Leasehold - No Pets

Squonk64

Any help is greatly appreciated.

I am considering getting a dog (cockapoo) for my apartment. We have a new Freehold company that took over 18 months ago. 

The original leasehold of my apartment states:

PART THREE - Covenants enforceable by the Landlord and the Management Company and Tenants of other Flats:

Not to keep a cat or dog or other animal or pet on the Property (except fish in a tank).

That said, I applied to the previous Freehold company when I looked after my friend's dog for 5 months in 2021 and was granted permission and given a "Pet Certificate". 

I don't want to fall foul of the covenant but are Freehold companies strict regards pets? Has a precedent been set with the previous Pet Certificate?

Appreciate it's a troublesome question but I'd appreciate a steer if you have experienced this issue.

Thank you.

elsien

There isn’t a one size fits all answer. It really depends on the other leaseholders and whether they are a tolerant bunch or whether there is anyone likely to make a fuss. 

eddddy

It sounds like the previous freeholder made a mistake. A freeholder can't give you consent to breach your lease.

But a freeholder could probably 'turn a blind eye' to a breach, unless/until another leaseholder complains, if they want.

Based on what you say, and assuming you have typical leases...

• Another leaseholder could insist that the freeholder take enforcement action against you for keeping a pet. i.e. Having given you consent, the freeholder would then have to tell you that you can't keep a pet

35har1old

eddddy said:

It sounds like the previous freeholder made a mistake. A freeholder can't give you consent to breech your lease.

But a freeholder could probably 'turn a blind eye' to a breech, unless/until another leaseholder complains, if they want.

Based on what you say, and assuming you have typical leases...

• Another leaseholder could insist that the freeholder take enforcement action against you for keeping a pet. i.e. Having given you consent, the freeholder would then have to tell you that you can't keep a pet

If you google can I keep a pet it comes up with the answer if you gain the permission of the freeholder 
In a rented property a landlord can no longer have a blanket ban on pets

eddddy

35har1old said:

eddddy said:

It sounds like the previous freeholder made a mistake. A freeholder can't give you consent to breech your lease.

But a freeholder could probably 'turn a blind eye' to a breech, unless/until another leaseholder complains, if they want.

Based on what you say, and assuming you have typical leases...

• Another leaseholder could insist that the freeholder take enforcement action against you for keeping a pet. i.e. Having given you consent, the freeholder would then have to tell you that you can't keep a pet

If you google can I keep a pet it comes up with the answer if you gain the permission of the freeholder 

Unfortunately, it's your lease (and the law) that says what you can do, not google.

In simple terms...

If your lease says "You can keep a pet with the freeholder's permission"...
... then you can keep a pet if you gain the permission of the freeholder.


If your lease says "You cannot keep a pet"...
... then you cannot keep a pet.


(Unfortunately, the OP says their lease says they can't keep a pet. Google can't override that.)

NameUnavailable

35har1old said:

eddddy said:

It sounds like the previous freeholder made a mistake. A freeholder can't give you consent to breech your lease.

But a freeholder could probably 'turn a blind eye' to a breech, unless/until another leaseholder complains, if they want.

Based on what you say, and assuming you have typical leases...

• Another leaseholder could insist that the freeholder take enforcement action against you for keeping a pet. i.e. Having given you consent, the freeholder would then have to tell you that you can't keep a pet

If you google can I keep a pet it comes up with the answer if you gain the permission of the freeholder 

It depends what the lease says, if the lease expicitly says no pets then you can't get permission as (said above) it's a breach of the lease.

The lease may say you can keep a pet as long as it doesn't case a nuisance, or it may say you need the freeholders written permission.

I live in a block that says not pets that cause a nuisance and there are a number of residents with dogs and cats, none of which cause any trouble AFAIK. I love dogs but if one of the neighbours next to me kept one that barked all the time I'd probably have words about it, with the owner first and then the MA if they didn't address the problem.

propertyrental

The lease is clear. Whether the freeholder will enforce the terms of the lease is anybodiy's guess.

And whether other leaseholder will complain to the freeholder is, again, anybody's guess.

But for context, back in the day when I was buying my first (and 2nd) flat, I specifically looked for flats where the leases prohibited pets as I dislike most (OK - fish in tanks no problem!). Had another leaseholder/resident got a dog (even a cute cockapoo!) I would have complained.

But that's just me!

user1977

My usual take on this is that your pet would have to be causing a significant nuisance for anybody to go to the trouble and expense of trying to enforce such restrictions - and if it's causing that much of a nuisance, the neighbours may well have other legal remedies anyway, irrespective of what the titles say.

eddddy

user1977 said:

My usual take on this is that your pet would have to be causing a significant nuisance for anybody to go to the trouble and expense of trying to enforce such restrictions - and if it's causing that much of a nuisance, the neighbours may well have other legal remedies anyway, irrespective of what the titles say.

A neighbour might not push it all the way to forfeiture of lease - but it would be easy and low risk to do the following:

• The neighbour (leaseholder) tells the freeholder to enforce the lease

• The freeholder sends a warning letter about breeching the lease to the pet owning leaseholder - and charges the pet owner £40 for the letter

• The freeholder sends another warning letter to the pet owning leaseholder - and charges the pet owner £40 for the letter

• The freeholder instructs solicitors. The solicitor sends a letter threating legal action  - and the pet owner is charged £300 in solicitors fees

But at this point, the stakes probably start getting high. Legal action would probably cost thousands.

• Would the pet owner risk losing the case - and have to pay thousands in fees (Leasehold Administration Charges)?

• Or would the neighbour risk the pet owner winning the case - and have to pay thousands in fees?

Edit to add

If the neighbour is sure that the pet owner is breeching the lease (e.g. because they see the pet every day and/or the owner admits they are keeping a pet) - it's a pretty safe case.  But the neighbour might still be nervous of risking thousands of pounds.

I guess there's the possibility that the pet owner could try the angles like "No pets" is an unfair contract term, and/or it's a breach of the human rights act, etc.

FlyMeSomewhere79

I guess the other main thing  to think about with taking a dog to live in an apartment is the practicalities. Many dogs suffer separation anxieties which is going to cause you an issue if the dog barks/yaps/howls everytime you leave it. 

What about outdoor space for when the dog needs to go to the loo? Is it communal? Could it lead to complaints if there's faeces out there or dead patches of grass from urine?

My mum lives alone in a detached bungalow that's far too big for her now and she'd ideally like to an apartment complex for older people but she has a little dog that barks when people pass outside and often barks at the TV and she's very wary that this could cause her problems if she lived somewhere attached to other properties.

gm0

Freehold bungalows with small outside space are a winner for elders with pets for company.  Or indeed people with a need "not to live" with pets. Shame nobody builds any.  LA planning density rules meet the profit incentive.  Pets in flats can be a corrosive source of ongoing conflict in so many ways - depending on the building.  Corridor carpets and lifts and weak soundproofing being at the more problematic end.

The proposed new landlord tenant "cannot restrict but can charge more for risk of damage" ideas for rental tenancies are still going to run smack into this leasehold terms issue.  It is completely unreasonable for the new renters with pets measure to overide these existing "no pets" long residential leases. Long Leases purchased on the written terms.  At a large cost. So far at least the proposal does not trample these rights.  As someone with asthma for pet dander.  I regard such a clause as material in a decision to take a 999 year lease - and not just as some archaic term to be airbrushed away. I and the other leaseholders purchased (and signed) their leases - knowing this. 
Or if they through inattention discover it later when they and their pets turn up.  Sorry. Expensive Life lesson to read the contract before signing it.  Can it be changed.  Possibly.  The question is to what - to gain support of all.

The lack of current enforcement options between stiff letter and lease forfeiture is - a problem.

And also an opportunity for a blase pet owner to "get away with it" for quite a long time if prepared to put up with the relationship damage with neighbours who are unimpressed by noise, smell, pissy lifts, stained carpets, dog mess in the carpark and the other signals that an under managed pet has moved into an environment not setup for them. 

There is a way forward to a world which works better for responsible pet owners and for other leaseholders is via share of freehold democracy - to create a pet policy for "with permission" but with a new agreement signed with some teeth in it to enforce responsible behaviour falling between "stiff letter" and "forefeiture"

A separate standardised contract (mandatory to receive freeholder permission at all) which places the responsible pet owner stuff - waste, noise, damage to communal areas, doors, carpets etc. on a firmer basis.  With fines, and a "remove pet within 30 days" revocation of permission sanction upon repeated (defined) complaints for nuisance or other breaches.  A separate contract to sign. The leaseholder as landlord can sign it.  And take the risk on the behaviour of the tenants vis a vis penalties. But as they cannot evict easily - perhaps they will prefer to flow it down - i.e. NOT agree a tenancy without a "back to back" agreement of the site pet contract by their tenant alonside the tenancy.  This sort of stuff is where the agreement on what is and is not allowed by way of restrictions on renting (supplementary agreements of this kind) will get legally messy until it settles down and a way through this allow X, do not allow X conflict is identified.

But the only way I can see working is to change an old "no pets lease" setup to one which is "pets with permission AND with better (than now) controls".   Otherwise there is no incentive - at all - for the nuisance pet wary - to agree to any change in the direction of pets allowed and to update leases to a new agreed target (which mandates the supplementary agreement to gain permission).  Since consensus is required (for lease update if not for share of freehold democracy) - this is tricky territory.

In the world of existing "no pet" clauses.  A good way forward is for the not a nuisance small quiet pet owner to receive a first enforcement letter (from the MA about the breach).  So that the freeholder is discharging their responsibility to other leaseholders (including a legal principle of the thing complainant). And can claim that pets are indeed not allowed, and this is folllowed up.  In a severe nuisance scenario behaving consistently prior could matter in legal action later.  And yet for this not a nuisance one to be slow walked post initial letter.  But a more of a nuisance one happens to rise more quickly up their todo list of work.  Flexibility exists sometimes.  If you look for it.  But of a kind that you won't get laid out in writing for fairly obvious reasons.