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

Alan2020

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

wannabe_a_saver

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! 

princeofpounds

homemover21 said:

I have been in this situation before. I kept the cat as a cat is family. Nothing more was said. No one has a right to enter your property to assert that a cat is present, so keep it in a set of rooms that are not as exposed to the outside. That will be the end of the of the matter. 

Not the case unfortunately. Whilst they would need a court order if resisted, the freeholder does have right of inspection for certain purposes in almost all leases. One of those is to check compliance with the lease. This was underlined in the useful case example posted earlier.

lucypilates

davidmcn said:

I would have thought the likelihood of anybody bothering to go legal about an indoors cat to be pretty remote.

totally agree with this .... as hard as it might be, I'd just sit tight and wait to see how they escalate it (if at all!) ... they will have to feel very strongly about it to spend money to start legal proceedings and if I were a fellow leaseholder, I'd be a bit miffed at them spending MY money on something that proves to NOT be a nuisance .. your fellow leaseholders will likely forget that you have a cat and the Directors will be hard pushed to justify spending on legal advice for something that isn't actually a problem ...

I bought a flat about 15 years ago with a similar clause in the lease. When i mentioned it to my solicitor as i then had 2 cats, I was told that nearly all leases will have such a clause but rarely will they be a problem. He suggested that such a lease was put in 'just in case' there was an issue and it allowed the potential to get rid of any problems ... and he gave me 'permission' to go ahead with it and not worry about it. So I did, and there was no problem - i even put a cat flap in ..

So my advice, sit tight and see what happens. 

Good luck - and to those who suggest they'd just simply move rather than get rid of the cat .. I love my cats but in this instance, I'd rehome the cat before selling up ... it costs £1000s to move so you must be realistic!! 

Alan2020

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

Gunner276

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

This is one of the worst takes I have ever read on this site. Well done!

Gunner276

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.

davidmcn

Whether or not they're good for health is irrelevant to the enforceability of the covenant anyway.

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

This is one of the worst takes I have ever read on this site. Well done!

Do you think it is humane to cage an animal in a flat, and get it neutered? It’s barbaric behaviour like this makes us worse than animals. I am talking about ethics and moral standards. A dog on a farm has a higher quality of life, a dog in a small house in a city doesn’t. A caged hamster has very low quality of life. Pets in apartments are kept by very selfish people from a moral point of view, and most people might not say that to their face but will view them as vile beasts.

Gunner276

davidmcn said:

Whether or not they're good for health is irrelevant to the enforceability of the covenant anyway.

I never said it did. Just pointing out what Alan said is false