New legislation on pets

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

    New legislation on pets

    What do you all think about the insane bill brought by Andrew Rosindell that threatens to take away leaseholders and freeholders powers to prevent pets being kept by residents?
    I live in a small block which the leaseholders manage themselves. We have managed to keep the block pet free for many years. I only hope I can manage to move into a house before this legislation allows the block to fill up with dogs and cats. It's a foolish bill on so many levels. Not only does it take away a landlord's rights over their property but there's no thought that just because one dog might be quiet and well behaved, the mere fact of it being a dog means that other people will assume they can follow suit without asking. Prevention is always better than cure.
    Why are we becoming such a soppy nation? At the beginning of the war, people were queueing up to have their dogs put down because they knew they wouldn't be able to feed them. The Soviets were probably eating their dogs. Now leases have to be destroyed so that poochy can have a home.

    #2
    Andrew Rosindel is striking a blow for the interests of tenants (whether their leases are long or short) against the increasing control freakery of landlords who stomp on the idea that an Englishman's home is his castle.

    Comment


      #3
      Many flats will; become a living nightmare and also a health nightmare for some.

      I can see widespread killing of pets happening too.

      This is no striking of a blow for anything wonderful.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
        Many flats will; become a living nightmare and also a health nightmare for some.
        Possibly. The point is though, why should flats be different from houses? There may be some good reasons, but living in a flat is in many ways not too different from living in a terraced house. Indeed, I would say that those living in houses are more likely to be affected by barking dogs and roaming cats.

        Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
        I can see widespread killing of pets happening too.
        Do you mean by outraged neighbours?

        Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
        This is no striking of a blow for anything wonderful.
        It may not be equivalent to the abolition of serfdom, but we have reached the stage where the controls on tenants have become excessive. Even owners of mansion flats can be second class citizens.

        There do of course need to be restrictions where people live communally and a short term tenant has to accept that he cannot have the same freedom of action as an owner-occupier. There should though be no restrictions which prevent tenants from doing things other people take for granted.

        When it comes to pets, there should be rules which apply across the board for the benefit of both neighbours and pets.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post

          Possibly. The point is though, why should flats be different from houses? There may be some good reasons, but living in a flat is in many ways not too different from living in a terraced house. Indeed, I would say that those living in houses are more likely to be affected by barking dogs and roaming cats.

          .
          Living in a flat is very different from living in a terraced house.

          You can't just let your dog out into the yard for a toilet break if you're in a flat - you have to go all the way downstairs and through the communal area then out into the shared garden. You then have to clean up any detritus immediately. Whereas if you live in a terraced house you can just let your dog out into the yard and you don't have to clean up at that very moment.

          If you live in a flat you could have up to 8 neighbours' flats close to yours (one either side and three above and below) that would be affected by a barking dog, whereas if you're in a terraced house and your dog barks there are only two neighbours (one on each side).

          If you've got a cat and you're in a flat, you can't just let it out. You would need a cat flap in your door and one in the communal door. Unless you live on the ground floor and can leave a window open.

          It's been my experience that tenants don't seem to care if their pet urinates or defecates on the landlord's carpet and they don't clear up the mess on the lawn - they leave it to the landlord ie me, and I'm sick of cleaning up other peoples' animal mess.

          Comment


            #6
            ... and the small point regarding breach of contract and the implicit contract made to third parties...

            If I bought a terraced house (or even detached house) with a pet clause I'd expect to have to obey that contract too.

            If I bought a flat with a lease that specified pets were fine, I wouldn't expect to complain about that afterwards when my asthma forced me to move out, or I had sleepless nights or slipped in dog poo every day, or had to pay an extra £2000 for communal cleaning/pest control.

            But I fear lethal consequences for many animals (and possibly their owners) if detriment is forced down throats by ignorant wealthy pen pushers with an agenda.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post
              ....we have reached the stage where the controls on tenants have become excessive. Even owners of mansion flats can be second class citizens..
              I have no idea what you are talking about. You suggest a time-scale.

              Perhaps list the "controls" on tenants which were
              a) not present in say 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000
              b) and which do not apply to owner occupiers and
              c) which are based on contract where
              d) those contracts can feasibly be enforced

              My list....

              Well I can't think of a single item to fill this "excessive" list

              Comment


                #8
                The act, as it stands, allows property owners to register their properties as exempt from the right to keep a pet if it is unsuitable for pets.

                Originally posted by Nelly Muggins View Post
                The Soviets were probably eating their dogs.
                And that is the type of comment that brings you up short.
                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


                  #9
                  Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post
                  ... and the small point regarding breach of contract and the implicit contract made to third parties...

                  If I bought a terraced house (or even detached house) with a pet clause I'd expect to have to obey that contract too.

                  If I bought a flat with a lease that specified pets were fine, I wouldn't expect to complain about that afterwards when my asthma forced me to move out, or I had sleepless nights or slipped in dog poo every day, or had to pay an extra £2000 for communal cleaning/pest control.

                  But I fear lethal consequences for many animals (and possibly their owners) if detriment is forced down throats by ignorant wealthy pen pushers with an agenda.
                  I ought to say that I am not sure this is something which should be legislated. I am inclined to think that if a property is advertised "no pets" (as Berlinogirl says she does in another thread) that that is fair enough. What I do object to is a prospective tenant with no warning who goes through all the procedures being presented with a tenancy agreement containing a no pets clause. I do think though that it has in part to come down to a question of degree - and not least animal welfare. It is not appropriate to keep animals in a bedsit. A house with a large garden is different.

                  Your other points are somewhat exaggerated. In thirty years of conveyancing I never came across a house subject to a covenant not to keep pets. Most blocks of flats do not have communal gardens. I have lived in three different blocks of flats here in Spain and not encountered any problem with pets.

                  The basic point is that keeping pets is on the whole considered entirely normal and acceptable. Restrictions of the kind found today are of recent origin. It comes down to conflicting rights and who should take precedence. It is part of whether tenants should be allowed to have a home rather than just a roof over their heads.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by AndrewDod View Post

                    I have no idea what you are talking about. You suggest a time-scale.

                    Perhaps list the "controls" on tenants which were
                    a) not present in say 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000
                    b) and which do not apply to owner occupiers and
                    c) which are based on contract where
                    d) those contracts can feasibly be enforced

                    My list....

                    Well I can't think of a single item to fill this "excessive" list
                    The tenancy agreement for the flat I moved into in 1971 consisted of three lines:

                    Property: Third floor flat at...
                    Rent:£3.50 per week
                    No subletting


                    When a developer bought the building ten years later and put us in another flat we had no tenancy agreement at all.

                    The long lease I prepared in the 1980s and the form of tenancy agreement I drafted for a nationwide chain of agents were based on precedents contained in Aldridge Leasehold Law. From memory the clause went something like: Not to keep in the property any animal about which the owner or occupier of a neighbouring property reasonably complains that it causes a nuisance.

                    Since I started in the law in 1971 all forms of lease have got a lot longer. That has to be bad news for tenants as landlords have not got more generous. Word processing is partly to blame. I don't think 70 page leases would be common for flats if every lease had to be typed first as a draft and then twice as part and counterpart.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post

                      I ought to say that I am not sure this is something which should be legislated. I am inclined to think that if a property is advertised "no pets" (as Berlinogirl says she does in another thread) that that is fair enough. What I do object to is a prospective tenant with no warning who goes through all the procedures being presented with a tenancy agreement containing a no pets clause. I do think though that it has in part to come down to a question of degree - and not least animal welfare. It is not appropriate to keep animals in a bedsit. A house with a large garden is different.
                      Well that I agree with completely

                      Comment


                        #12
                        In my rented house, I am not allowed to have unprotected sexual intercourse with the oposite sex !
                        The A.S.T. states " No children" !

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Lawcruncher View Post

                          Word processing is partly to blame. I don't think 70 page leases would be common for flats if every lease had to be typed first as a draft and then twice as part and counterpart.
                          Sheer luxury having a typewriter, leases used to be hand written, any mistake and you had to start again

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by eagle2 View Post
                            Sheer luxury having a typewriter, leases used to be hand written, any mistake and you had to start again
                            Legal writers had tricks for correcting errors, at least small ones. Missing out a whole sentence was a different matter. The position was not much different in the case of typewriters. In both cases a premium was put on accuracy. Legal writers and secretaries were careful because they had to be. In my experience interlineations in hand-written or typed legal documents are very rare. Word processing has removed the need for accuracy, though it is of course still desirable.

                            Comment

                            Latest Activity

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X