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

greatcrested

* you do not own the flat. You paid for the lease (which you do own), and which gives you permission to live in the flat for a number of years eg 99, 120, 999 - whatever the length of the lease. At the end of that time (unless something else happens like a lease extension) the flat returns to the freeholder (who owns the land and the building).

* you have said that no one else in the building has a pet. Permitting you to have one might

a) annoy other lease owners (who may have bought their lease because there would be no pets in the building. I personaly hate pets and would never move into a building with pets!), and

b) open the floodgates, with other residnets wanting cats (indoor or outdoor) and then indoor dogs, then outdoor dogs etc etc)

* whether there are pets in other buildings on the estate is only relevant if

a) the same freeholder owns the other buildings and

b) the leases in the other buildings are the same as yours

* learning how the management company is legally set up, and managed in a practical way, would be a sensible way forward. When is the AGM? Have you seen copies of the minutes? Are you a shareholder? Does this Director have full authority or are other Directors involved? How must they make decisons?

I sugest you speak to your neighbours.

f.

Indigo_and_Violet

AdrianC said:

We do understand (knowing everything we know now; lessons learned) that having a leasehold means you have sometimes less rights than someone who is a tenant

That's simply not true.
Any resident in that building needs to get permission for a pet.

Given the recent change in Government policy around no-pet clauses for tenants, they probably are correct that leaseholders have fewer rights wrt keeping pets than tenants: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-standard-tenancy-agreement-to-help-renters-with-well-behaved-pets.

greatcrested

Indigo_and_Violet said:

AdrianC said:

We do understand (knowing everything we know now; lessons learned) that having a leasehold means you have sometimes less rights than someone who is a tenant

That's simply not true.
Any resident in that building needs to get permission for a pet.

Given the recent change in Government policy around no-pet clauses for tenants, they probably are correct that leaseholders have fewer rights wrt keeping pets than tenants: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-standard-tenancy-agreement-to-help-renters-with-well-behaved-pets.

As has been previously pointed out on the forum, that is not law.

That is simply a change to the model tenancy agreement that government suggests LLs can, but do not have to, use.

Ditzy_Mitzy

greatcrested said:

Indigo_and_Violet said:

AdrianC said:

We do understand (knowing everything we know now; lessons learned) that having a leasehold means you have sometimes less rights than someone who is a tenant

That's simply not true.
Any resident in that building needs to get permission for a pet.

Given the recent change in Government policy around no-pet clauses for tenants, they probably are correct that leaseholders have fewer rights wrt keeping pets than tenants: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-standard-tenancy-agreement-to-help-renters-with-well-behaved-pets.

As has been previously pointed out on the forum, that is not law.

That is simply a change to the model tenancy agreement that government suggests LLs can, but do not have to, use.

I can't see, also, how changes to the model tenancy affect existent long leases.  What the OP has signed into is what the OP has signed into.  

Luisaandhercat

princeofpounds said:

This isn't a judicial process. It simply does not matter if the complainant is also a Director. 

Luisa, please read through my post again. There are a number of important issues that I believe you are not fully touching on.

- You indicate that one of the Directors is supportive of you. Have you had a proper conversation with them about whether the Board has actually discussed this, or whether the decision has been taken either by an individual Director and/or staff of the management company (or the agency that operates it). The Directors, as a Board, can overrule these things if they agree to do so. This Director can raise it, if they feel they have the support.

- Please look up the freehold titles for your property. It is very likely to cover all the buildings on the estate, or all the apartment buildings on the estate. It is possible it just applies to your building, but given some things you have said, I suspect not. You cannot assume that a Director who lives in a house is living in a freehold property - it would be unusual, though not impossible, for them to be a Director in that case. You cannot assume that people in the other buildings are not relevant without clarifying the precise structure of the tenure. You still haven't confirmed if you are a share-of-freeholder either, unless I missed it.

- As stated by others subsequent to me, you do not need to remove the cat yet. Enforcement is not a foregone conclusion.

- Oh, and how did you 'not buy the actual flat'. A leasehold property is a rental agreement; that's literally what a lease means. It's a form of rental agreement which is very long term, where the tenant ('owner') has a lot more power than short term rental agreements, but not all the powers that comes with being a freehold owner. Because people feel like owners of the flats in most respects, people are generally very happy to talk about 'owning' the property despite technically being a tenant. 

It is the legal solution that developed in England and Wales to deal with the issue of living in communal structures like apartments (it can be used in other ways too). Every country has to have some kind of solution of this manner - leasehold is not as different to other systems as people think, but it does have important quirks that are important to understand. The leasehold system comes in for a lot of criticism, some of it justified, but often people overstate the problems that are really fundamental to the legal structure itself.

To be fair, even freehold 'owners' are technically just tenants too, given that the Crown is basically supreme. But tenants with enduring tenure and complete freedom to do anything within the law (which is more than you get in a Civil Code system like much of the continent).

Hi, Thank you very much for your reply.

The reason why I think it does matter that the Director reported us having a cat is because if it's down to her...then it's an obvious "no" whatever we do. Whether it's about a cat -or anything else- how is that not biased if the person e.g. does not like you?

The Director who is supportive of us did not do it publicly on the WhatsApp group when this came up (though at least he clarified that "consent needed to be sought" as opposed to "no pet allows", but that was it). He then send a private message to me to say he had no problem with us having a cat. However, after that I sent him the reply denying consent and he just said: "you got to do what you got to do". That was all. Now, his wife is best friends with the Director who reported us and go for long walks each day, etc.

I am not sure the supportive Director -however supportive he may be- wants to take a decision that goes against all this.

The third Director we don't know. We know he has two dogs. We know by looking at the posts on the FB group that he usually agrees with the Director who reported us so I'd be inclined to think that they wouldn't want to disturb the peace for the newcomers.

I am a shareholder. I will look at the docs again, as per your advice on all the other matters.

I am as shocked about the whole leasehold system as you'd be to know that other countries have much, much laxer rules and you just own outright and have a "comunidad de propietarios" that is self-managed.

E.g. there are many posts on Google confirming there's not a leasehold system like here in Spain (where I owned an apartment; and most of my friends do; they all have pets and are as shocked as I am).

As I was shocked about my ignorance on this matter in England, I have chatted about this with friends in other countries who know about property, e.g. lawyers; RSA, etc. and leasehold is not a thing. I have recently read somewhere that even in Scotland it doesn't exist, is that correct?

Believe it or not, I am just reading about this news: (I am not allowed to post link as I am new to the forum)

"Leasehold scandal: Millions of homeowners to be freed from ‘rip-off’ ground rents after landmark reforms".

I have now read many articles about the upcoming changes.

I know and respect that is the norm here, but I'd be lying if I'd say that it doesn't surprise me that such a system would make people so unhappy.

AdrianC

There are three directors. They vote. They voted no.
It doesn't make the slightest difference how they found out about your cat - whether it was because you mentioned it on whatsapp or whether they saw it through the window.

If you are a "shareholder", then you own a portion of the freehold. Just like a self-managed comunidad. In fact, that's pretty much what it is.
Obviously, you can't have every single resident voting on every single triviality - so you appoint representatives to do it on your behalf.

Luisaandhercat

pinkshoes said:

As it is a house cat and there are presumably no cat flaps and it doesn't go outside, just tell them the cat has been got rid of or died, then keep the blinds shut and don't answer the door to directors?!?!?!?

(Not a great solution, but would work for now!!)

The first time was an honest mistake. The second time would be lying.

I don't want to go down that route; we may have been naive enough not to have read the lease fully, but we don't want to become liars. We just wish something as beautiful as having a pet -who for us, is part of our very small family- and who does not disturb anyone and will not go outside, etc. would be under so much scrutiny.

Or that cases would be considered individually, e.g. maybe don't have a massive English Mastiff or Irish Wolfhound in a 60m2 flat but have an indoor cat that doesn't even meow...

Luisaandhercat

AdrianC said:

Luisaandhercat said:

Believe it or not, when you explain this situation to friends who own flats in different countries (as we did before in Spain, Ireland and Uruguay) they can't understand how there is something called "lease" that can dictate whether you can have an indoor cat in your flat.

I don't believe that there's not similar restrictions on what residents can and can't do in a shared building in those countries.

Don't get hung up on it being a lease.
It's simply the way of telling residents of the building how they are expected to play nicely with other residents.

We do understand (knowing everything we know now; lessons learned) that having a leasehold means you have sometimes less rights than someone who is a tenant

That's simply not true.
Any resident in that building needs to get permission for a pet.
The lease applies to the flat, whoever lives in it.
The only question is whether there's somebody else in between the resident and the building managers - a landlord...

Luisaandhercat said:

NameUnavailable said:
In fact a lot of buyers don't even know what the lease is, they think they're buying the actual flat. 

And even after all the comments here, I am still strugging to understand how we did not "buy the actual flat"?

You did.

You bought everything inside the walls, the fabric of the building, all the infrastructure and utilities, all the fitted furniture/kitchen/bathroom. They are yours. You own them.

What you didn't buy is the outside walls, the roof, the ground the building sits on... Because they're shared between all the other residents of the building. But you did buy the right to use them. But within certain rules, to ensure all residents play nicely with each other. The lease is what defines that.

You'd be surprised...as surprised as I am about the restrictions here.

I was a flat owner twice in Spain; most of my friends there are, and what is universal is that some people would be nosey, some people would keep to themselves, etc. but they all have pets (I'm talking from working-class homes to very luxurious buildings and anything in the middle). I lived in 2 countries in South America and the system was similar. Our friends back in Ireland are shocked too.

We have traveled extensively and when we visit other countries, we are always curious about property prices so we look around and unlike here, you don't see "leasehold" and "freehold" on every description. I only saw it for the first time here in England.

It doesn't surprise me because (again, I can't post the link because I'm new here) but as the RFTM web explains:
"Leasehold is almost unique to the UK. Most other countries in the world have adopted a form of commonhold whereby apartment leaseholders own the freehold between them and collectively manage the building".

Now, of course, you can have similar rules in other countries without having a leasehold...but I guess most people would rather have the company of a pet to very strict/obsolete rules?

In terms of what I said about "having fewer rights that tenants", what I meant was that now with the new Model Tenancy Agreement, l, consent for pets will be the default position and landlords will have to object in writing within 28 days of a written pet request from a tenant and provide a good reason. I'd personally call that to be in a much better position than us right now.

I am totally up for playing nicely with each other and understand that rules are -generally- good.

We never had problems with any neighbours anywhere before (including the last 9 years living in England) and we're loving the rest of the neighbours (some of whom, by the way, have said they find this whole situation ridiculous).

AdrianC

Luisaandhercat said:
It doesn't surprise me because (again, I can't post the link because I'm new here) but as the RFTM web explains: 

"Leasehold is almost unique to the UK. Most other countries in the world have adopted a form of commonhold whereby apartment leaseholders own the freehold between them and collectively manage the building".

You said you're a shareholder. If you are, then that's what you own...

davidmcn

Luisaandhercat said:

princeofpounds said:

This isn't a judicial process. It simply does not matter if the complainant is also a Director. 

Luisa, please read through my post again. There are a number of important issues that I believe you are not fully touching on.

- You indicate that one of the Directors is supportive of you. Have you had a proper conversation with them about whether the Board has actually discussed this, or whether the decision has been taken either by an individual Director and/or staff of the management company (or the agency that operates it). The Directors, as a Board, can overrule these things if they agree to do so. This Director can raise it, if they feel they have the support.

- Please look up the freehold titles for your property. It is very likely to cover all the buildings on the estate, or all the apartment buildings on the estate. It is possible it just applies to your building, but given some things you have said, I suspect not. You cannot assume that a Director who lives in a house is living in a freehold property - it would be unusual, though not impossible, for them to be a Director in that case. You cannot assume that people in the other buildings are not relevant without clarifying the precise structure of the tenure. You still haven't confirmed if you are a share-of-freeholder either, unless I missed it.

- As stated by others subsequent to me, you do not need to remove the cat yet. Enforcement is not a foregone conclusion.

- Oh, and how did you 'not buy the actual flat'. A leasehold property is a rental agreement; that's literally what a lease means. It's a form of rental agreement which is very long term, where the tenant ('owner') has a lot more power than short term rental agreements, but not all the powers that comes with being a freehold owner. Because people feel like owners of the flats in most respects, people are generally very happy to talk about 'owning' the property despite technically being a tenant. 

It is the legal solution that developed in England and Wales to deal with the issue of living in communal structures like apartments (it can be used in other ways too). Every country has to have some kind of solution of this manner - leasehold is not as different to other systems as people think, but it does have important quirks that are important to understand. The leasehold system comes in for a lot of criticism, some of it justified, but often people overstate the problems that are really fundamental to the legal structure itself.

To be fair, even freehold 'owners' are technically just tenants too, given that the Crown is basically supreme. But tenants with enduring tenure and complete freedom to do anything within the law (which is more than you get in a Civil Code system like much of the continent).

I have recently read somewhere that even in Scotland it doesn't exist, is that correct?

Yes, property laws are completely different in Scotland, and there's (almost) no such thing as leasehold tenure for residential property. But that doesn't mean there are no conditions attached to owning property, and flats (particularly modern ones) will typically come with a dozen pages of title conditions about what you can and can't do, how common repairs are managed, etc. Restrictions on owning pets aren't really a "leasehold" thing.

You haven't answered my earlier question about what advice you were given when you bought, but surely your solicitor told you something about how things worked?