Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Lease agreement and pets!!

Options
2»

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭intheclouds


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    If you wish to assist the OP maybe you'll state that assistance?

    Oh dear.

    Dont like when you are wrong? Let me spell it out so that it, what was the word you used? Penetrates.

    The OP has no relationship with the OMC or the owner. The OPs only relationship is with the letting agent. The OP is only legally bound by the lease the letting agent provided. If that lease says nothing about pets then the OP hasnt done anything wrong and I would imagine that PRTB would draw out a nice long dispute (in favour of the tenant) about it.

    Oh and Im not interested in PMing you - Ive no idea why you think I would, please dont ask me to again.


  • Options
    #33
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    intheclouds wrote: »
    Oh dear.

    Dont like when you are wrong? Let me spell it out so that it, what was the word you used? Penetrates.

    The OP has no relationship with the OMC or the owner. The OPs only relationship is with the letting agent. The OP is only legally bound by the lease the letting agent provided. If that lease says nothing about pets then the OP hasnt done anything wrong and I would imagine that PRTB would draw out a nice long dispute (in favour of the tenant) about it.

    Oh and Im not interested in PMing you - Ive no idea why you think I would, please dont ask me to again.

    The lease, unless it's incredibly poorly drafted which I grant you it might be, will reference the head lease. If it does not then the LL must still ensure conformity with it although the OP may have some resource. The OP's relationship with the owner (I presume you mean leasehold owner as in the LL) will be through the law of agency.

    I've absolutely no issue with being wrong. I've admitted several failing of my assumptions and posting style in this thread alone. My issue now is you're giving crap advice.

    Feel free to PM me if you need further clarification.


  • Options
    #34
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭intheclouds


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    The lease, unless it's incredibly poorly drafted which I grant you it might be, will reference the head lease. If it does not then the LL must still ensure conformity with it although the OP may have some resource. The OP's relationship with the owner (I presume you mean leasehold owner as in the LL) will be through the law of agency.

    I've absolutely no issue with being wrong. I've admitted several failing of my assumptions and posting style in this thread alone. My issue now is you're giving crap advice.

    Feel free to PM me if you need further clarification.

    Feel free to post your clarification right here and please stop asking me to PM you - its getting kind of creepy.

    The OP need only worry about the lease they signed.


  • Options
    #35
    Tiddlypeeps
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,103 ✭✭✭Tiddlypeeps


    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.

    I clearly stated that anything that is not stated in the lease and is not against the law is none of the landlords business. If it is against the law to run a business from the property in question than that is clearly covered by the "against the law" part of my statement, same goes for any planning permission that may be required for any activities. If someone is simply recording pornographic material in their residence and uploading it for free on the internet than that would be none of the landlords business. Same goes for any hydroponic gardening they may want to do as long as they take proper precautions to not damage the property, and any orgies they may want to have as long as they aren't so loud as to bother the neighbours and as long as their are no rules in the lease on having parties.

    As long as it doesn't break the lease and doesn't break the law it is none of the landlords business. You can use the phrase common sense all you want, unless you can provide something more substantial you are simply stating how you would like it to be and it has nothing to do with the legality of the matter.
    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    Do you have any comment on the OP?

    If I had a comment on the OP that hasn't already been made by someone else then I would have stated it.


  • Options
    #36
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    intheclouds wrote: »
    Feel free to post your clarification right here and please stop asking me to PM you - its getting kind of creepy.

    PM me and we can discuss it.
    intheclouds wrote: »
    The OP need only worry about the lease they signed.

    What do you base that assertion on? Do you know what a head lease is and how aparment complexes are generally owned and ran? I'm happy to attempt to explain it if you would like - genuine offer there.

    What is your take on what the OP needs to do with the dog now the OMC have requested it be removed, do you have any thoughts there?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    intheclouds
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,175 ✭✭✭intheclouds


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    PM me and we can discuss it.

    You seem to have difficulty understanding a simple request. As such Ill leave you to it.

    The OP only need worry about the lease they signed with the letting agent.


  • Options
    #38
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


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

    Can you back up where the tenant is supposed to comply with an agreement they are not a party to and do not know the details of.


  • Options
    #39
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    Can you back up where the tenant is supposed to comply with an agreement they are not a party to and do not know the details of.

    Please elaborate. What agreement are you asking about? The head lease?

    Edit I'll assume so:

    Section 16 (b) of the RTA 2004 which would include the requirements under the MUD Act. Specifically section 23 (House rules).

    More generally Land law has a number of exceptions to the Privity of contract rules, I'd take enlightenment there as I have no idea which ones (if any) would apply specifically.

    I assume there are many others but I'm more than happy to be proven wrong and would be delighted with any direction to reading matter on the subject.


  • Options
    #40
    Paulw
    Registered Users Posts: 13,381 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Folks, the OP already stated that there is a clause about pets -
    hellokitty2016 wrote: »
    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' .

    The complaint to the landlord, I assume via the management company, was that the pet is causing a disturbance. Hence, having the pet is in breach of the terms.

    The management company rules should be included in the lease agreement, and should be passed on to a tenant by the landlord as terms of their lease.


  • Options
    #41
    DivingDuck
    Registered Users Posts: 1,396 ✭✭✭DivingDuck


    OP, the situation here is very simple. Your landlord is also a tenant of the management company/OMC and must ensure that her tenants comply with the terms of the head lease. By your admission, this lease states that pets must not cause disturbance to the neighbours. Both you and your landlord have been notified that you are in breach of this rule. Therefore, your landlord must take steps to ensure your compliance with the rule (though their agent or otherwise). You are going to have to either re-home the dog or move out of the apartment. The landlord will not be allowed to let you stay with your dog, even if they wanted to. (That they don't is irrelevant.)

    Although there is nothing about pets specifically, is there any clause in your lease which states that you must comply with the rules of the building? These are fairly standard, and I would be surprised if there was nothing to that effect in your lease.

    In the unlikely event that there isn't, I would be very interested to know if you can be considered in breach of your lease. If the head lease/house rules were not specifically included in your own lease, can you be held accountable to them. Does anyone know the answer to this question?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Discodog
    Registered Users Posts: 15,874 ✭✭✭✭Discodog


    DivingDuck wrote: »
    OP, the situation here is very simple. Your landlord is also a tenant of the management company/OMC and must ensure that her tenants comply with the terms of the head lease. By your admission, this lease states that pets must not cause disturbance to the neighbours. Both you and your landlord have been notified that you are in breach of this rule. Therefore, your landlord must take steps to ensure your compliance with the rule (though their agent or otherwise). You are going to have to either re-home the dog or move out of the apartment. The landlord will not be allowed to let you stay with your dog, even if they wanted to. (That they don't is irrelevant.)

    Although there is nothing about pets specifically, is there any clause in your lease which states that you must comply with the rules of the building? These are fairly standard, and I would be surprised if there was nothing to that effect in your lease.

    In the unlikely event that there isn't, I would be very interested to know if you can be considered in breach of your lease. If the head lease/house rules were not specifically included in your own lease, can you be held accountable to them. Does anyone know the answer to this question?

    The issue is whether the dog is causing a disturbance. I know of several incidences where stroppy residents complain because they think that dogs aren't allowed or they don't want them in the area.

    The OP can easily check if the dog causes a disturbance. Just leave a voice activated recorder in the property or a mobile phone with a recording app on it.

    I once had a nasty neighbour who complained to the Council that my dogs barked. I was able to show the Council hour upon hour of recordings with not a sound.


  • Options
    #43
    stoplooklisten
    Registered Users Posts: 2,492 ✭✭✭stoplooklisten


    You are not allowed pets which cause disturbance to you neighbours

    You pet caused disturbance to the neighbours, therefore, you are not allowed it


  • Options
    #44
    DivingDuck
    Registered Users Posts: 1,396 ✭✭✭DivingDuck


    Discodog wrote: »
    The issue is whether the dog is causing a disturbance. I know of several incidences where stroppy residents complain because they think that dogs aren't allowed or they don't want them in the area.

    The OP can easily check if the dog causes a disturbance. Just leave a voice activated recorder in the property or a mobile phone with a recording app on it.

    I once had a nasty neighbour who complained to the Council that my dogs barked. I was able to show the Council hour upon hour of recordings with not a sound.

    An OMC is a different beast to a governmental body, though, and they are the ones who get to make that call. If they have decided to respond to complaints about nuisance barking, they have the right to make that decision.

    The term "cause disturbance to the neighbours" is ridiculously broad, to be honest, but the bottom line is that the OP is renting and therefore not a shareholder of that company, so they do not have the right to vote/complain/influence the decisions of that company and try to get them to clarify and tighten their policies. An OMC is almost always a. going to side with owner occupiers as they are likely to be there longer and they are the ones who pay the fees, and b. take the path of least resistance. Those are the breaks of renting an apartment.

    The dog may bark more frequently than the OP knows, and they may have gotten complaints from several people. The dog may not have barked at all, and perhaps they only had suprious complaints from one person. Either way, it is easiest for the Management Company to put pressure on the OP's landlord to resolve the situation, and that's what they're going to do-- recordings or no recordings.

    Besides, what's to say the recordings took place while the dog was in residence? What's to say that just because the dog did not bark on that day, that he hadn't barked his head off on days previous? This would only be useful in the case of an ongoing debate where the complaining neighbour kept dates/times of the barking at the same time as you took recordings of a peaceful animal so that you could directly prove they were false.

    It will be impossible for the OP to prove that the dog is not barking without keeping the dog on-site after being expressly ordered to remove it by the OMC and the landlord both, in which case they're definitely in breach of their lease. Even proving that the dog has not actually been causing problems could only, in the very best possible outcome, satisfy the OMC, but still leave an angry landlord who does not want a tenant with a pet who will be looking to get them out ASAP without deposit for pet damages. This does not sound like a good home environment for the OP or their dog.

    The only question which really matters here is whether or not the OP is liable for breaching their lease as things currently stand.


  • Options
    #45
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    MarkAnthony wrote: »
    Please elaborate. What agreement are you asking about? The head lease?

    Edit I'll assume so:

    Section 16 (b) of the RTA 2004 which would include the requirements under the MUD Act. Specifically section 23 (House rules).

    More generally Land law has a number of exceptions to the Privity of contract rules, I'd take enlightenment there as I have no idea which ones (if any) would apply specifically.

    I assume there are many others but I'm more than happy to be proven wrong and would be delighted with any direction to reading matter on the subject.

    And its your contention that Section 16b does not require the tenant have been notified of any requirements of the head lease but still be bound by them.


  • Options
    #46
    MarkAnthony
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭MarkAnthony


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    And its your contention that Section 16b does not require the tenant have been notified of any requirements of the head lease but still be bound by them.

    It's my contention that tenants are bound by the terms of the head lease. The specific mechanisms are probably more numerous than that single piece of legislation given the legislation involved in very new indeed.

    There are numerous examples in the law of parties being expected to be on constructive notice, unfortunately due to my limited ram in my brain you're gonna have to go and look them up as I'm currently in EU law mode.

    If you feel I'm in error please do correct me with relevant examples. I will thank you for it as others frequently correct me here it's always appreciated.


  • Options
    #47
    athtrasna
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,420 ✭✭✭✭athtrasna


    OP did it not occur to you that a dog would cause distubance? You refer to being penalised but what of your neighbours, they abided by the development rules and yet suffered the noise of your dog barking.

    In my development we also take action against barking dogs. Because of the design, I am within hearing distance of approximately 70 units so a dog in any of those would disturb me. No resident has the right to disturb another. I blame the newness of high density living, I don't think people are being deliberately inconsiderate but simply don't realise how a cute pet can negatively affect those around them.


  • Options
    #48
    Paulw
    Registered Users Posts: 13,381 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Little CuChulainn wrote: »
    And its your contention that Section 16b does not require the tenant have been notified of any requirements of the head lease but still be bound by them.

    If you read the OPs post, they were aware of the requirement.


  • Options
    #49
    campingcarist
    Registered Users Posts: 337 ✭✭campingcarist


    In my complex, the landlord leaves a document in their apartments with the OMC rules and although the landlords are requested to have these rules in their leases some still don't.

    What would the legal position be with this document - is the tenant bound by it if the rules are not actually in the lease. I can understand if the lease states that the House rules must be complied with; but where there is no mention of the rules in the lease - what goes?

    Just curious.


Advertisement