Help with cat in leasehold flat - Director with passive/aggressive behaviour

AdrianC

Alan's posts are not necessarily "false", they are simply his opinion. They are one not shared by the vast majority of the population.

I rather suspect (hope, to prevent allegations of hypocrisy being levelled) that he is also a vegan - again, something not shared by the vast majority of the population.

frogglet

Don't think Alan is an animal lover then.
I'd keep the cat and see what happens. As long as it isn't pooing in the woodland.

AdrianC

frogglet said:

I'd keep the cat and see what happens. As long as it isn't pooing in the woodland.

That's bears.
Or catholics.

macman

AdrianC said:

frogglet said:

I'd keep the cat and see what happens. As long as it isn't pooing in the woodland.

That's bears.
Or catholics.

But definitely not Rose Kennedy.

AdrianC

macman said:

AdrianC said:

frogglet said:

I'd keep the cat and see what happens. As long as it isn't pooing in the woodland.

That's bears.
Or catholics.

But definitely not Rose Kennedy.

I'm currently reading "American Tabloid". All bets are firmly off when it comes to that family.

Alan2020

Gunner276 said:

Alan2020 said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

I think your number 3 is a bit unfair.  There’s tons of medical evidence that dogs and cats are beneficial for mental health, none for peanuts! 

There isn’t any medical evidence from any credible source. Firstly having a pet is ethnically questionable, I highly doubt the animal has a free choice, it’s akin to animal slavery. Secondly, in the UK people aren’t into alternative mumbo jumbo. The only dogs I am aware of people actively supporting are guide dogs and these are viewed as working dogs.
Pets are from an ethical point of view, animals enslaved to please a selfish person who cannot make connections with normal humans due to the effort needed - could be laziness or some medical issues. People should be supporting animal sanctuaries and pay to protect the animals homes if they really are animal lovers

https://bmcpsychiatry.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12888-018-1613-2

A quick web search returned medical evidence from what I believe is a credible source.

If you read it, it just reviews what others have done and says needs more investigation - polite way of saying not enough scientific evidence.

Jumblebumble

Alan2020 said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

I think your number 3 is a bit unfair.  There’s tons of medical evidence that dogs and cats are beneficial for mental health, none for peanuts! 

There isn’t any medical evidence from any credible source. Firstly having a pet is ethnically questionable, I highly doubt the animal has a free choice, it’s akin to animal slavery. Secondly, in the UK people aren’t into alternative mumbo jumbo. The only dogs I am aware of people actively supporting are guide dogs and these are viewed as working dogs.
Pets are from an ethical point of view, animals enslaved to please a selfish person who cannot make connections with normal humans due to the effort needed - could be laziness or some medical issues. People should be supporting animal sanctuaries and pay to protect the animals homes if they really are animal lovers

You talk nonsense as you cannot possibly know what reason I have for keeping a dog
Remarkably my dog has developed a severe case of Stockholm Syndrome and doesn't care what you think

Seashell517

OP - I understand that being told you can't have the cat and then keeping it goes against most people's wanting 'to do the right thing'. But in this case, I would honestly just wait and see if anything further happens. I can't see the directors wanting to spend money on getting your cat removed when it's indoor and therefore not directly effecting anybody else living in the block. (You would need to declare that you've breached the lease when selling, but I can't see that many people would be put off buying it because you kept a cat when the director's said no...)

Ditzy_Mitzy

Seashell517 said:

OP - I understand that being told you can't have the cat and then keeping it goes against most people's wanting 'to do the right thing'. But in this case, I would honestly just wait and see if anything further happens. I can't see the directors wanting to spend money on getting your cat removed when it's indoor and therefore not directly effecting anybody else living in the block. (You would need to declare that you've breached the lease when selling, but I can't see that many people would be put off buying it because you kept a cat when the director's said no...)

Your confidence is admirable, however the OP needs to make damn sure there isn't a forfeiture clause/power of re-entry present in her lease before digging her heels in.  

martindow

Leaving the morality of keeping pets and going back to page 4, the OP quoted this

The lease says exactly this: "Animals: a) not to keep any animal on the Property without the prior written consent of the Company or the Management Company. b) To comply with such directions as the Company or the Management Company may from time to time issue regarding the keeping of any animal on the Property and to ensure that such animal shall not cause any nuisance or disturbance or foul any Common Parts or the Amenity Area of the Woodland Area".

That certainly implies that there is no blanket ban and that consent could be granted.  The OP needs to try to talk (calmly) to the other directors to see whether there are sympathetic voices there in an effort to get permission.

This was suggested earlier, but i am not sure whether the OP has tried this ...