HELP - lease clause

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by 45002 View Post
    I think OP means by House cat.

    Its a indoor cat that doesn't go out.
    That sounds like animal cruelty to me.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Macromia View Post

      Does it really state that unambiguously though?

      The problem is a result of the old habit of writing leases without punctuation - that adds ambiguity because the meaning can be changed with different punctuation.

      Punctuation could make the first eight words a prohibition on keeping pets, and leave the remainder of the clause referring only to houses, or it could be used to separate out the bit that reads "and where the property is a house you must not keep any animal including livestock except a pet", leaving the remainder (about consent) referring to both flats and houses:
      "No pets may be kept in a flat, and where the property is a house you must not keep any animal (including livestock) except a pet, without our prior consent which will not be unreasonably refused."
      I like he way you think.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by MdeB

        That sounds like animal cruelty to me.
        Really, How do you work that out......

        My 2 "Flat cats" moggies loved staying in All the time sleeping 18 hours a day, Purring all day, Eating me out of flat and home and keeping me happy for all them years they where alive and very Happy indoor moggies...
        Thunderbirds are go

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by MdeB View Post
          It is unclear if OP is buying the property (leasehold) or renting it.

          If it is a clause in a long lease, then I believe the unfair terms legislation does not apply.
          If it is a short-term let and the clause is copied from the lease, then again I believe the unfair terms legislation does not apply.
          I’m buying it on shared ownership.

          There is already legal precedent set by the court of appeals that unfair terms apply to long leases too.

          Comment


            #35
            We appear to have an OP that appears to know more than most of us.
            A cat is a feral animal that can cause damage in a flat or house.

            Comment


              #36
              The OFT no longer exists and the document referred to is no longer considered to be valid.
              The advice it contains has been superceded in a number of areas, because consumer law has changed, although there are cases that support some elements of it.

              That lease clause is unambiguous, you can't keep a pet in a flat.
              That's not unreasonable - the clause clearly intends to allow pets in houses, which are more suitable.

              Keeping a cat inside a flat all day isn't healthy for the cat unless the owner is there all the time and the cat has a very peculiar nature.
              It's not something that should be encouraged.

              There is legislation that prohibits lease clauses that exclude hens and rabbits, but that refers to them being kept on "the land", which seems to me to preclude it applying to any non-ground floor flat (although "land" has a wider meaning in law).
              When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
              Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by MdeB View Post

                I believe that animals are livestock only if kept outdoors; anything kept indoors is a pet.
                Therefore livestock cannot be kept in a flat.
                It's not a pet, it's a vermin control device.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                  The OFT no longer exists and the document referred to is no longer considered to be valid.
                  The advice it contains has been superceded in a number of areas, because consumer law has changed, although there are cases that support some elements of it.

                  That lease clause is unambiguous, you can't keep a pet in a flat.
                  That's not unreasonable - the clause clearly intends to allow pets in houses, which are more suitable.

                  Keeping a cat inside a flat all day isn't healthy for the cat unless the owner is there all the time and the cat has a very peculiar nature.
                  It's not something that should be encouraged.

                  There is legislation that prohibits lease clauses that exclude hens and rabbits, but that refers to them being kept on "the land", which seems to me to preclude it applying to any non-ground floor flat (although "land" has a wider meaning in law).
                  Can you point me in the direction of what supersedes this document please?

                  I don’t think we should be getting into the ethical decisions of whether or not cats should kept indoors here - just to give you the background my previous cat was killed by an idiot driver, so I’m definitely happy with my decision to keep my pet alive considering it causes them no discomfort whatsoever and she is perfectly happy and content.

                  Ive received a response from the solicitor I enquired with - he’s advised he would certainly argue that the clause in unfair, though of course only a court could decide that.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    That sort of document is a secondary source, and you would need to go to the primary sources (statues and court cases setting precedents) for completely up to date information. As a secondary source there might not be any replacement document.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by Jake0254 View Post
                      Can you point me in the direction of what supersedes this document please?
                      The OFT guidance applied to short term leases only, so it was never really helpful.
                      Nothing has replaced it.
                      The Competition & Markets Authority has produced this for the letting trade https://www.gov.uk/government/public...otection-which partially replaces some of the OFT guidance.

                      In a long lease, there's not much scope to claim terms are unfair, because the lessee always receives professional advice, and the level for fairness is very different than something in a consumer contract.
                      I'm surprised that the solicitor considered it was unfair - did they know it was a long term lease not a residential let?
                      No pet clauses aren't that uncommon in leases for flats.

                      The discussion of the ethics of keeping a cat indoors in a flat is actually quite important.
                      Any claim that the clause of the lease is unfair is (at least) somewhat offset by what you're doing isn't just keeping a pet it's potentially abusing an animal.
                      Keeping a healthy cat indoors isn't healthy - it's something you do if the cat is disabled or injured.

                      [From the RSPCA]
                      Whether it is suitable for a cat to live indoors only or not will depend on the individual cat including their heath, age and temperament as well as the type of indoor environment they are living in.

                      The RSPCA doesn't recommend keeping a cat that is used to going outside, as an 'indoor only cat', unless it is for health reasons as they are less likely to be able to cope. Indoor environments can become predictable and boring, leading to stress, inactivity and obesity. However in some instances, for example when a cat has a disability or medical problem, it may be considered more appropriate to keep them indoors.

                      If a cat doesn't have the freedom to go outside, they still need to be provided with everything they need to stay healthy and happy. They should have enough space to exercise, climb and play indoors and access to a variety of resting places they can use. Cats are intelligent and can get bored if they don't have enough to do so you will need to spend time with them everyday giving them lots of care and attention. We recommend you take a look at our factsheet 'Meeting the needs of indoor cats' through clicking the link below.
                      When I post, I am expressing an opinion - feel free to disagree, I have been wrong before.
                      Please don't act on my suggestions without checking with a grown-up (ideally some kind of expert).

                      Comment


                        #41
                        I'm with jpkeates and ;practically everyone else on this one.

                        And it is grossly unfair on humans too. Perhaps your solicitor will help out when you face a £70K legal bill per one pet court case.

                        https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-new...ergic-11603801
                        https://www.webmd.com/allergies/cat-allergies#1
                        https://www.petful.com/misc/can-pet-allergies-kill-me/
                        https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/...ly_become_has/

                        Comment


                          #42
                          I tried to post a bunch of medical links on the health effects of cats in buildings to others in the building. But seemingly if you have more than a few links your post gets killed.

                          Anyway, I'm with jpkeates (and most others) on this one. Perhaps OPs solicitor will help out with the 70K legal bill faced by another pet owner in a leasehold flat who resisted his obligations to neighbours and the lease.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by MdeB View Post
                            I believe that animals are livestock only if kept outdoors; anything kept indoors is a pet.
                            Therefore livestock cannot be kept in a flat.
                            My comment regarding livestock was intended to be tongue in cheek!
                            I think that you'd have to be more specific than "indoors" though - factory farmed livestock might not see anything other than the inside of a building until loaded into a cramped truck to be taken for slaughter.


                            Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                            That lease clause is unambiguous, you can't keep a pet in a flat.
                            That's not unreasonable - the clause clearly intends to allow pets in houses, which are more suitable.
                            I think that the clause is intended to prohibit the keeping of pets in a flat but, with the right punctuation, it can be made to mean that pets are allowed in flats if consent, that cannot be reasonably withheld, is given.
                            Houses are not necessarily more suitable fo pets than flats, many pets are kept indoors without any problems even if the owner has a house, or other property, that includes a garden or other outside land.


                            Originally posted by jpkeates View Post
                            Keeping a cat inside a flat all day isn't healthy for the cat unless the owner is there all the time and the cat has a very peculiar nature.
                            It's not something that should be encouraged.
                            I disagree - as do most, if not all, animal charities/organisations. The advice that will be given is that cats can be kept indoors, but that some individuals do not take well to this.
                            People should be encouraged to keep cats as house cats (if they want to have them as pets) or, if they are allowed out, to keep them restricted to a garden /or under supervision at all times as is the case for dogs.


                            Originally posted by Jake0254 View Post
                            Ive received a response from the solicitor I enquired with - he’s advised he would certainly argue that the clause in unfair, though of course only a court could decide that.
                            So, he'd argue that the clause was an outright ban on the keeping of pets in flats?
                            The counter argument would simply be for the freeholder to argue that they interpreted the clause to allow pets with consent - and then to either provide reasons why consent was to be refused, or to grant consent which they could then withdraw later.

                            You should probably read about the case referred to by someone else, in an earlier comment, where a leaseholder who wanted to keep a pet ended up with £70,000 of legal bills:
                            Victory Place Management Company Ltd v Kuehn & Anor (2018)

                            Comment


                              #44
                              I have already researched that case actually - the question in that case is whether the management company was reasonable in its refusal. This is quite different to this situation, whereby a blanket ban (which the HA are implying they have) allows no potential special circumstances to be taken into account. Granted I’m not saying I have any special circumstances, however the legality of a blanket ban is certainly questionable to say the least and would likely be objected to based upon the OFT Guidance (appreciate they don’t exist any longer, but I am assuming that any replacement guidance would mimic the general sense that such a blanket ban would be considered unfair - I haven’t found any replacement guidance yet)

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by Macromia View Post

                                So, he'd argue that the clause was an outright ban on the keeping of pets in flats?
                                The counter argument would simply be for the freeholder to argue that they interpreted the clause to allow pets with consent - and then to either provide reasons why consent was to be refused, or to grant consent which they could then withdraw later.
                                Yes that’s right, he interprets it the same way as the HA do - the HA have clarified their position that it is, in their opinion, a blanket ban on pets in flats. The solicitor would therefore then argue that such a term would be considered unfair and therefore not legally binding.

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                • Can you forfeit a 999 year lease for renting on Airbnb?
                                  2019 New Member
                                  Hi All,

                                  Can you successfully forfeit / gain possession of a 999 year lease for renting on Airbnb?

                                  The lease mentions not being allowed to let the apartment for a term less than 6 months and the lease in question is a 999 year lease from 1995.

                                  Thanks in advance...
                                  19-09-2019, 07:03 AM
                                • Reply to Can you forfeit a 999 year lease for renting on Airbnb?
                                  Holy Cow
                                  We've had this exact problem. Overseas owner contracted letting agent Haart to find a tenant, and within a few weeks there was a stream of AirBnb-ers and the local chipshop owner was the keyholder. Apparently there's a clause in Haart's letting contract that allows sublets to short term tenants and...
                                  21-09-2019, 13:12 PM
                                • Sharing cost
                                  Affinity
                                  Hello
                                  I am selling my flat. In order to do so I had to pay for a asbestos certificate which cost me £400+vat.
                                  Is it fair to ask the other freeholders to share the cost? The building has three flats and we share the freehold.
                                  Your views are appreciated.
                                  19-09-2019, 16:51 PM
                                • Reply to Sharing cost
                                  Affinity
                                  Thanks for your replies.
                                  The building was build at the end of 19 century and converted into flats in the 80s
                                  21-09-2019, 12:59 PM
                                • Reply to Sharing cost
                                  eagle2
                                  I agree, the other 2 leaseholders and joint freeholders should be approached and asked to contribute towards the cost in exchange for a copy of the report which they will need....
                                  21-09-2019, 11:15 AM
                                • Reply to Can you forfeit a 999 year lease for renting on Airbnb?
                                  scot22
                                  A shame that consideration for other stakeholders and a general respect for the lease do not appear to have been important.
                                  21-09-2019, 10:27 AM
                                • Reply to Sharing cost
                                  leaseholder64
                                  One important point is that the whole case for sharing is based on the fact that the freeholders have failed to perform a statutory duty.

                                  If the OP wanted something from them that they weren't obliged to have obtained anyway, and which is not something that the lease requires them to provide,...
                                  21-09-2019, 10:03 AM
                                • Reply to Sharing cost
                                  leaseholder64
                                  The OP would be writing to himself! He is one third of the freeholder.

                                  This is a dysfunctional share of the freehold case....
                                  21-09-2019, 09:21 AM
                                • Reply to Sharing cost
                                  sgclacy
                                  The success in seeking reimbursement will depend more on the style and approach of your letter than the actual law.

                                  i would write to the freeholder stating that you commissioned the asbestos report and as a consequence have undertaken a task which they should have undertaken - therefore...
                                  21-09-2019, 09:05 AM
                                • Reply to Sharing cost
                                  leaseholder64
                                  The leaseholders are the joint freeholders! If the lease requires the freeholder to pay, there really should have been a formal agreement that freeholder costs be split equally.

                                  Is this one of these leases that tries to avoid having service charges?

                                  Worst case is that the joint...
                                  21-09-2019, 08:37 AM
                                Working...
                                X