Rented house - No pets covenant

geo555

Friends of mine have just moved into a rented house. They sold their home and are renting for 18 months, whilst building a home abroad. They have moved into a fairly new development. The problem is they have a dog. They did not know that their rented house has a "No pets" covenant. They have signed an 18 month contract and have now been told, by the original developer, that they cannot have a pet whilst living in the house, just days after moving in. The landlord was unaware of this covenant.
They will not give up their dog, its like their child.
What is likely to happen to them?

PasturesNew

Did the landlord know they had a dog/pet when they signed?

I've no idea, others will know... but I am thinking that if he did know and they signed, then (whether he had read his paperwork on the house or not when he bought), he's entered into an agreement with them that he cannot honour. There might be some mileage in cancelling the agreement on this basis without them being obliged to pay the full 18 months' rent.

If that's not an option, could sit still and see how easy it is for the developers to get them out. Covenants like that are pretty difficult to enforce as somebody has to pay for it. Usually once a developer's left the site/area they don't give a monkey's. But if the development still has a Sales Office and there are houses for sale close to where your friend is renting it will be a bigger issue. But sitting still "sue me" might work. Worst that can happen is they get told to leave. If they don't hire a solicitor or go to court (why should they care) it won't cost them anything.

All the above are my desperate mind ramblings and do not consitute any idea about a situation like this I am afraid.

Others, with real help/knowledge, will be along shortly

I'd say, they're likely to end up not being in a mess over this. This is for the landlord and developer to sort out. But he might have to ask them to leave... which of course, with an AST, he can't enforce. So he might bung them a bit of wedge for resolution.

geo555

The landlord was aware that they had a dog.
They had a lot of trouble trying to find a place because most landlords don't want pets.

itsgototstop

That seems extremely unfair on your friends.

It sounds like its the landlords fault for not checking properly.

Other people will know the legal aspects, but surely the landlord will not expect them to stay without their dog?. Have they discussed with him?.

SquatNow

The landlord rented to them on the basis that they had a dog.

Tell the landlord he has to sort it out.

The landlord cannot now tell them they cannot have a dog... unless it is in the AST contract they signed. The landlord will either need to sort it out with the developers or find them other accomodation.

You'll probably find that as long as they clear up after the dog and it's doesn't cause a nuisence the developers wont give a crap. All they care about is having the estate look pristine and pleasent until they sell the last house. As long as the dog isn't running wild, barking and crapping everywhere it wont effect the house prices.

itsgototstop

SquatNow wrote: »

The landlord rented to them on the basis that they had a dog.

Tell the landlord he has to sort it out.


Thats true.

Gorgeous_George

If the AST allows pets.

It's the LL's fault but the ONLY solution will be to cancel the agreement with the LL meeting any costs involved PLUS any costs incurred by the tenants while looking for somewhere else (or kennel fees for a month or so).

The LL cannot be required to find alternative accommodation for the tenants. If he/she has another house, he/she may offer it to them of course.

If the AST barred pets.

The tenants could appeal to the LL's better nature and offer to meet his/her costs in finding a new tenant.





Maybe the LL should feed the dog a juicy steak?



GG

SquatNow

My assumption was that the landlord would rather provide them with alternate accomodation rather than pay all the costs.

Like you say, he could cancel the agreement, but only with their consent. If they refuse to consent the landlord has to go to court with the housing developers.

Unless the AST says no-pets, the Landlord has to effectively buy the tennant off... provide alternate accomodation that the tennant agree to take, (probably better quality or cheaper) and pay moving costs, or just pay the tennants costs to move to another landlord.

Unless the AST says no pets the tennants are free and clear. The worst thing that could happen is the LL gives them notice at the end of the lock-in period.

Of course if the AST says no-pets it gets interesting, because the landlord let to them KNOWING they would be moving in with a dog, effectively striking out the no-pets clause. I suspect in court the no-pets clause would be struck out by any sane judge as un-enforcable.

nelly_2

Shoot the dog!

Gorgeous_George

That's what the juicy steak was for.

GG

Gorgeous_George

If the LL and tenant cannot come to an arrangement, the tenant will need to sue the LL for costs. They will need to justify their claim and should be prepared for potentially losing in Court.

The LL and the housing developers have no legal argument. The developer says 'no pets' and, unless the LL wishes to go down a blind alley, that's the end of it.

If I was your friends, I'd sit tight and wait for an eviction notice. Then, I'd go to Court armed with my AST and see what the judge has to say.

GG