No pet clause in share of freehold

FataVerde

Gavin83 said:

There are ways to prevent neighbouring cats coming into your garden if you’re so inclined.

Look, I get you like cats and you don’t see them as a problem but others won’t agree. I know you’re attempting to convince us how the rules won’t apply to your cat or find a loophole but honestly there’s so many potential problems here I’d suggest you walk away. The neighbour doesn’t sound like the most reasonable of people and they could make life very difficult for you.

If you buy this house I guarantee you you’ll be posting here in a years time asking how you can deal with the latest problem.

She may not have a problem but assuming she does you’ve got major issues either way. If she can enforce this term then you’ll end up having to choose between your house and your cat. If she can’t enforce this term this then means you can’t enforce it on her as well and it would at the very least be extremely easy for her to prevent your cat from using the garden.

The exception to all this is if you can get the clause removed. Otherwise walk away. 

Actually, I am just trying to find out how I should read the clause so that I know if it poses a real problem. I do not want to read the clause in a certain way, but it is not an outright ban of animals, just of animals causing annoyance in the opinion of the Lessor (half of whom is me). The fact that your reading differs from some other contributors already says how open to interpretation the clause is.

eddddy

doodling said:

Whilst this is drifting away from the OP's point, provisions in deeds, leases and tenancies banning the keeping of hens and rabbits on a non-commercial basis have been void since the Allotments Act 1950 (subject to them being kept in a manner so as to avoid nuisance).  (Note that that clause of the act applies to all land, not just allotments).

AskAsk said:
that is interesting to know.  what about hanging washing out on the weekend and public holidays??  for some reason our deed has this in it which doesn't make a lot of sense as that is when most people hang their washing out when they are not at work and can do the washing.

The Allotments Act came about because of post-war food shortages and food rationing.

So the intention wasn't to allow people to keep fluffy rabbits as pets for companionship... it was more about rabbit pie.

So it was for the benefit of the nation.

But maybe you could lobby your MP and argue that restrictions on hanging out washing should be abolished for the benefit of the nation or the world... reduced use of tumble dryers, so reduced use of electricity, so reduced global warming!

FataVerde

lookstraightahead said:

This is really to do with what individuals find acceptable, and I would say the rules are there to protect the difference in peoples reasonableness.

what if you moved in and the neighbour bought 5 dogs (I know I'm exaggerating but some people love dogs).

I love cats and dogs, my friend is petrified of dogs and allergic to cats.

You need a place where you can have a pet free of worry. This isn't it. 

It's really all about the lease and how it is interpreted. Even leases without pet bans will have a nuisance clause others can try to use. I'm just not familiar with how to read these clauses and I thought there is a consensus. I'll get advice from my solicitor, but it already seems these clauses are open to interpretation

bouicca21

It’s really all about the co-freeholder.  The red flag for me is not the lease but the way the co-freeholder refused to engage with their potential new neighbour.  That’s weird - unless OP is a burly bloke who is 2 metres tall, covered in tattoos and generally looks like a crazed axe murderer.

sheramber

The cat would not go through communal indoor areas except in her travel bag when I move in and take her to the vet. Her exit to the garden is through the door cat flap (yes the flat has a cat flap despite the no pet policy)

But who had the cat flap?

Someone before the other flat moved  in so not a problem?

Someone who had to sell up because of the lease clause and problems with the other flat owner?

Only you can decide if you are willing to take the risk whether or not it will be a problem.

Murphybear

AskAsk said:

Murphybear said:

We bought a bungalow a few years ago and weren’t allowed to keep pigs anywhere on the property 

our deed doesn't allow us to keep chickens.  doesn't prohibits other animals so we would be fine to keep pigs.  there must have a problem with people having chickens around here, lol 

My parents rented a brand new council house after the war.  They had big gardens in those days and we kept chickens for years.  Jolly useful 

gwynlas

FataVerde said:

lookstraightahead said:

This is really to do with what individuals find acceptable, and I would say the rules are there to protect the difference in peoples reasonableness.

what if you moved in and the neighbour bought 5 dogs (I know I'm exaggerating but some people love dogs).

I love cats and dogs, my friend is petrified of dogs and allergic to cats.

You need a place where you can have a pet free of worry. This isn't it. 

It's really all about the lease and how it is interpreted. Even leases without pet bans will have a nuisance clause others can try to use. I'm just not familiar with how to read these clauses and I thought there is a consensus. I'll get advice from my solicitor, but it already seems these clauses are open to interpretation

It appears that you are choosing to interpret the lease in a way that suits you/ Your neighbour might vehemently oppose people keeping animals as pets whether they cause a nuiscance or not. If this is the case you need to be aware of this prior to purchase, the clause might have been included for a reason. Given your neighbour is already in situ why would you believe you can ignore claises in an established lease? In doing so you run the risk of them choosing to ignore clausees such as no noise being made in unsocial hours and drowning you out withe cats chorus.

GoogleMeNow

In general, leases usually have this (or similar) pet clauses.

In general, this means you need to obtain written consent to have a pet.

In general, this means you can have a pet with written consent, but they can take that permission away if your pet is considered a nuisance by another leaseholder.

In general, if the permission is withdrawn, you have to rehome your pet.

In general, clauses will not be removed or changed within a lease, without a Deed of Variation to both leases.

However, as there seems to be only one other leaseholder (with an equal share of freehold), it would make sense to make enquiries through the solicitors as to the likelihood of the neighbour's willingness to accept the cat and, once you have a response from the neighbour, make an informed decision whether to proceed or walk away.

SameOldRoundabout

I have seen so many threads on this topic where it’s gone wrong and people are having to face rehoming their pet. Personally, as a cat owner myself, I would not buy a place with this clause. Even if your co freeholder is okay with it (and who knows if that’s the case being as they won’t even talk to you, red flags already!) there’s nothing to say they won’t sell up in 5 minutes to someone horribly allergic to cats who will kick up a fuss. From what I’ve read on here it is very difficult to remove these clauses and while with only one other Co-freeholder it may be less of an issue than for some of the lease-holders who’ve posted before, it’d be enough to put me off. 

FataVerde

Thank you all for the help. I'm posting here a link to one of the best explanations of the legal implications of the no pet clause, when it includes the more vague terms "in the opinion of the Lessor" and "annoyance" instead of "nuisance." Lawcruncher in this feed gives the most useful explanation and I hope others reading this feed looking for answers may find it helpful 

https://forums.landlordzone.co.uk/forum/long-leasehold-questions/1034251-the-phrase-in-the-opinion-of-the-lessor-any-evidence-required