Pets - who has the final say - landlord or management Company?

system_538781

My lease states that pets may be kept only with prior written consent from LL.

However I have noticed signs around the building from the Management Company stating that all pets are forbidden.

If my LL was to approve of me keeping a pet at the apartment, can the management company do anything? Who does the authority rest with?

I am awaiting a reply from my LL on this but I would just like to hear from others - maybe they have experienced this?

Cathmandooo

The management company has the final say. It's purely to keep the peace among neighbours, if a pet is loud it's not fair on your neighbours. I assume you're in an apartment? If a neighbour complains about your pet the management company can put pressure on to have your pet removed despite your lease saying otherwise.

system_538781

Yes it's an apartment. The blocks are very small - only 3 units on my floor. The odd time I do hear a little bark or two so I'm sure some people have dogs. I was considering a cat (100% indoors) but I would want to have permission to do so. Some pets could cause disturbances but many pets would go undetected to the neighbours. I thought it was more an issue if the LL was afraid his furniture would be damaged.

MarkAnthony

The OMC is essentially the LL's LL. Apartments are very rarely owned outright and are usually long leasehold.

Cathmandooo

No doubt there are plenty of undetected pets in the complex. Same in mine, reptiles, cats and dogs in this complex which bans pets. It's easier for the management company to outright ban them so if complaints come in they can point to the house rules which are being broken. Damage to furniture is between you and your landlord, a pet deposit is sometimes required by the landlord.

Arbiter of Good Taste

The LL's leasehold agreement is going to override your lease agreement.

Most leasehold agreements expressly forbid pets. If that's the case, it's not your LL's decision to make

system_538781

Thanks for all the replies. I guessed that the management company would prevail here. I do find it strange that the LL didn't incorporate the rules of the management company into the lease - instead there is conflicting information. My attention was never drawn to these rules - I just happened upon them on the wall one day.

The Randy Riverbeast

The rules of the building take priority. In my experience the no pet rule isn't strictly enforced. If the animal isn't making noise or using the halls as a toilet few if any care about it.

If your LL says it is ok and you know of other pets in the building then you should be fine but there is always the risk that the management company could enforce the rules.

system

system wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. I guessed that the management company would prevail here. I do find it strange that the LL didn't incorporate the rules of the management company into the lease - instead there is conflicting information. My attention was never drawn to these rules - I just happened upon them on the wall one day.

It's more than likely just a generic lease printed off rather than one he got drawn up.

MarkAnthony

system wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. I guessed that the management company would prevail here. I do find it strange that the LL didn't incorporate the rules of the management company into the lease - instead there is conflicting information. My attention was never drawn to these rules - I just happened upon them on the wall one day.

It's a constant annoyance that landlords do not include the terms of the head lease (their lease) in the lease with their tenants. Most in the complex I'm a director for don't even include the house rules. Thankfully we have them in every entry hall. Luckily we don't get many issues as the complex is very well run, but you do get the occational dick head and they always say they weren't told. :rolleyes:

Many LLs wouldn't even know they're on a lease themselves.

cerastes

system wrote: »

Thanks for all the replies. I guessed that the management company would prevail here. I do find it strange that the LL didn't incorporate the rules of the management company into the lease - instead there is conflicting information. My attention was never drawn to these rules - I just happened upon them on the wall one day.

There is no imperative for the landlord to include those terms, its fairly commonplace that being a tenant has specific requirements around pets and it's no surprise to me that an apartment building is more strict.
For one, everyone pays for wear and tear and animals can increase that as they are not necessarily (usually not completely) under their owners control, ie just not trained or untrainable (certain animals).
You would have had to get specific permission from your landlord anyway, they could not give you permission if its specifically excluded in the management company rules.
I guess its just a blanket thing that accounts for the worst case behaviour (if it can happen it will, ie dog/cat takes a dump in a hallway, management company doesnt want or need to deal with it, so it's just simply outright banned).

I dont see that the information is conflicting, the lease is an agreement between the landlord and tenant, this doesnt mean every other detail should be included in a lease document. If that was the case there is plenty of information which is usually understood to be commonly known and is not included.
I say this as I was told a story related to me by a trades person, of job where waste pipes were blocked, upon opening up the pipes (it took this kind of work to clear the blockage) among the unpleasant things you might expect to find, there were also items of clothing, t shirts, socks and the like blocking the pipes.

Besides, the landlord has stated you need permission, they cant give it to you as the management company dont allow it, end of story really. Its up to you to read your lease, if you came here and said your landlord had given permission or has not excluded the requirement to ask for permission, that would be slightly different, but it would not mean you would be allowed to keep a pet anyway, as the management company does not allow it. It's just in the former of instances, the landlord would have been wrong.

The Randy Riverbeast wrote: »

The rules of the building take priority. In my experience the no pet rule isn't strictly enforced. If the animal isn't making noise or using the halls as a toilet few if any care about it.

If your LL says it is ok and you know of other pets in the building then you should be fine but there is always the risk that the management company could enforce the rules.

I think you are wrong to encourage the Op to break the building rules, they are there for a reason.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It's a constant annoyance that landlords do not include the terms of the head lease (their lease) in the lease with their tenants. Most in the complex I'm a director for don't even include the house rules. Thankfully we have them in every entry hall. Luckily we don't get many issues as the complex is very well run, but you do get the occational dick head and they always say they weren't told. :rolleyes:

Many LLs wouldn't even know they're on a lease themselves.

I doubt the information is usually readily available for owners/landlords to use, but it would be a benefit to the management company to encourage or insist that agents/landlords include them in their leases or at least provide lists of building rules that would not necessarily need to be in the lease.
in my experience it's usually very difficult to get in contact or get replies from a management company.

MarkAnthony

cerastes wrote: »

I doubt the information is usually readily available for owners/landlords to use, but it would be a benefit to the management company to encourage or insist that agents/landlords include them in their leases or at least provide lists of building rules that would not necessarily need to be in the lease.
in my experience it's usually very difficult to get in contact or get replies from a management company.

We've an excellent board of directors with me being the most junior member. It's is difficult to get a decent management company I agree, but if the OMC shop around it is possible.

jd

cerastes wrote: »

There is no imperative for the landlord to include those terms, its fairly commonplace that being a tenant has specific requirements around pets and it's no surprise to me that an apartment building is more strict.

It IS a legal requirement that House Rules are included in a tenancy lease

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2011/act/2/section/23/enacted/en/html#sec23

(10) It shall be a term of every letting of a unit in a multi-unit development that the letting is subject to the observance by all those occupying the property (including their licensees, servants or agents), in whatever capacity, of—

(a) the conditions and covenants in the title documents relating to the use and enjoyment of the property, and

(b) house rules made under this section,

and a summary of such relevant conditions and covenants together with a copy of any house rules shall be incorporated into the letting agreement relating to the unit concerned