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

jimbog

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.

It could also prove very expensive. If it was re-reported on a weekly basis then those weekly fines would soon mount up

Luisaandhercat

AdrianC said:

Luisaandhercat said:

Definitely, that has clearly worked for dog-owners here

The dog owners don't live in your building.

They live in the estate under the same leasehold

princeofpounds

Luisaandhercat said:

On this note (be humble to the directors), my fiancee has written to the Director who reported the cat today.

My fiancee sent her a nice message and asked her whether it would be possible to have a conversation about the kitten. She told her she was more than welcome to come to our flat.

The Director responded saying that she is always happy to have a neighbourly chat but it is not fair to discuss Estate matters.

My fiancee then said she had contacted her because she thought as a Director she was the person to contact for guidance on Estate matters; and asked her whether she should contact another Director instead?

The Director came back saying that all Estate matters must go through the managing agent.

So, my fiancee was trying to act on the advice here by many people that the best course of action was to try and talk to the Director/s.

Is this because in your experiences they can be approached?

Is it the case for other people in leaseholds here that they can't talk to the Directors about Estate matters?

She is basically telling you that she doesn't want to talk about it. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if she was quite nervous about doing so on her own, and in your flat, no matter how hard she appears on the outside. 

In one sense she is correct that day-to-day business should be dealt with by the managing agent. They are staff (well, a company with staff) employed to do a job. However, the whole point here is that you don't agree with that decision (which may well have been instructed by this one Director) and you are seeking to appeal to the Board that employs and instructs them.

She doesn't have to talk to you. The only time Board members have to answer to shareholders is at AGMs and EGMs, and certain types of business correspondence.

When people suggest trying to talk to Directors, what they mean is trying to persuade the other Directors as a group to overrule any decision made. Although there is nothing wrong with trying to attempt to talk directly to her, you can't have expected it to achieve much.

Then, if you don't like the Directors, you can gather support from shareholders to try to replace them. Or even become one yourself. If you can take over the Board as a group, you can solve your problem, but it may well not be a motivating factor for anyone else. But if you were to ever succeed at that you need to do all the other work they do too, not just solve your own issue!

As a number of us have said, unless you think you have a change to win over the Board or replace enough of the Board, then your best bet is to wait and see if they ever enforce their decision.

Slithery

Luisaandhercat said:
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.

Because the leasehold terms for your building will probably be different to the leasehold terms for the other properties on the estate. Leases are property specific, not estate specific.

Have you checked the leases for the properties where the dog owners live and confirmed that they aren't allowed pets?

lookstraightahead

My friend is highly allergic to cats and lives is a block of flats where no animals are allowed. That's the main reason she bought there. 

gingercordial

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.

Of course there should be proportionality.

The issue is that the fine "fixes" the historic problem (having the cat until today, parking the car badly today).  You can't pay the fine and then go right ahead and break the same rule tomorrow and every day after that.  Or you can, but only if you are so wealthy that you don't care if you are fined every single day.  Eventually there has to be a worse consequence of *carrying on* breaking the rules than just fines, otherwise it really is unfair.  Money shouldn't be the solution to everything and it shouldn't be only people in your block who can afford to pay the "pet fine" who are allowed to have a cat even though it is against the rules for everyone else.  It would cause even more bad feeling with others seeing that some people can buy special treatment.

Luisaandhercat

princeofpounds said:

Luisaandhercat said:

On this note (be humble to the directors), my fiancee has written to the Director who reported the cat today.

My fiancee sent her a nice message and asked her whether it would be possible to have a conversation about the kitten. She told her she was more than welcome to come to our flat.

The Director responded saying that she is always happy to have a neighbourly chat but it is not fair to discuss Estate matters.

My fiancee then said she had contacted her because she thought as a Director she was the person to contact for guidance on Estate matters; and asked her whether she should contact another Director instead?

The Director came back saying that all Estate matters must go through the managing agent.

So, my fiancee was trying to act on the advice here by many people that the best course of action was to try and talk to the Director/s.

Is this because in your experiences they can be approached?

Is it the case for other people in leaseholds here that they can't talk to the Directors about Estate matters?

She is basically telling you that she doesn't want to talk about it. In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if she was quite nervous about doing so on her own, and in your flat, no matter how hard she appears on the outside. 

In one sense she is correct that day-to-day business should be dealt with by the managing agent. They are staff (well, a company with staff) employed to do a job. However, the whole point here is that you don't agree with that decision (which may well have been instructed by this one Director) and you are seeking to appeal to the Board that employs and instructs them.

She doesn't have to talk to you. The only time Board members have to answer to shareholders is at AGMs and EGMs, and certain types of business correspondence.

When people suggest trying to talk to Directors, what they mean is trying to persuade the other Directors as a group to overrule any decision made. Although there is nothing wrong with trying to attempt to talk directly to her, you can't have expected it to achieve much.

Then, if you don't like the Directors, you can gather support from shareholders to try to replace them. Or even become one yourself. If you can take over the Board as a group, you can solve your problem, but it may well not be a motivating factor for anyone else. But if you were to ever succeed at that you need to do all the other work they do too, not just solve your own issue!

As a number of us have said, unless you think you have a change to win over the Board or replace enough of the Board, then your best bet is to wait and see if they ever enforce their decision.

Thank you very much @princeofpounds

That's all really helpful information. Specially your clarification of what to expect in terms of communications.

I do like the other Director I know; it's a pity actually because he told me when all this started that when he applied to have a dog and the permission was denied, he was (quote) "really p***** off because they did not give me a reason, the Directors weren't good communicators and I had to see people with dogs all the time. Asking for permission was a waste of time. This is the reason why I became a Director".

So I feel sorry for him because this was 2 years ago and clearly he hasn't been able to change things so far.

I wouldn't want to become a Director in this block, based on the things I see. I do appreciate the hard work they do; I was a Director myself in Spain and I enjoyed the role, but it was more personal. We would try to talk to people, have a chat, etc.

For us to send a letter reporting someone, it was always if informal chats had failed.

I like a challenge and don't mind the hard work (wouldn't just be a Director to solve my own issues, obviously) but I wouldn't enjoy it the way it's here in the Estate.

Going back to the cat, wait and see: I'm going for it.

Cheers

Luisaandhercat

Slithery said:

Luisaandhercat said:
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.

Because the leasehold terms for your building will probably be different to the leasehold terms for the other properties on the estate. Leases are property specific, not estate specific.

Have you checked the leases for the properties where the dog owners live and confirmed that they aren't allowed pets?

I haven't.

It was confirmed by one of the other Director (pro-cat) that the people who have dogs in other blocks haven't asked for permission; they don't have permission; they just haven't been reported (he said this openly on the WhatsApp group).

Luisaandhercat

lookstraightahead said:

My friend is highly allergic to cats and lives is a block of flats where no animals are allowed. That's the main reason she bought there. 

I can understand that and it's fair enough.

However, in this block neighbours don't have a problem with that (some of them approached us about it; some of them asked after we said on WhatsApp that it had been reported).

We are only 8 apartments.

The only one against it is the Director who reported it.

(She has pictures with cats; and a visiting dog so not allergic).

Anyhow, I'll wait and see.

HampshireH

Luisaandhercat said:

Slithery said:

Luisaandhercat said:
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.

Because the leasehold terms for your building will probably be different to the leasehold terms for the other properties on the estate. Leases are property specific, not estate specific.

Have you checked the leases for the properties where the dog owners live and confirmed that they aren't allowed pets?

I haven't.

It was confirmed by one of the other Director (pro-cat) that the people who have dogs in other blocks haven't asked for permission; they don't have permission; they just haven't been reported (he said this openly on the WhatsApp group).

This doesn't make sense. They cannot knowledly turn a blind eye to the same breaches by others whilst acknowledging the breach Is occuring.

They have a responsibility to act fairly and in a proper manner.

If a director reported you is that not a conflict if the same director is calling the shots?

They should be taking a consistent approach and that is to enforce the lease on breaches they know about. Whether it is "reported" or not is irrelevant.

The lease doesn't say you can't have a pet if you are reported.  I would be expecting the directors to be enforcing the policy across the board and not targeting you and only you. 

If of course the others are also in breach. 

I also agree you should have read the paperwork before signing, but you have acknowledged that and there's nothing you can do about that now.