - that's not a subtle distinction that's dangerous to rely on, that's basic English!

It doesn't leave with the owner. It is brought to the flat by the OP.
It isn't an occasional brief visit, it's a regular lengthy stay.

AnotherJoe

ThePants999 wrote: »

I'm surprised at the sentiment in this thread. I feel that this is complete rubbish, and a clause saying "no pets shall be kept on premises" obviously doesn't ban any animal from ever setting paw inside the door. Trying to wield the clause this way is like trying to point to a "no subletting" clause to prevent you from having guests. If someone else's dog briefly visits and leaves with them, you're blatantly not "keeping" a pet - that's not a subtle distinction that's dangerous to rely on, that's basic English!

"Basic English" would entail understanding that looking after someone else's dog for one day or perhaps both days of the weekend on a regular basis (regular enough the ManCo have asked them to stop) is very different from a visitor occasionally popping in briefly with their dog.

mabbit

I think the negative sentiment arises from the fact contributors may have been on the receiving end of behaviour exhibited by the OP. The OP sounds like the sort of person who does not realise how inconsiderate their actions are.

Animals in particular are an issue for the sort of person that the OP sounds like...they often do not realise that not everyone likes dogs.

I consider myself an ardent dog disliked...not only are they noisy and dangerously dirty but they are an unnecessary waste of resources and a burden on an already stretched infrastructure.

Anyway, back on topic: OP should be more considerate and stop inflicting this dog on others