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

Tokmon

Luisaandhercat said:

Tokmon said:

Luisaandhercat said:

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...)

Thank you for your comments. I will wait and see what their reply is now.

I wish it was not so black and white and more open to alternatives, as I said before: pay a penalty/fine for our mistake; whatever, but just let my cat live a nice peaceful life in a home where she's cared for deeply.

I don't understand the point of having a system that clearly doesn't work: many people have pets but haven't been reported, so they are in breach of their lease but it's OK; others like us, reported; others denied permission; others (like the actual Director who reported) having a visiting pet that she shares with someone else and brings into the building almost tip-toeing.

I admire a good system. This I find obsolete and causing misery. Just my opinion.

Well the system does work if you actually read the paperwork before you commit to buy somewhere. All the documents are available online before you even view the place so you could have downloaded them, read them and decided the place wasn't for you because you have a pet. You could have even actually read it properly when your solicitor sent it to you and told you to read through it.
You have moved into a flat that isn't suitable for your cat due to your own negligence and considering all the information was there before you committed then you can't blame anyone but yourself. 

Also i don't see the point of you paying a penalty because you would pay it but then still have to get rid of the cat so what would that achieve? 

I understand well what we didn't do correctly, have admitted it, and will learn from it.

If you read my comment again, it is very clear why the system is failing in this place (not for me in particular, but for everyone).

I suggested paying a penalty because that is common practice in other places: you pay a penalty for your administrative mistake, e.g. not having asked for permission in advance and then constructive ways of working out things for both parties are discussed (I am not making this up...it exists and it's fairly common in many countries).

However, as another person suggested, we are just going round and round about this: different experiences, perceptions and beliefs.

I do understand we made the mistake; what I find hard to understand is why I will have to get rid of my cat and everyone else who has dogs in the Estate but haven't been reported don't have to. That is the key of the issue for me.

If it was the same for everyone I would accept it despite the pain of departing from my cat; but one of the Directors has said that the others have simply not been reported.

gingercordial has explained very well why paying a penalty and being allowed to keep doing something is definitely not a fair system. 

So how else would they enforce it if they don't use the current system of acting on people being reported?. Would you want them to carry out regular inspections of people's homes looking for breaches? That seems far worse than a reporting system.
The whole idea of the system is if it's an issue to someone then they report it and it gets looked into. If nobody reports it then nobody has an issue with it so it doesn't get looked into. So actually that seems very fair to me. 
Your complaining it's unfair someone else brings in dogs; well then if your not happy then you should report it. If you don't mind then you should be happy they aren't being stopped. 


You don't like the rules of the lease and you don't like the people who manage the building so the solution for you is to sell the flat and buy somewhere that you are happy with the rules. Then you can keep your cat and not have any issues. 

another_casualty

Apologies about the text above .I hit the quote bar while in bed 🛏. 

I'm not sure if your block has annual meetings for all leaseholders . Where I live now does
I have been asked from one of my neighbours if I'd like to be a director , but my health is not too great at the moment so I declined the offer .
In my previous home ( a maissonnette ) there were no annual meetings . Just 6 monthly gd rent and service charges .  If there are meetings in your block it may be a good idea to attend . 

I know this is an emotional time and it's easy to say in hindsight , but I'm not sure a direct message would have been the way to go . It's obvious that that director doesn't want 5he cat . However, if you could liasise with everyone that may be better . 

It may be better to keep quiet and say nothing , and if approached you could say that you are regretfully looking to move but it will take time and is such a shame etc.
I really don't know what else to say . The cat has been with you all the time , and you must stick with the cat . 

Luisaandhercat

gingercordial said:

Luisaandhercat said:

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...)

Thank you for your comments. I will wait and see what their reply is now.

I wish it was not so black and white and more open to alternatives, as I said before: pay a penalty/fine for our mistake; whatever, but just let my cat live a nice peaceful life in a home where she's cared for deeply.

I don't understand the point of having a system that clearly doesn't work: many people have pets but haven't been reported, so they are in breach of their lease but it's OK; others like us, reported; others denied permission; others (like the actual Director who reported) having a visiting pet that she shares with someone else and brings into the building almost tip-toeing.

I admire a good system. This I find obsolete and causing misery. Just my opinion.

But "just pay a fine and keep doing it" is not a fair solution.  When that is possible, it means that rich people can just break the rules and pay, and keep on breaking them because they know the rules do not really apply to them if they can afford it and the consequences don't "hurt".  Poorer people do not have that option.  How is that OK?

I live in a fancy area of London.  The local high street has nice shops but of course not much parking and is a bus route.  But occasionally somebody parks their Ferrari F40 supercar right outside the shops, on double yellow lines, not even parked straight.  I have seen them do it more than once.  Why should they bother parking further away when (if they can afford a £2 million car just to go to the shops) the fine is nothing to them?  

Believe me, I love pets and I think you should be given permission to keep the cat, but I do not think as a principle you should be allowed to pay a fine and still keep breaking the rules.

I was talking about administrative rules in very normal situations. E.g. when I used to be Presidente de la Comunidad, back in Spain, if someone did not comply with a procedure, that was in place.

A car park fine is a good example of this: it would be a bit disproportionate that (whether you drive a Ferrari or a Nissan) they would ask you to get rid of your car...a fine makes sense (It would not make sense if you killed someone).

The discussion could be wider too and include the sentence that a person could receive for e.g. stealing something vs a slap on the hand when the perpetrator is a multinational organization or Government.

I don't like injustice either and especially from Ferrari F40 people.

I also don't like being reported while others can enjoy their pets inside/outside their homes.

That is what I was talking about, really.

Thanks for your message, I wish I was given permission too.

Luisaandhercat

Tokmon said:

Luisaandhercat said:

Tokmon said:

Luisaandhercat said:

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...)

Thank you for your comments. I will wait and see what their reply is now.

I wish it was not so black and white and more open to alternatives, as I said before: pay a penalty/fine for our mistake; whatever, but just let my cat live a nice peaceful life in a home where she's cared for deeply.

I don't understand the point of having a system that clearly doesn't work: many people have pets but haven't been reported, so they are in breach of their lease but it's OK; others like us, reported; others denied permission; others (like the actual Director who reported) having a visiting pet that she shares with someone else and brings into the building almost tip-toeing.

I admire a good system. This I find obsolete and causing misery. Just my opinion.

Well the system does work if you actually read the paperwork before you commit to buy somewhere. All the documents are available online before you even view the place so you could have downloaded them, read them and decided the place wasn't for you because you have a pet. You could have even actually read it properly when your solicitor sent it to you and told you to read through it.
You have moved into a flat that isn't suitable for your cat due to your own negligence and considering all the information was there before you committed then you can't blame anyone but yourself. 

Also i don't see the point of you paying a penalty because you would pay it but then still have to get rid of the cat so what would that achieve? 

I understand well what we didn't do correctly, have admitted it, and will learn from it.

If you read my comment again, it is very clear why the system is failing in this place (not for me in particular, but for everyone).

I suggested paying a penalty because that is common practice in other places: you pay a penalty for your administrative mistake, e.g. not having asked for permission in advance and then constructive ways of working out things for both parties are discussed (I am not making this up...it exists and it's fairly common in many countries).

However, as another person suggested, we are just going round and round about this: different experiences, perceptions and beliefs.

I do understand we made the mistake; what I find hard to understand is why I will have to get rid of my cat and everyone else who has dogs in the Estate but haven't been reported don't have to. That is the key of the issue for me.

If it was the same for everyone I would accept it despite the pain of departing from my cat; but one of the Directors has said that the others have simply not been reported.

gingercordial has explained very well why paying a penalty and being allowed to keep doing something is definitely not a fair system. 

So how else would they enforce it if they don't use the current system of acting on people being reported?. Would you want them to carry out regular inspections of people's homes looking for breaches? That seems far worse than a reporting system.
The whole idea of the system is if it's an issue to someone then they report it and it gets looked into. If nobody reports it then nobody has an issue with it so it doesn't get looked into. So actually that seems very fair to me. 
Your complaining it's unfair someone else brings in dogs; well then if your not happy then you should report it. If you don't mind then you should be happy they aren't being stopped. 


You don't like the rules of the lease and you don't like the people who manage the building so the solution for you is to sell the flat and buy somewhere that you are happy with the rules. Then you can keep your cat and not have any issues. 

I think the problem with the system is quite evident; and you are entitled to think otherwise, of course.

AdrianC

Luisaandhercat said:

I think the problem with the system is quite evident; and you are entitled to think otherwise, of course.

The problem with "the system" mostly appears to be that you can't just do what you want.

Luisaandhercat

another_casualty said:

Apologies about the text above .I hit the quote bar while in bed 🛏. 

I'm not sure if your block has annual meetings for all leaseholders . Where I live now does
I have been asked from one of my neighbours if I'd like to be a director , but my health is not too great at the moment so I declined the offer .
In my previous home ( a maissonnette ) there were no annual meetings . Just 6 monthly gd rent and service charges .  If there are meetings in your block it may be a good idea to attend . 

I know this is an emotional time and it's easy to say in hindsight , but I'm not sure a direct message would have been the way to go . It's obvious that that director doesn't want 5he cat . However, if you could liasise with everyone that may be better . 

It may be better to keep quiet and say nothing , and if approached you could say that you are regretfully looking to move but it will take time and is such a shame etc.
I really don't know what else to say . The cat has been with you all the time , and you must stick with the cat . 

Hi, thank you, that's useful and constructive.

I told my fiancee about quite a few people here advising that approaching the Directors in a friendly manner would be a good idea.

They definitely have a nicer setting if they can do that, and here it's through the managing agent.

There are annual meetings, yes. We moved 4 months ago so haven't attended one yet.

"Keep quiet and say nothing" has clearly worked for dog-owners here, so I think you are right: that must be the best way to navigate the system. People who asked for consent in advance, had it denied; retrospectively is also denied; but if you don't, you are free to do what others can't.

Between that and the "we're moving away but it takes time" I must thank you because I think it's the best advice.

Luisaandhercat

Luisaandhercat said:

Tokmon said:

Luisaandhercat said:

Tokmon said:

Luisaandhercat said:

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...)

Thank you for your comments. I will wait and see what their reply is now.

I wish it was not so black and white and more open to alternatives, as I said before: pay a penalty/fine for our mistake; whatever, but just let my cat live a nice peaceful life in a home where she's cared for deeply.

I don't understand the point of having a system that clearly doesn't work: many people have pets but haven't been reported, so they are in breach of their lease but it's OK; others like us, reported; others denied permission; others (like the actual Director who reported) having a visiting pet that she shares with someone else and brings into the building almost tip-toeing.

I admire a good system. This I find obsolete and causing misery. Just my opinion.

Well the system does work if you actually read the paperwork before you commit to buy somewhere. All the documents are available online before you even view the place so you could have downloaded them, read them and decided the place wasn't for you because you have a pet. You could have even actually read it properly when your solicitor sent it to you and told you to read through it.
You have moved into a flat that isn't suitable for your cat due to your own negligence and considering all the information was there before you committed then you can't blame anyone but yourself. 

Also i don't see the point of you paying a penalty because you would pay it but then still have to get rid of the cat so what would that achieve? 

I understand well what we didn't do correctly, have admitted it, and will learn from it.

If you read my comment again, it is very clear why the system is failing in this place (not for me in particular, but for everyone).

I suggested paying a penalty because that is common practice in other places: you pay a penalty for your administrative mistake, e.g. not having asked for permission in advance and then constructive ways of working out things for both parties are discussed (I am not making this up...it exists and it's fairly common in many countries).

However, as another person suggested, we are just going round and round about this: different experiences, perceptions and beliefs.

I do understand we made the mistake; what I find hard to understand is why I will have to get rid of my cat and everyone else who has dogs in the Estate but haven't been reported don't have to. That is the key of the issue for me.

If it was the same for everyone I would accept it despite the pain of departing from my cat; but one of the Directors has said that the others have simply not been reported.

gingercordial has explained very well why paying a penalty and being allowed to keep doing something is definitely not a fair system. 

So how else would they enforce it if they don't use the current system of acting on people being reported?. Would you want them to carry out regular inspections of people's homes looking for breaches? That seems far worse than a reporting system.
The whole idea of the system is if it's an issue to someone then they report it and it gets looked into. If nobody reports it then nobody has an issue with it so it doesn't get looked into. So actually that seems very fair to me. 
Your complaining it's unfair someone else brings in dogs; well then if your not happy then you should report it. If you don't mind then you should be happy they aren't being stopped. 


You don't like the rules of the lease and you don't like the people who manage the building so the solution for you is to sell the flat and buy somewhere that you are happy with the rules. Then you can keep your cat and not have any issues. 

I think the problem with the system is quite evident; and you are entitled to think otherwise, of course.

AdrianC said:

Luisaandhercat said:

I think the problem with the system is quite evident; and you are entitled to think otherwise, of course.

The problem with "the system" mostly appears to be that you can't just do what you want.

Someone else said:"Keep quiet and say nothing".

Definitely, that has clearly worked for dog-owners here, so I think that person is right: that must be the best way to navigate the system. People who asked for consent in advance, had it denied; retrospectively is also denied; but if you don't, you are free to do what others can't.

doingitanyway

Luisaandhercat said:

another_casualty said:

Apologies about the text above .I hit the quote bar while in bed 🛏. 

I'm not sure if your block has annual meetings for all leaseholders . Where I live now does
I have been asked from one of my neighbours if I'd like to be a director , but my health is not too great at the moment so I declined the offer .
In my previous home ( a maissonnette ) there were no annual meetings . Just 6 monthly gd rent and service charges .  If there are meetings in your block it may be a good idea to attend . 

I know this is an emotional time and it's easy to say in hindsight , but I'm not sure a direct message would have been the way to go . It's obvious that that director doesn't want 5he cat . However, if you could liasise with everyone that may be better . 

It may be better to keep quiet and say nothing , and if approached you could say that you are regretfully looking to move but it will take time and is such a shame etc.
I really don't know what else to say . The cat has been with you all the time , and you must stick with the cat . 

Hi, thank you, that's useful and constructive.

I told my fiancee about quite a few people here advising that approaching the Directors in a friendly manner would be a good idea.

They definitely have a nicer setting if they can do that, and here it's through the managing agent.

There are annual meetings, yes. We moved 4 months ago so haven't attended one yet.

"Keep quiet and say nothing" has clearly worked for dog-owners here, so I think you are right: that must be the best way to navigate the system. People who asked for consent in advance, had it denied; retrospectively is also denied; but if you don't, you are free to do what others can't.

Between that and the "we're moving away but it takes time" I must thank you because I think it's the best advice.

Yes I agree. I have found @another_casualty to be wise and helpful too.

Ditzy_Mitzy

Luisaandhercat said:

gingercordial said:

Luisaandhercat said:

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...)

Thank you for your comments. I will wait and see what their reply is now.

I wish it was not so black and white and more open to alternatives, as I said before: pay a penalty/fine for our mistake; whatever, but just let my cat live a nice peaceful life in a home where she's cared for deeply.

I don't understand the point of having a system that clearly doesn't work: many people have pets but haven't been reported, so they are in breach of their lease but it's OK; others like us, reported; others denied permission; others (like the actual Director who reported) having a visiting pet that she shares with someone else and brings into the building almost tip-toeing.

I admire a good system. This I find obsolete and causing misery. Just my opinion.

But "just pay a fine and keep doing it" is not a fair solution.  When that is possible, it means that rich people can just break the rules and pay, and keep on breaking them because they know the rules do not really apply to them if they can afford it and the consequences don't "hurt".  Poorer people do not have that option.  How is that OK?

I live in a fancy area of London.  The local high street has nice shops but of course not much parking and is a bus route.  But occasionally somebody parks their Ferrari F40 supercar right outside the shops, on double yellow lines, not even parked straight.  I have seen them do it more than once.  Why should they bother parking further away when (if they can afford a £2 million car just to go to the shops) the fine is nothing to them?  

Believe me, I love pets and I think you should be given permission to keep the cat, but I do not think as a principle you should be allowed to pay a fine and still keep breaking the rules.

I was talking about administrative rules in very normal situations. E.g. when I used to be Presidente de la Comunidad, back in Spain, if someone did not comply with a procedure, that was in place.

A car park fine is a good example of this: it would be a bit disproportionate that (whether you drive a Ferrari or a Nissan) they would ask you to get rid of your car...a fine makes sense (It would not make sense if you killed someone).

The discussion could be wider too and include the sentence that a person could receive for e.g. stealing something vs a slap on the hand when the perpetrator is a multinational organization or Government.

I don't like injustice either and especially from Ferrari F40 people.

I also don't like being reported while others can enjoy their pets inside/outside their homes.

That is what I was talking about, really.

Thanks for your message, I wish I was given permission too.

But parking a car in the wrong place is easily rectified by moving the car.  It does not create an ongoing breach of the lease terms.  A more accurate analogy would be someone attempting to park a lorry in a car park with a 'no commercial vehicles' condition.  In such a case the owner could be asked to get rid of the lorry, or at least find alternative parking.  

AdrianC

Luisaandhercat said:

Definitely, that has clearly worked for dog-owners here

The dog owners don't live in your building.