Lease agreement and pets!!

hellokitty2016

Hi,

So we began renting an apartment in September, and we got a puppy a month ago, we obviously checked the lease before this and it does not state anything about pets, whether you can or cannot have them. We also checked the house rules of the management company of the building and it just says 'you are not allowed have any pets if they cause disturbance to the neighbours' . So we received a letter from the management company today saying they have received a complaint about a dog barking and we have to get rid of him - grand (even though he doesn't bark that often! and the neighbours annoy us too with noise!) - so the letting agent rang saying the land lady got this letter also and is freaking out, that we arent allowed have pets! so i told her it doesnt say this in the lease that i signed and she said it should say it! where do we stand with this? The lease myself and my partner signed does not say anything about pets - we will sort something out that he can stay with family until we move out of here if we have to - but if this is a fault on the letting agents part surely we should not be penalised?

Any help in the matter would be much appreciated!

whomitconcerns

Has she threatened you with a penalty? Either way it's the letting agency's issue if your contract is with them and it doesn't say it.

hellokitty2016

she just phoned and said we have to get rid of the dog and that is it! i just want to know if I try fight this what would be the consequences. I told her i want it made clear to the landlady that this is the letting agents fault!

MarkAnthony

Does the lease state anything about orgies, hydroponics, conversion into a Satanic shrine or running a porn studio from the living room?

Ah yes, the ol' common sense - which appears not to be so common.

I'm not really sure what you're asking as you've breached the terms of the head lease and the pet has to be gotten rid of anyway. The LL can't apply a penalty if no damage has been done however if any damage has been done then they are entitled to recover the cost.

For future reference if it's not mentioned in the lease, ask first. Pets are something the majority of people would know require express permission.

hellokitty2016

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Does the lease state anything about orgies, hydroponics, conversion into a Satanic shrine or running a porn studio from the living room?

Ah yes, the ol' common sense - which appears not to be so common.

I'm not really sure what you're asking as you've breached the terms of the head lease and the pet has to be gotten rid of anyway. The LL can't apply a penalty if no damage has been done however if any damage has been done then they are entitled to recover the cost.

For future reference if it's not mentioned in the lease, ask first. Pets are something the majority of people would know require express permission.

You're a great help thanks!

L1011

hellokitty2016 wrote: »

(even though he doesn't bark that often!)

When you're there.

Its dogs barking *all day long* when the owners aren't there that generate the most complaints, and most puzzled owners.

MarkAnthony

hellokitty2016 wrote: »

You're a great help thanks!

You're very welcome to go on being helpful what are you asking?

To clarify your LL is the holder of a leasehold interest in the apartment they lease to you. The head lease is a their lease which must be complied with. You've already been told by the OMC that the dog has to go so what are you looking for?

Tiddlypeeps

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Does the lease state anything about orgies, hydroponics, conversion into a Satanic shrine or running a porn studio from the living room?

If the lease doesn't state anything about these things then it's frankly none of the landlords business as long as they aren't damaging the property, making too much noise to annoy the neighbours, breaking the law or doing anything else that would indirectly break a rule that is in the lease.

MarkAnthony

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

If the lease doesn't state anything about these things then it's frankly none of the landlords business as long as they aren't damaging the property, making too much noise to annoy the neighbours, breaking the law or doing anything else that would indirectly break a rule that is in the lease.

Of course it is. The property is let with the implied understanding it's going to be used exclusively as a dwelling. It's merely common sense that pets would need express permission, I'm granting the OP credit for being naive rather than deliberately trying to get one over.

intheclouds

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Of course it is. The property is let with the implied understanding it's going to be used exclusively as a dwelling. It's merely common sense that pets would need express permission, I'm granting the OP credit for being naive rather than deliberately trying to get one over.

What? Thats nonsense.

Cant see how its common sense that pets would need express permission? Do you need express permission to have children in an apartment? They make more noise and cause more damage generally.

Chiorino

intheclouds wrote: »

What? Thats nonsense.

Cant see how its common sense that pets would need express permission? Do you need express permission to have children in an apartment? They make more noise and cause more damage generally.

Sometime, yes. I've often seen a property listed to rent for "professional couple" or "suit professionals", which would imply to me that children are not wanted.

If a landlord rented a property on this basis then found a brood of children running around the place I wouldn't imagine they'd be all too pleased.

GarIT

MarkAnthony wrote: »

It's merely common sense that pets would need express permission

It's common sense that nothing needs permission unless it is stated in the lease or will cause damage.

MarkAnthony

GarIT wrote: »

It's common sense that nothing needs permission unless it is stated in the lease or will cause damage.

I've no time of poor landlords but sometimes threads here and in A&P make me realise why there are so many given some of the ideas tenants get into their heads.

Anyway - we're rather getting off the topic here of what the OP is asking given they're already in breach of the head lease.

Tiddlypeeps

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Of course it is. The property is let with the implied understanding it's going to be used exclusively as a dwelling. It's merely common sense that pets would need express permission, I'm granting the OP credit for being naive rather than deliberately trying to get one over.

Can you back any of that up or are you just stating how you would like it to be?

If it's not stated in the lease and it will not indirectly break any other rules in the lease, or the law, then it is none of the land lords business.

whomitconcerns

the tenant has no relationship with the landlord. they have it with the letting agency. I would tell the "landlord" if they call again to discuss with the letting agency as this is their error not the tenants

MarkAnthony

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

Can you back any of that up or are you just stating how you would like it to be?

If it's not stated in the lease and it will not indirectly break any other rules in the lease, or the law, then it is none of the land lords business.

Can I backup that a dwelling can only be used as a dwelling? I don't think that gets anyone anywhere.

MarkAnthony

whomitconcerns wrote: »

the tenant has no relationship with the landlord. they have it with the letting agency. I would tell the "landlord" if they call again to discuss with the letting agency as this is their error not the tenants

The agency part in that might give one pause for thought on that statement.

intheclouds

Chiorino wrote: »

Sometime, yes. I've often seen a property listed to rent for "professional couple" or "suit professionals", which would imply to me that children are not wanted.

If a landlord rented a property on this basis then found a brood of children running around the place I wouldn't imagine they'd be all too pleased.

Exactly. So if not mentioned then no common sense needed right? Same as for pets.

If the lease says "no pets" then thats grand, but if it says nothing, then why would you think theyre not allowed?

whomitconcerns

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The agency part in that might give one pause for thought on that statement.

True...so to rephrase, the agency represented a set of limited rules to the tenant on behalf of the landlord. The landlord is now seeking to enforce terms not previously presented to the OP. The landlord needs to speak to their agent, not the tenant.

intheclouds

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Can I backup that a dwelling can only be used as a dwelling? I don't think that gets anyone anywhere.

How is it not being used as a dwelling if there is a pet in it?

I dwell with my pets.

MarkAnthony

intheclouds wrote: »

How is it not being used as a dwelling if there is a pet in it?

I dwell with my pets.

No one said it wasn't.

intheclouds wrote: »

Exactly. So if not mentioned then no common sense needed right? Same as for pets.

If the lease says "no pets" then thats grand, but if it says nothing, then why would you think theyre not allowed?

Okay I'm willing to admit common sense is a misnomer so let's move on from there.

whomitconcerns wrote: »

True...so to rephrase, the agency represented a set of limited rules to the tenant on behalf of the landlord. The landlord is now seeking to enforce terms not previously presented to the OP. The landlord needs to speak to their agent, not the tenant.

The LL can still speak to the tenant and is wise to do so. The very fact that they are gives them credit in my book but again let's move on.

Regardless of what's in the lease they must comply with the head lease and they haven't, what's more they know they haven't it's written in the OP. So again what is the OP asking here?

intheclouds

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The property is let with the implied understanding it's going to be used exclusively as a dwelling. It's merely common sense that pets would need express permission...

intheclouds wrote: »

How is it not being used as a dwelling if there is a pet in it?

MarkAnthony wrote: »

No one said it wasn't.

You implied it wasnt as above. Otherwise I dont know what your first quoted comment above means?

MarkAnthony

intheclouds wrote: »

You implied it wasnt as above. Otherwise I dont know what your first quoted comment above means?

The first quoted comment means exactly what it says. One point is made followed by a full stop that point referring to the porn studio etc. The second point is then made and reads "It's merely common sense that pets would need express permission...". The second point is underscored that it is different from the first by the use of 'merely'.

Right now we've got the English lesson out of the way - is anyone other than whomitconcerns going to engage, flippantly or otherwise with the OP? Pretty please?

OP while I don't apologise for being flippant, it's just my nature, I do apologise for dragging your thread off into a semantics.

average_runner

Hope your not keeping a dog inside the apartment more than 20 hours a day, as that's poor cruel to the dog

Tiddlypeeps

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Of course it is. The property is let with the implied understanding it's going to be used exclusively as a dwelling. It's merely common sense that pets would need express permission, I'm granting the OP credit for being naive rather than deliberately trying to get one over.

MarkAnthony wrote: »

Can I backup that a dwelling can only be used as a dwelling? I don't think that gets anyone anywhere.

I asked can you back up the statements made in the quoted post, I've quoted it again here if it helps. I'll break it down if that makes things easier for you.

What exactly does "exclusively as a dwelling" mean and where in law can I find a description of it and what behaviour it does and does not permit on the premises when otherwise not stated in the lease agreement?

Where in law does it state that pets need express permission when it is otherwise not mentioned in the lease agreement?

MarkAnthony

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

I asked can you back up the statements made in the quoted post, I've quoted it again here if it helps. I'll break it down if that makes things easier for you.

What exactly does "exclusively as a dwelling" mean and where in law can I find a description of it and what behaviour it does and does not permit on the premises when otherwise not stated in the lease agreement?

Where in law does it state that pets need express permission when it is otherwise not mentioned in the lease agreement?

You're entering into a circular argument asking for the definition of words which have plain meaning. You can look at legislation and case law and there would be various sources, running a business such as a porn studio or using the property as a hydroponic garden would not be found in any of them. You'll find various pieces of legislation, generally centred around planning regulations.

I've already pointed out what the words merely common sense means.

Do you have any comment on the OP?

intheclouds

MarkAnthony wrote: »

The first quoted comment means exactly what it says. One point is made followed by a full stop that point referring to the porn studio etc. The second point is then made and reads "It's merely common sense that pets would need express permission...". The second point is underscored that it is different from the first by the use of 'merely'.

So what relevance does

The property is let with the implied understanding it's going to be used exclusively as a dwelling.

have to do with keeping a pet there.

Considering your use of the word "merely" in the next sentence you are implying that as it is to be used exclusively as a dwelling then it is common sense that pets need express permission?

Have I misunderstood the point you were making?

MarkAnthony

intheclouds wrote: »

So what relevance does have to do with keeping a pet there.

Considering your use of the word "merely" in the next sentence you are implying that as it is to be used exclusively as a dwelling then it is common sense that pets need express permission?

Have I misunderstood the point you were making?

I believe so. I think you've more lost the thread of what Tiddlypeeps and I were discussing. I also believe that people are reacting more to my flippant response rather than attempting to assist the OP so I ask once again if all those who are intent on having a go at me (fair enough but please bring it to PM) do you have any input for the OP?

intheclouds

MarkAnthony wrote: »

I believe so. I also believe that people are reacting more to my flippant response rather than attempting to assist the OP so I ask once again if all those who are intent on having a go at me (fair enough but please bring it to PM) do you have any input for the OP?

I am not trying to have a go at you.

I am simply trying to understand what you mean. You are stating that its common sense that the OP needs express permission for pets and making a statement that sounds semi legal about exclusive use as a dwelling.

I think it is important that the OP understands that you are talking nonsensically and that legally all that matters is the lease he or she signed with the letting agent. Not some tenuous subjective notion of common sense with respect to exclusive use of dwellings.

lifeandtimes

MarkAnthony wrote: »

You're entering into a circular argument asking for the definition of words which have plain meaning. You can look at legislation and case law and there would be various sources, running a business such as a porn studio or using the property as a hydroponic garden would not be found in any of them. You'll find various pieces of legislation, generally centred around planning regulations.

I've already pointed out what the words merely common sense means.

Do you have any comment on the OP?

people use dwellings for different things, if op was to have their book club over for a book club meeting that would be outside of a dwelling nature but its still fine.

Op if the lease did not say specifically no pets then you needent worry, most places state no pets and the option is there to advise perspective tenants, if the agent didnt use this then this wasnt your fault, at least however you resolving the problem

MarkAnthony

intheclouds wrote: »

I am not trying to have a go at you.

It doesn't really matter to me, have a go if you like, I had a go at the OP.

intheclouds wrote: »

I am simply trying to understand what you mean. You are stating that its common sense that the OP needs express permission for pets and making a statement that sounds semi legal about exclusive use as a dwelling.

I've explained it ad nauseum it's just not penetrating.

intheclouds wrote: »

I think it is important that the OP understands that you are talking nonsensically and that legally all that matters is the lease he or she signed with the letting agent. Not some tenuous subjective notion of common sense with respect to exclusive use of dwellings.

I think it's important that the OP realises that is nonsense, in that it matters a great deal what the head lease specifies. Your motivation here is not to assist the OP but to have a pop at me, you're more than welcome to do that but let's take it to PM please?

If you wish to assist the OP maybe you'll state that assistance?