Pet clause in deeds..... Help

elsien

Are you clear on the difference between the seller of the flat and the role of the freeholder and what the lease says? 

SandyN21

Edenbridge said:

I’d be absolutely livid if someone thought they were were above the terms of the lease.

No pets means precisely that.

I do not care how well behaved they may be I would not want to live amongst someone else’s smelly felines or whining dogs.

I'm sorry but I have to agree.  I'm currently looking to buy a flat and always ask before viewing if pets are allowed...if I'm told yes then I'm not viewing it.  If told no but when I get to the viewing and see dogs being exercised on the premises or even a house cat in the flat then I make my excuses and go no further.

Skiddaw1

For what it is worth, OP, in my experience a 'no pets' clause in the lease is often ignored in practise. Personally, such a clause would be a deal-breaker for us (our cat is the most important member of our household by a considerable margin ) but back in the day we owned a flat with a no pets clause and cats & dogs (all well behaved I should add) abounded (we didn't have cats at the time as we had no outside space and didn't think it was fair). The issue is that if someone DOES complain you'd be on an extremely sticky wicket so it's really whether you're prepared to take that chance or not.

eddddy

Skiddaw1 said:

For what it is worth, OP, in my experience a 'no pets' clause in the lease is often ignored in practise. 

The problem is that if another leaseholder (flat owner) complains, they can almost certainly insist that the freeholder takes enforcement action - which means effectively 'forcing' you to get rid of the cat. The freeholder isn't usually allowed to just ignore the complaint.

And a neighbour might decide to complain about your cat because of any of the following...

• They don't like cats
• They don't like smelly cat litter in the communal bins
• They don't like you
• They think it's unkind to keep a cat cooped up inside a flat
• You've upset them in some unrelated way, so they're taking revenge by complaining about your cat
• They're sticklers for rules, and routinely complain about any breaking of any rule

user1977

Though anyone would have to feel particularly strongly about it to want to go to the hassle/expense of going legal about it. And if they're that irked by you and/or your pet, you're going to have problems with them, no matter what your titles say.

gm0

The fact some estates freeholders and managing agents are slow to act doesn't change the right to do so at others or at the same one later with a different residents association lead director / different neighbour / different pet.

The rule is not there for the responsible owner and the elderly timid silent house animal that nobody ever sees with a litter tray that is bagged up considerately and disposed of. It is there for the irresponsible owner of the boisterous, noisy and incontinent off the leash pets knocking over the extreme elderly making noise (at visitors and when left by absent owners), making the lifts smelly and befouling communal areas outside or inside with inconsistent scooping up. 

My pet is lovely.  Yours is a bit whiffy.  His is an insufferable damn nuisance.  In a development where it is a known and legally signed up to fact that pets are not allowed.

A small group of leaseholders in a small building who own it having communally purchased as shares of freehold 3-5 say and hold the 3-5 leases could perhaps all agree to change pet policy and to update all their leases to remove the condition or anything else they all agree on. It is *possible* to do it.  

It's very unlikely to be practical in a larger block or development that the required unanimity could be achieved. A large constituency will like the existing rule very much and believe they purchased and signed the lease exactly on the basis that there were "no pets" now or in the future.  No running a business in a residential block.  Leased parking as allocated on plans etc. etc. Which to be fair.  They did.   A pet owner signing such a lease knows that they are not allowed pets or did not read it and sadly that is on them. 

They need to make - if they can - the successful argument for change and accept this may not happen and will have to rehome the animal or leave with it with buying/selling/tenancy costs associated.

This is a very tiny part of the normal horror of leasehold and communal areas in buildings and estates and its governance. 

If you *really* don't like this sort of thing. Buy a house instead.

Skiddaw1

eddddy said:

Skiddaw1 said:

For what it is worth, OP, in my experience a 'no pets' clause in the lease is often ignored in practise. 

The problem is that if another leaseholder (flat owner) complains, they can almost certainly insist that the freeholder takes enforcement action - which means effectively 'forcing' you to get rid of the cat. The freeholder isn't usually allowed to just ignore the complaint.

And a neighbour might decide to complain about your cat because of any of the following...

• They don't like cats
• They don't like smelly cat litter in the communal bins
• They don't like you
• They think it's unkind to keep a cat cooped up inside a flat
• You've upset them in some unrelated way, so they're taking revenge by complaining about your cat
• They're sticklers for rules, and routinely complain about any breaking of any rule

I agree, which is why I also said:

Skiddaw1 said:

 The issue is that if someone DOES complain you'd be on an extremely sticky wicket so it's really whether you're prepared to take that chance or not.

sheramber

On another thread someone who had a cat when it was not allowed had problems because one person complained  there were litter tray contents in the bin.

nicmyles

eddddy said:

It doesn't really work like that.

Freeholders generally cannot vary the covenants of individual flats - even if they want to. It's a fundamental aspect of of how leases are constructed.

In simple terms, some people might buy a flat in a particular block, because of the covenants in all the leases... for example:

• Nobody in the block is allowed to keep pets
• Nobody in the block is allowed to sublet
• Everybody has to carpet their floors

The leases are constructed in a way that doesn't allow the freeholder to override those covenants for one (or more) flats.

Again in simple terms, everyone has to stick to the same set of rules - and the freeholder isn't allowed to make exceptions.

While this is all technically accurate, it's very often not how it works in practice.

For example, I lived in a block where the leases said people were not allowed to watch television after 11pm. It will not surprise you to learn that no-one stuck to these rules and they were not enforced. Same was true of putting satellite dishes on the building.

There is no leasehold police, other than the freeholder (if they're present, involved and care) and the other leaseholders. So there absolutely are circumstances where, with agreement, you can in effect ignore provisions in a lease. It's not really possible to advise on specific situations/properties because the practical position (vs the legal position) is highly specific and variable.

All these provisions ultimately really mean is: If you make noise/mess and cause a problem, we have a way to make you stop. No-one actually cares whether there's a cat or not. They care if there's noise, mess and disruption. They may also care if there is a double-standard between permissions given or blind eyes turned.