Help Needed

[wally0163]

Hi I hope that I am posting in the right place, my son bought his first property last year, a first floor flat, it is managed by a company by the name of Gem.
My son bought a small dog last year which is no trouble and does not pose a problem to the three other residents in his block, however today he has received a letter from the management company giving my son till 11/7/08 to get rid of his dog or he would be taken to court.
My son says that initially nothing was discussed about animals but there is a small reference in the lease which has remained the same without revision since 1986, does anyone know if there is anything they can do, my son has already been in haste to the estate agents today to put flat on market for 20,000 less than the asking price as he is so concerned that he will have to part from his dog.
Please advise

[MrShed]

Hi wally. Unfortunately I see no way out of this - if the lease states no pets, then its no pets. Best alternative IMO would be to negotiate a settlement. What is the exact wording of the term?

[wally0163]

Hi Thanks for that,
Unfortunately the management company who manage the lease do say no dogs or other animals in their paper work.
However my understanding was that if the house was on the market they could not enforce these things, Gem are now saying if my son has a buyer and still has the dog they would be in breach of the lease and would not be able to go ahead with the sale, so they are stuck every way, they know they need to move to ensure they keep their dog but in trying to do so, if they still have the dog at that time the sale cannot go ahead.
It seems a crazy world !!!
I thought it may be worth while my son approaching the residents committee there what do you think ??

[MrShed]

I am not sure about the sale issue, but certainly leasehold terms such as this are enforceable.

The residents committee seems fairly pointless here in my opinion.

As I say, I think the exact wording of the term could potentially be key.

[wally0163]

Hi Mr Shed
Will need to find the exact wording, seems crazy that a tiny little Daschund can determine the future of both my son and his partner, we are all guilty sometimes of not reading the smallprint, I just thought the residents committee hold the key issues of what was important to each other, I manage a sheltered housing scheme for elderly people and a couple of years ago a pet policy was in place where residents were unable to bring their beloved pets with them, however after consultation with residents views have changed and they have now realised what is important to people and as long as people are responsible pet owners policies have now changed.

[Aequitas]

The sale point is quite ridiculous - do not worry about that.

The question that needs to be asked is: is the landlord really going to take this to court? Do not forget that it is the landlord and not the agents who have the say about whther they are going to incur the expense. (This comment may not apply if the landlord and the agent are one and the same or are closely connected.)

But suppose it does go to court. What are the possible outcomes? First we can say that there no chance of the court forfeiting the lease for keeping a pet. They may award damages, but what loss will the landlord have suffered? Virtually none and any damages will be nominal - that may have costs consequences for the landlord. The court may make an order that the dog is not be to kept at the flat.

What do the other residents think? The covenant is after all for their benefit rather than the landlord's.

Who is the landlord? Do the tenants own the freehold collectively in some way?

[Esio Trot]

Following on from the previous post, you also must find out who the freeholder is. This person is often, but not necessarily, the same as the as person who granted the lease.

For example, your son might have a share of the freehold by virtue of owning the flat. If this is the case, then a meeting of the share holders can give a dispensation.

Come back to us once you know who.

[Esio Trot]

Originally Posted by wally0163

... seems crazy that a tiny little Daschund can determine the future of both my son and his partner ...

IMO, a number of moggies can do infinitely more damage than a small dog. At least with a dog you can do a bit more than just house-train it. Trouble is, many leases ban dogs, but not cats or parrots (acidic pee that damages and stinks for months if allowed to soak into the floor).

I suppose many people first thoughts when thinking "dog" is Alsation, or Rottweiller rather than Pekinese or Chihuahua. There is a world of difference between large and small dogs.

[wally0163]

Thankyou all so much I will need to check and come back to you

[Jburton1]

Hi everyone thanks for your help.
It is me that my mum has posted this message about. I have just contacted the management company and it turns out that it is them that holds the freehold. I'm guessing because of that there is not much we can do. I do really like where I live and both me and my partner are ready to try anything to stay here.

[Esio Trot]

If that is the case, and the management company are the freeholder, then it will likely be registered at companies house as a company limited by shares, with some often meaningless name like Roundabout No 47 Limited.

This means that you might have a share in the company, and if this is the case then you can fight this. An excellent site, but not very well indexed, is Lease-advice.org a government sponsored site. If you can't find what you want, send an e-mail and they will direct you to which advice page you need.