Pets in Freehold

Linda26

Hi, I own part of a freehold, and am a leaseholder, although I don't live at the property.  A prospective tenant wanted to have a pet, but on asking the Director (there is only currently 1) was told that pets are not allowed.  It says in the lease 'without the consent of the lessor' which I was trying to get (or not).  The Director asked all freeholders and leaseholders to vote.  Most abstained. 4 for two against.  Does anyone know: 
Who should vote (and who should be consulted)
Is it a majority vote or unanimous

I am trying to make this work for everyone in a non confrontational way - any advice very gratefully received. 

mark_cycling00

In my place the lease said pets weren't allowed but it's hard to tell a 5yo she can't have a pet cat because of a document drawn up in the 1960s.

So we granted a "license" to have a pet. Of your dog pooed everywhere or was a noisy nuisance then it would be revoked. This meant people had cats or small quiet dogs and most of the problems went away 

It's interesting that your lease mentions "consent of the lessor" because it sounds like the intention was to allow some sensible amount of pet ownership 

eddddy

Linda26 said:

The Director asked all freeholders and leaseholders to vote.  Most abstained. 4 for two against.  Does anyone know: 
Who should vote (and who should be consulted)
Is it a majority vote or unanimous

It's (almost certainly) nothing to do with a vote.

It's to do with what your lease says and the law says. (Directors, Freeholders and Leaseholders cannot vote to take away your rights as a leaseholder and your legal rights.)


Based on what you say, it works like this....

• Your lease says - you can only keep a pet with the consent of the freeholder

• The law says that means - you can only keep a pet with the consent of the freeholder, and consent cannot be unreasonably withheld

• And tribunals generally say that the only reasonable reason for withholding consent - is if it would be detrimental to other leaseholders or the freeholder

• So if consent is refused - the freeholder needs to explain why keeping a pet is detrimental to others

(And for example, saying something like "the dog might bark in the flat" probably isn't a good enough reason. Because your response would be "the dog might not bark in the flat")

So typically, freeholders grant consent until the pet proves to be a nuisance.

Linda26 said:

I am trying to make this work for everyone in a non confrontational way - any advice very gratefully received. 

Whilst the Director seems to be in the wrong - do you want to turn this into a fight and potentially make enemies?

Or do you want to find a different potential tenant? 

eddddy

mark_cycling00 said:

In my place the lease said pets weren't allowed but it's hard to tell a 5yo she can't have a pet cat because of a document drawn up in the 1960s.

So we granted a "license" to have a pet. Of your dog pooed everywhere or was a noisy nuisance then it would be revoked. This meant people had cats or small quiet dogs and most of the problems went away 

There is a big difference between leases that say...

1. Pets are not allowed
2. Pets are not allowed, unless you have consent

The OP has option 2. It sounds like your lease has option 1 - which is an absolute ban


If so, what you've done probably isn't very sensible...

• it sounds like your leases have an absolute ban on keeping pets

• And you've given a leaseholder consent to breach their lease.

So now the other leaseholders can almost certainly take legal action against you for not enforcing the terms of the leases.

In theory, the other leaseholders could probably get a court order - that orders you to take legal action against the person keeping a pet in their flat.


(Unless there is other relevant information that you haven't mentioned.)

Linda26

eddddy said:

Linda26 said:

The Director asked all freeholders and leaseholders to vote.  Most abstained. 4 for two against.  Does anyone know: 
Who should vote (and who should be consulted)
Is it a majority vote or unanimous

It's (almost certainly) nothing to do with a vote.

It's to do with what your lease says and the law says. (Directors, Freeholders and Leaseholders cannot vote to take away your rights as a leaseholder and your legal rights.)


Based on what you say, it works like this....

• Your lease says - you can only keep a pet with the consent of the freeholder

• The law says that means - you can only keep a pet with the consent of the freeholder, and consent cannot be unreasonably withheld

• And tribunals generally say that the only reasonable reason for withholding consent - is if it would be detrimental to other leaseholders or the freeholder

• So if consent is refused - the freeholder needs to explain why keeping a pet is detrimental to others

(And for example, saying something like "the dog might bark in the flat" probably isn't a good enough reason. Because your response would be "the dog might not bark in the flat")

So typically, freeholders grant consent until the pet proves to be a nuisance.

Linda26 said:

I am trying to make this work for everyone in a non confrontational way - any advice very gratefully received. 

Whilst the Director seems to be in the wrong - do you want to turn this into a fight and potentially make enemies?

Or do you want to find a different potential tenant? 

Thanks so much - I have already gone for the 'different tenant' approach as I didn't want to polarise people.  However, I would like to know if I had been unreasonable, and what I should do in the future if the same things happens.  At the moment, it looks like we only have one Director too although our AoA say there should be two.  I don't want to be the person that keeps saying 'and another thing' though, so just want to find a decent way forward.  Thanks for all of your help. Really useful.