Leasehold restriction on pets

G_M

flix21 wrote: »

as i said, if the op gets approval, can find the right dog suitable and is committed to its care for the rest of its days then she should go for it and keep fingers crossed that no current or future leaseholders become annoyed.

:t :t :t

hazyjo

Flix21 wrote: »

There seems to be quite a few pet haters on this forum.

Troll post, or just not reading the whole posts?

To put it nicely (cos I don't want a ban), I love pets. Have two cats and grew up with big dogs and, as much as I'd love another, I'd be way too emotional to get another cos I'd not cope with going through the heartbreak of losing them again.

Quite how you gleaned 'pet haters' from the fact people like me are concerned that someone should be irresponsible enough to go against their lease and risk having to turf out their beloved pet is beyond me.

hazyjo

Crumble2018 wrote: »

Dogs can cause a disturbance to neighbours wherever you live? Can't see why a flat is any different to a terraced house, or indeed even a detached house? Dogs living 5 houses away can cause a disturbance if they're left out in the garden barking all day.

I'm not disputing that - but you *own* a house. A freeholder has a responsibility to all those sharing a block (or whatever), therefore some pretty standard ground rules have to be laid down to avoid conflict.

Usually with a flat, there are more than two shared walls (like with a terraced house) - sometimes as many as four+.

Conversions are often more lenient. Purpose built flats usually have it written into leases - same as they do things like 'carpet only - no solid flooring' as some people can be naive, inconsiderate, or selfish.

Not saying that dogs in flats bark more than dogs in houses. Obviously. You often don't know what the dog will be like until you live with it for some time or until it matures.

Crumble2018

hazyjo wrote: »

I'm not disputing that - but you *own* a house. A freeholder has a responsibility to all those sharing a block (or whatever), therefore some pretty standard ground rules have to be laid down to avoid conflict.

Usually with a flat, there are more than two shared walls (like with a terraced house) - sometimes as many as four+.

Conversions are often more lenient. Purpose built flats usually have it written into leases - same as they do things like 'carpet only - no solid flooring' as some people can be naive, inconsiderate, or selfish.

Not saying that dogs in flats bark more than dogs in houses. Obviously. You often don't know what the dog will be like until you live with it for some time or until it matures.

Yes, I get that, but that wasn't the point that some posters on here were making. It was an attitude that you must be selfish to consider having a dog if you live in a flat. In that case, anyone that doesn't live in a detached house on 5 acres of land must be selfish to have a dog!

Flix21

You’re being a bit too sensitive hazyjo and maybe putting your own feelings into it too much.
I confess maybe “anti pet owning” would have been better than pet haters.

No-one has suggested the OP completely disregard the freeholder and neighbours, but speak to them about it and clarify their position. If they can come to a compromise and can get a suitable dog to fit their lifestyle, then my point is it CAN work living in a flat. Some have implied (not sure if this was you or others, didn’t pay attention to names) that you shouldn’t have a dog in a flat - regardless of circumstances. Of which I disagree.

Cakeguts

Flix21 wrote: »

There seems to be quite a few pet haters on this forum.

As I said, if the OP gets approval, can find the right dog suitable and is committed to its care for the rest of its days then she should go for it.

If she finds a yappy barking dog, then it obviously wouldn’t be the right choice. Having a dog doesn’t mean you have to live in a detached in the middle of no-where.

It does if you have any thought about what your neighbours might want rather than what you feel entitled to have. As I said before in a different post I find the entitled to have attitude very difficult to deal with.



The rules about not having pets in the lease are not there to penalise flat owners who feel they are entitled to do whatever they want they are there to improve the quality of life of all the residents and to stop the entitled from destroying the quality of life of others.



If people have chosen to live in a flat where the lease says that they can't have pets then if they want a pet they move to somewhere that allows them they don't try to force their entitled lifestyle choices on everyone else.



No one is that special that their choices are more important then any other resident.

Cakeguts

Crumble2018 wrote: »

Yes, I get that, but that wasn't the point that some posters on here were making. It was an attitude that you must be selfish to consider having a dog if you live in a flat. In that case, anyone that doesn't live in a detached house on 5 acres of land must be selfish to have a dog!

Nothing to do with having a dog in a flat although I don't think it is fair on the dog. What is at issue here is that the lease says no pets if they are likely to cause a nuisance. That clause is there for the benefit of all the residents who don't want to be disturbed by someone getting a dog and their choice to not have a dog in the flats is just as important as the person who wants to get a dog but not move to a flat or house that allows it.



If the lease says you can't have pets you can't have pets. You are not so special that you can force your lifestyle choices on someone else. If you live in a flat with a no pets policy and you want a pet you move to a flat where pets are allowed it is that simple.

Cakeguts

Flix21 wrote: »

You’re being a bit too sensitive hazyjo and maybe putting your own feelings into it too much.
I confess maybe “anti pet owning” would have been better than pet haters.

No-one has suggested the OP completely disregard the freeholder and neighbours, but speak to them about it and clarify their position. If they can come to a compromise and can get a suitable dog to fit their lifestyle, then my point is it CAN work living in a flat. Some have implied (not sure if this was you or others, didn’t pay attention to names) that you shouldn’t have a dog in a flat - regardless of circumstances. Of which I disagree.

They don't need to speak to the neighbours because for the benefit of the neighbours pets are not allowed if they cause a nuisance and dogs often cause a nuisance so no dogs. If they want a dog they move. The neighbours should not be being asked to compromise just so that someone can have what they want. If they wanted a pet they should not have bought a flat with a no pets clause in the lease.



The neighbours rights are to no have dogs in the flats. Why should they have to give up their rights?

csgohan4

Flix21 wrote: »

You’re being a bit too sensitive hazyjo and maybe putting your own feelings into it too much.
I confess maybe “anti pet owning” would have been better than pet haters.

No-one has suggested the OP completely disregard the freeholder and neighbours, but speak to them about it and clarify their position. If they can come to a compromise and can get a suitable dog to fit their lifestyle, then my point is it CAN work living in a flat. Some have implied (not sure if this was you or others, didn’t pay attention to names) that you shouldn’t have a dog in a flat - regardless of circumstances. Of which I disagree.

What makes pet lovers so special to ignore their lease restrictions? Just because the current tenants maybe ok with it, won't mean those who come in after will be.


If you want a pet so bad, go somewhere where you own the freehold or there is no restrictions.


Rather than be nuisance to your neighbours where they all bought because a no pet clause.

Davesnave

Crumble2018 wrote: »

Yes, I get that, but that wasn't the point that some posters on here were making. It was an attitude that you must be selfish to consider having a dog if you live in a flat. In that case, anyone that doesn't live in a detached house on 5 acres of land must be selfish to have a dog!

No, not at all; the thread is about expectations. In the case of flats with a restriction in the title on pets which may cause nuisance, it's reasonable for those buying into the property, by rent or purchase, to expect no nuisance from that source.

There are many types of dogs and many types of flat, so posters won't be able to cover all eventualities.

There are also unwritten expectations too. As someone who does have 5 acres of land situated next to several farm enterprises, I expect to hear tractors starting-up at 5am in summer or harvesters churning though the fields well after dark in the autumn. All mechanised farming is noisy. I'd be crazy to be upset by sheep or cattle making noises as well. It's just how things are, which also includes my hens kicking off every time one lays an egg!

There are some people who come to our village and complain unreasonably about noise. Our longest running complainants have been here since about 2002, but most just move away when their notion of what country living is like proves mythical

It would be different if the hens were in a back garden in town, especially if some were cockerels, or if someone was taking a huge tractor home to a new build estate and shaking everyone out of bed with it at silly o'clock!

P.S. We don't have a dog. We might have the land, but we don't have the time. Many others who go out to work for much of the week don't have the time either, but they may not know it.