Self appointment building manager causing havoc

Wonka_2

@AnnaRG I won't quote your post above but suggest you remove the property name in the post.

The wording of the Pets Policy is fairly clear - No pets of any other creature shall be kept upon or admitted to the property or any other part of ****************

On that basis your argument becomes about how this has been overlooked over the years 

eddddy

AnnaRG said:

So the lease is crystal clear - no pets.

I guess the big question is... Why did you buy a flat with a "no pets" rule, if you wanted to have a pet?

What section of the lease does that clause appear in? Is it part of a 'covenant' or a 'rule'? If it's a rule, what does the lease say about changing the 'rules'?

AnnaRG said:

If the management company have to legally go after every tenant with a pet it will bankrupt itself we don't have a great sink fund.

The short answer to that is, if you are breaching the lease by keeping a pet...

• You will be liable for all costs of enforcement - such as legal bills

• Ultimately, your lease could be forfeited (i.e. your flat could be repossessed), and the freehold company could re-sell it and keep all the proceeds for themselves. So they cover their costs, and make a huge profit on top.

eddddy

...and just to add, if a leaseholder breaches the lease (by keeping a pet) and another leaseholder complains - it's very likely that the lease requires the freehold company to take enforcement action.

So the directors would have no choice, they would be legally required to take enforcement action against the pet-keeping leaseholder.

User_3235329

I'm also wondering if my dog was classed as a service dog (emotion support dog) would it no longer be classified as a "pet" or "creature"

KxMx

There isn't any UK legal recognition for emotional support pets.

eddddy

AnnaRG said:

I'm also wondering if my dog was classed as a service dog (emotion support dog) would it no longer be classified as a "pet" or "creature"

You could not be prevented from having an assistance dog. But an assistance dog is defined in legislation (otherwise everyone would say their dog is an assistance dog.) 

Equality Act 2010

“assistance dog” means—

(a) a dog which has been trained to guide a blind person;

(b) a dog which has been trained to assist a deaf person;

(c) a dog which has been trained by a prescribed charity to assist a disabled person who has a disability that consists of epilepsy or otherwise affects the person's mobility, manual dexterity, physical co-ordination or ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects;

(d) dog of a prescribed category which has been trained to assist a disabled person who has a disability (other than one falling within paragraph (c)) of a prescribed kind;

Link: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/section/173

Gavin83

AnnaRG said:

I'm also wondering if my dog was classed as a service dog (emotion support dog) would it no longer be classified as a "pet" or "creature"

Is this the case or is it something you're making up in an attempt to keep the dog?

Regardless there was actually a legal case for this exact situation. The woman had a proper diagnosed mental issue (Bi-Polar) and said she needed the dog for emotional support reasons. She lost the case. AFAIK proper working dogs (like guide dogs) are exempt from such rules but blinding yourself seems a drastic step to keep the dog. Emotional support animals aren't exempt, which is a good thing as the whole concept is ridiculous anyway.

I'm not sure saying they turned a blind eye is a good defence either. They don't have to enforce the rules assuming no one complains but the rule doesn't go away. It's still there and once someone complains they have an obligation to enforce it. So while you seem to have a major issue with this woman in this circumstance at least it's really not her fault.

Unfortunately you chose to buy a flat with a 'no pets' clause. You say the dog isn't going anywhere but if they take the enforcement route and you can't get the rules changed (someone else will advise on how possible this is) you may not have a choice. The choice you may be presented with is either lose the dog or forfeit the lease, plus incur significant legal costs. Trust me, you really don't want to forfeit the lease as we're talking huge life changing consequences here. The other alternative is you sell the flat and move somewhere else that does allow pets.

Jonboy_1984

Wonka_2 said:

@AnnaRG I won't quote your post above but suggest you remove the property name in the post.

The wording of the Pets Policy is fairly clear - No pets of any other creature shall be kept upon or admitted to the property or any other part of ****************

On that basis your argument becomes about how this has been overlooked over the years 

This is specifically why I mentioned getting advice on the legal principle of Estoppel in this case.

RHemmings

Gavin83 said:

Unfortunately you chose to buy a flat with a 'no pets' clause. You say the dog isn't going anywhere but if they take the enforcement route and you can't get the rules changed (someone else will advise on how possible this is) you may not have a choice. The choice you may be presented with is either lose the dog or forfeit the lease, plus incur significant legal costs. Trust me, you really don't want to forfeit the lease as we're talking huge life changing consequences here. The other alternative is you sell the flat and move somewhere else that does allow pets.

The OP could rent out their current property, and then rent somewhere else that allows dogs. Which would mean that they have both the dog, and the flat. A fairly heavy duty strategy, but possible. But, I know people for who their dog is family and they would do a lot for the dog. 

I also think that losing the lease is absolutely a 'just don't do it' thing. 

gm0

The way this has to work by default at most places is for the complainer to be disappointed by the relative lack of action by directors (and managing agent contractor if used).  Something is seen to be done but little happens.  And the pet rule breaker is mildly harrassed.  And subject to some neighbour disapproval and tutting from those affected.

For the director - Having a word about the nuisance.  Letters reminding people of rule and lease obligation are sent.  Stiffer letters are sent later.  Perhaps even letters before action.   Commiserating with the complainant about the intransigence of the pet owner in the wrong (legally).

Another AGM comes around and the bulk of freeholders make it clear they don't want to spend much money on lawyers to actually pursue a lengthy lease forefiture court case.  The ball is somewhat back in the court of the complainant to make good their threat to sue the directors (themseleves in part as freeholders) for failure to enforce the lease.  If the directors shimmy a bit and have taken some action - they can deter/undermine that case - however ineffective they have proved to be in actually resolving the neighbour dispute between the person with a much loved canine family member - who didn't pay attention when they purchased and the person who thought they paid hundreds of thousands for a a flat without noisy dogs behind the bedroom wall based on the terms of the lease they paid for which explicitly says. No pets. My sympathies are firmly with the latter.

So this relies in practice on good old fashioned shame. And not wanting to deal with confrontations and general grief.

Given the financial consequences - lease forfeiture is not easily granted.  So there is not a lot between a stiff letter and a nuclear option court case with several loops likely.  Directors have to do the former and generally shy away from the latter (because residents other than perhaps the complainant who wants the noisy pet gone will not want to pay for it)

The bad form of the issue can arise with an absentee indifferent landlord and a tenant who has innappropriately large dogs and leaves them for long periods while working.  A tenant who has heard about proposed new rights to rent with pets.  Or didn't ask, or wasn't told in creating the tenancy on a false premise due to the landlord and agent being (deliberately) negligent when pets came up as a topic.  Resulting in ongoing and excessive nuisance to neighbours in poorly sound proofed property.  If you bought a lease in a place with "no pets" - then even if you don't have allergies to pet dander (as I do) - you will be furious if there are nuisance pets of that sort moved in making your life miserable by an absentee landlord.  Mess underfoot. Smelly lifts from elderly dogs that don't make it out.  Endless noise. Stained carpets. Pet owners with no long term stake in the state of the place (short term tenancy).  In buildings not designed originally with suitable communal area furnishing for pets.  People suffering nuisance on this really badly want something done but there is in practice not a lot that can be.

A "blind eye" to - not much of a nuisance pets - doesn't change the lease and thus the default policy.  And the AGM can't overide the lease directly - whatever the voting patterns are from the articles.

Decision making at the AGM can start a process to aspire to a new pet policy which distinguishes between nuisance and not - and assess whether it is sensible to attempt to amend everyone's lease. (Spoiler it's not and you won't get 100% agreement to do it anyway).  Each leaseholder has to agree that change individually.  And there are legal costs.  So impractical for more than a few

And if they do not agree (and some will not) - the lease alteration cannot be forced on them.  So an anti-pet hold out can keep their lease and expect to be able to push (legally) the free holder to live by the old rule i.e no pets. 

A possible way to address it more positively which is kinder to responsible owners but retains the deterrent to the less responsible and leaves the lease alone.  Is to accept some legal ambiguity and yet try to create a better pet policy than informal toleration until complaint.

One with sanctions for non-compliance i.e. permission must be sought in the first place and is conditional anyway on agreeing the pet policy contract.  A side contract which implements some nuisance controls on mess, noise etc.  A permission which can be revoked by the management company directors upon repeated complaint and which commits the pet owner up front to remove the animal if the agreement is so revoked.   You could put whatever you like in it - fines mechanism, liability to cleaning costs for damage etc. And especially agreeing to remove animal if permission revoked.  A new contract you are expected to sign to get a "waivier".  It doesn't overide the lease. It can't.  But it can underpin the community being willing to formalise tolerating it - with some more granular (than lease forfeiture) recourse to deal with nuisance cases.  Don't sign. No permission.  No permission. No pet.  Status quo rules about lease breach.  No different.  Or sign.  New rules.   Not customised. Not negotiable.  Sign or don't.

Or you just bimble along doing what most people do.