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

Tokmon

HampshireH said:

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.

Well they have two options: 1. Get rid of the Cat 2. Move house I would say option 2 is the best option here because they obviously don't want to get rid of the cat and they don't like the terms of the lease or the people who manage it.

teachfast

csgohan4 said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

csgohan4 said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

csgohan4 said:

teachfast said:

AdrianC said:

teachfast said:

It may be the DDA if the EA doesn't cover it. This is a useful guide to the transition:

https://www.lease-assn.org/leasehold-information-sheets/disability-adaptations.php
...
Landlords or managers are required to take reasonable steps to:

change a policy, practice or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to accept a letting, enjoy the premises or use any facility that the lease or tenancy specifies;

And which bit of that covers the situation where there is zero evidence that a pet is actually medically necessary?

It would cover being denied a guide dog or similar trained assistance animal. But not a cat. Not without some kind of documented medical proof.

I'd say they are obliged to take the disability into account and didn't. It doesn't fall to them to be medical experts. The assertion that there is a connection to the disability (which they made during the application) is sufficient. 

If the OP can get a medical certified letter for their chronic lung condition that they need a cat, £10 to a charity of your choice, one time

The OP isn't claiming that it helps her lung condition, but that it helps her mental health condition. 
I agree that it probably makes the lung condition worse. 

A medical letter, in the remote possibility of getting one, will not trump what's written in the lease. This isn't about applying to get certain benefits and needing medical letters to support your claim where it 'may' help. 

The Equality Act does trump the lease though.  Admittedly I don't think it applies here but just wanted to add that. 

Does it apply to someone who bought rather than let though?
So if I say I need a pet for my mental health but my lease restricts against this, I can still get one then? 

No but if they have a reasonable chance of knowing there is a disability they are obliged to take it into account, which they didn't, hence they discriminated.

wannabe_a_saver

csgohan4 said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

csgohan4 said:

wannabe_a_saver said:

csgohan4 said:

teachfast said:

AdrianC said:

teachfast said:

It may be the DDA if the EA doesn't cover it. This is a useful guide to the transition:

https://www.lease-assn.org/leasehold-information-sheets/disability-adaptations.php
...
Landlords or managers are required to take reasonable steps to:

change a policy, practice or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to accept a letting, enjoy the premises or use any facility that the lease or tenancy specifies;

And which bit of that covers the situation where there is zero evidence that a pet is actually medically necessary?

It would cover being denied a guide dog or similar trained assistance animal. But not a cat. Not without some kind of documented medical proof.

I'd say they are obliged to take the disability into account and didn't. It doesn't fall to them to be medical experts. The assertion that there is a connection to the disability (which they made during the application) is sufficient. 

If the OP can get a medical certified letter for their chronic lung condition that they need a cat, £10 to a charity of your choice, one time

The OP isn't claiming that it helps her lung condition, but that it helps her mental health condition. 
I agree that it probably makes the lung condition worse. 

A medical letter, in the remote possibility of getting one, will not trump what's written in the lease. This isn't about applying to get certain benefits and needing medical letters to support your claim where it 'may' help. 

The Equality Act does trump the lease though.  Admittedly I don't think it applies here but just wanted to add that. 

Does it apply to someone who bought rather than let though?
So if I say I need a pet for my mental health but my lease restricts against this, I can still get one then? 

The equality applies to housing provision, exceptions must be justified and necessary. 

ripplyuk

csgohan4 said:

teachfast said:

AdrianC said:

teachfast said:

It may be the DDA if the EA doesn't cover it. This is a useful guide to the transition:

https://www.lease-assn.org/leasehold-information-sheets/disability-adaptations.php
...
Landlords or managers are required to take reasonable steps to:

change a policy, practice or procedure which makes it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to accept a letting, enjoy the premises or use any facility that the lease or tenancy specifies;

And which bit of that covers the situation where there is zero evidence that a pet is actually medically necessary?

It would cover being denied a guide dog or similar trained assistance animal. But not a cat. Not without some kind of documented medical proof.

I'd say they are obliged to take the disability into account and didn't. It doesn't fall to them to be medical experts. The assertion that there is a connection to the disability (which they made during the application) is sufficient. 

If the OP can get a medical certified letter for their chronic lung condition that they need a cat, £10 to a charity of your choice, one time

It’s not for the lung condition (which the cat probably worsens). It’s for her mental health and there is an abundance of medico-legal psychiatrists who would happily write a supporting letter, if the OP has a few hundred pounds to spare. 

HampshireH

Tokmon said:

HampshireH said:

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.

Well they have two options: 1. Get rid of the Cat 2. Move house I would say option 2 is the best option here because they obviously don't want to get rid of the cat and they don't like the terms of the lease or the people who manage it.

Neither of your two options would help them go back in time and read the lease before they bought though would they.

They didn't and there isn't anything they can do about that now.

What you propose is what they can do currently to resolve their subsequent dilemma. 

And of course they have the third of appeal. As has been touched on multiple times in this 19 page saga.

Luisaandhercat

warby68 said:

Luisaandhercat said:

warby68 said:

You made a big mistake OP
Lots of long discussions with overseas friends and believing it should be different doesn't change that and stirring up the board and trying to set directors against each other might just escalate in worse directions with a lot of ill feeling towards you.

The most likely scenario to my mind is that as long as you don't flaunt the cat, there will be no further enforcement action because of the cost and hassle involved. The decline gives the directors scope should your pet owning ever prove problematic and is consistent with other decisions. No guarantee of course. The dogs are perhaps evidence of this stance of no actual action being taken?

Don't forget as well as annoying the directors you have inadvertently also walked over any neighbours who also wanted a pet but respected the rules or took heed of earlier decisions. You are new there, new people stirring things up doesn't often go down well.

Keep a low profile, stay off the chat and don't put pictures up and if your name is the same as here change it.

@warby68 If by big mistake you mean not reading the lease fully, understood and acknowledged.

What I am not sure about is why you think that I have would try to stir up the board to set directors against each other? I was/am not planning to do that at all.

The (supporting) Director replied on the WhatsApp chat initially; then he took the initiative to -simultaneously- send me private messages saying he understood how my fiancee felt; he was also p**** off when his permit was denied and he could see so many dogs around, etc. 

I wasn't the one contacting him; I think he did because we used to have nice chats when I was doing things in my garage when I first moved in. And the third Director I have never spoken with or seen. He's got two lovely dogs and that's all I know.

I also don't understand what I made different to annoy the Directors that other people with dogs who don't have permission but are allowed to keep them haven't done?

Neighbors are being lovely and have either said they find reporting a cat ridiculous or openly expressed that they don't care if we have a cat (we never asked them, just came up). Still, I do understand what you are saying about inadvertedly having walked over the neighbours.

Thanks for explaining the most probable scenario to you and for your advice; that helps.

Lots of little private chats and supportive messages does not mean anyone is willing to go public for you. Sympathy is one thing but it doesn't translate into public support. Lets face it they haven't done much about their own gripes. Its just the way it works in committee land, quite a bit of the personal and not always enough of the professional. Lots of alliances, not always visible and often the people will the strongest feelings won't even be known until they plunge the knife in your back. You need to be careful others are not encouraging you to be the one to fight their issues albeit indirectly. You're too in the wrong to go to war, you need a more subtle approach and preferably the fewer people involved the better.

What I would take from the friendly neighbours is that noone is likely to kick up more of a fuss if you quietly keep the cat.

I understand all that and I agree.
That's why I said I never intended to steer Directors (or anyone for that matter) against each other?
I even wrote directly to her to have a conversation, not the others.
And what I said about the neighbours is because people were asking if any had allergies, etc.
Anyhow, as I said in my last post: we're laying low. 
That's the decision taken. 

Luisaandhercat

teachfast said:

So I think there's an avenue not yet explored:

"Dear Directors,

I believe my partner would be classified as disabled.  You’re disabled under the Equality Act 2010 if you have a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal daily activities.  This is an accurate description of her condition.  Therefore I am requesting evidence that you have taken this into account in your decision-making.  If you cannot provide this then I believe you have treated her unfavourably in a way which is demonstrably related to her condition by refusing the request to keep a cat.  Furthermore, others on our estate have clearly been allowed to keep pets.

I believe your denial of this request cannot be classed as a proportionate means to a legitimate aim, indeed you have presented no rationale whatsoever that this is the case, therefore there is every likelihood you have directly discriminated against her.  I request an immediate review of this decision or I will pursue this discrimination through legal means.

I will expect your response within 14 days from the date of this correspondence.

Yours sincerely,"

@teachfast Thank you for taking your time to craft this. Much appreciated.
My fiancee doesn't considered herself to be disabled though.
She is self-managing her condition quite well. It is a chronic condition and she has flare ups if under a lot of stress or anxiety.
Initially when I wrote my post here, I just wanted advice on how to keep our indoor cat when several others without permits keep dogs that have to inevitably take our for a walk 2 or 3 times a day.
It's the same Directors and Managing company for the whole Estate. 
It didn't seem right.
We wanted to get a permit, that's all.
We've decided we'll just keep it now. Thank you.

Luisaandhercat

elsien said:

Apologies if I've missed this but you keep referring to others on the estate keeping pets.
Are the other blocks run by the same directors/management company as yours, as otherwise that's a bit of  red herring. 

@elsien Initially when I wrote my post here, I just wanted advice on how to keep our indoor cat when several others without permits keep dogs that have to inevitably take our for a walk 2 or 3 times a day.
It's the same Directors and Managing company for the whole Estate. 

Luisaandhercat

teachfast said:

Alan2020 said:

I think Luisa has a number of points to note:
1. I suspect maybe people don’t like Johnny Foreigner breaking their laws (in the flat kingdom) and you mistook the politeness of the friendly person for sympathy.
2. You are assuming, no one else has an allergy etc and complained.
3. You are misreading the culture, most people will see your partner as a dramatic troublemaker. To give you a perspective, our child cannot take to school any peanut containing food to school due to other children’s allergies. Now we love peanuts and this is annoying due to having to change everything we cook. Imagine how the teachers will perceive a parent complaining how depressed they are without jumbo peanuts - people will say !!!!!!. Now imagine there was a person with an allergy next door, the directors can’t tell you due to GDPR, but will view you as selfish people making up a disease.
4. Have you had a look at who else lives in these apartments? You might find it’s better to sell up and move. We had this issue whilst living in Sweden, we lived in a very upmarket apartment complex and had constant problems, because we were foreign. Moved to a more mixed neighbourhood and things were better but Sweden isn’t a good place to live as a foreigner lol

OP I wouldn't engage with this womble.

Thanks @teachfast

Luisaandhercat

csgohan4 said:

OMG this is 17 pages. Squabbling with strangers won't change your lease OP. 

The part where a cat is a necessity for a Chronic Lung condition made me chuckle. If I was asked to write a supporting letter, I would say 'On your bike'. 

Stop clutching at claws, keep the cat at your own risk, otherwise it will have to go as per management/lease

I never said that the cat is good for my fiancee's lung condition.
We said it's good for her anxiety, which it is.
We haven't sought a cert from the Dr as emotional support animals are not legal here. 
That the cat is good for her anxiety is a fact, but we don't expect Directors to just go by what we know to be a fact.
We do have certs of her anxiety, etc. 
The reason why we replied to the Managing company with evidence of her anxiety and a timeline was to provide context.
Given that people with no permits are keeping pets and strolling freely around the estate, I said a few pages ago we will just keep our indoor cat.
Thank you.