Hughes Paddison is delighted to warmly welcome Heidi Aitken to the Equity Partnership. Here we celebrate her career so far and hear about her plans, as an Equity Partner.
- Telephone 01242 574244
- Fax 01242 221631
- Email info@hughes-paddison.co.uk
Search site
Contact our office
Make an enquiry
Blog
It is a restriction that you will find in many leases. A ban on tenants keeping pets in the property. An absolute ban seems pretty black and white; pets are banned, simple. But what if the lease says that you can keep pets but you need to seek the landlord’s permission? Is the landlord then under any obligation to consider and to respond to such a request reasonably and rationally? Or can he decide that, by way of irrational example, he hates tortoises and they are banned but he doesn’t mind parrots so they are allowed?
In the recent case of Victory Place Management Company Limited v Kuehn, the High Court dealt with an appeal by two tenants who were fighting to be allowed to keep their dog in their flat. Their landlord had obtained an earlier injunction requiring them to remove their dog.
The tenants’ appeal was unsuccessful and the injunction was upheld.
The facts of the case were that the tenants in question had purchased a long lease of a penthouse flat in London. They moved into the property with their beloved terrier, Vinnie. Their lease provided that if they wanted to keep a pet in the property, they would need to seek the landlord’s written consent. As it turned out, the landlord maintained a strict “no pets” policy. That, apparently, was the wish of the majority of the other tenants.
Having moved into the flat, the tenants sought permission from the landlord to keep their dog at the property but this was refused. The landlord did later acknowledge that its “no pets” policy was subject to certain exclusions, including, for example, cases where tenants relied upon guide dogs or special assistance dogs.
The tenants argued that their dog had a therapeutic effect and provided comfort during a stressful period of their lives. But no medical evidence was produced to support this. They also argued that a blanket ban on pets was irrational.
The tenants ignored the ban and the landlord therefore obtained an injunction requiring the removal of the dog from the property. The tenants appealed but the appeal was refused.
The Court’s view was that the “no pet” policy could not be classified as unreasonable or irrational and that the landlord had dealt reasonably with the tenants’ request.
After the appeal hearing, one of the tenants explained that:-
“I am going to continue to campaign against these ridiculous, small-minded policies that discriminate against people with pets. We live in a society of tolerance and inclusion, supposedly, and yet we don’t have people who recognise pets as companions, part of the family unit and part of our therapeutic well-being”.
It is understood that the tenants may be planning to appeal to the Court of Appeal.
As a dog-owner and dog-lover, it is hard for me not to have considerable sympathy for these tenants. By all accounts, their dog was well-behaved, quiet, and kept his head down and out of trouble. Some would argue that the tenants should not have purchased the property knowing, as they did, about the “no pets” policy. But at the same time, if a lease states that pets can be kept with the consent of the landlord, is there not an implication that there ought to be some compelling reason for not granting consent such as, for example, the type of pet being proposed, the size of the pet, the noise or disturbance that the pet may create, and any other factors that might support a decision not to give consent?
I think unfortunately the tenants in this case are on dubious legal ground. The situation might be different if certain other tenants had already been granted permission to keep dogs in the building and if the tenants could show that the landlord’s decision in relation to their application was inconsistent with a precedent set by earlier decisions. But this does not appear to have been the case in this instance.
It is regrettable that responsible pet owners in charge of well-behaved, well-trained dogs are still faced with what some would class as a form of discrimination but I have to admit, as much as it pains me as a champion of all things canine to say it, the tenants in this particular case bought their flat knowing about the policy and they should perhaps have considered whether this flat was not only appropriate for them, but also for their beloved Vinnie who now faces eviction.
The information contained on this page has been prepared for the purpose of this blog/article only. The content should not be regarded at any time as a substitute for taking legal advice.
Hughes Paddison is delighted to warmly welcome Heidi Aitken to the Equity Partnership. Here we celebrate her career so far and hear about her plans, as an Equity Partner.
What our clients say
“Hughes Paddison have provided assistance on numerous occasions consistently acting in an exemplary fashion whilst dealing with all aspects of the issue at hand. It is extremely reassuring to know that our company is represented by such a competent and professional firm.”– Commercial Director, Ferroli Limited
““Jennifer was most helpful, frequently explaining the legal jargon with ease and doing so in an effective manner. This very much helped me follow along with what at times seemed like a daunting process - Jennifer’s ability to explain things clearly made the whole process much easier to deal with.””– Anon
“Just a quick note to say a huge thankyou to both yourself and Jess for the service that you have given me over the last few months. It all seems to have been done with the minimum of fuss which has certainly taken away an element of stress that comes along with selling your house. I now see why you guys came as a recommendation and look forward to dealing with you both again when we purchase our new house next year.”– Anon
“Just a note to say thank you very much to you and your colleagues for dealing with the sale of our late Mum’s property. The service we received was excellent and you were able to resolve all the problems that cropped up!”– Anon
“Jennifer provided sound professional legal advice which I needed to help me to sort out the legal and financial aspects of a difficult personal situation. I wouldn't hesitate to go to her with any family legal matters I have in future.”– R
“Having the support of Marcus throughout what has been a very painful divorce has really helped me get through the last 18 months. Although this has personally been a very difficult process, I know that Marcus has done everything possible to make it as smooth as it can be. I really appreciate the honest, open feedback to all of my questions and also how quickly he responded to them. Above all else, Marcus really does seem to care about his clients and their families. I never had the feeling that this was just a job for Marcus, and I’m so grateful that I was fortunate enough to have had Marcus recommended to me when I did.”– R
“When you use a solicitor its usually in times of need, when you require expert advice and reassurance. This is exactly what our company has received from Hughes Paddison Solicitors and in particular Kimberly Whalen-Blake. Not only is Kimberly extremely well informed and professional; she is also personable and easy to communicate with. She responds to messages and emails promptly and goes over and above to assist. I would have no hesitation in recommending her services; and in the future, if necessary, I will definitely be calling on her expertise. ”– S - UK Parking Design
“ Hughes Paddison came highly recommended and they were not wrong. I am so glad I appointed Kim to represent me. It was a really difficult time and Kim swiftly and compassionately cut through to the crux of the issue and gave me such clear and great advice immediately. The outcome achieved was truly the best for myself and the organisation and avoided more stress for all parties involved, as it was solved very quickly. Most importantly for me, Kim handled the negotiations. The relief of handing this over to someone I completely trusted made a horrible situation much better. Many thanks to Kim and HP.”– Anon
We use essential cookies to make our site work. We'd also like to set analytics cookies that help us make improvements by measuring how you use the site. Clicking Reject All only enables essential cookies. For more detailed information about the cookies we use, see our Cookies page. For further control over which cookies are set, please click here
Our use of cookies.
You can learn more detailed information in our Privacy Policy
Some cookies are essential, whilst others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. The technology to maintain this privacy management relies on cookie identifiers. Removing or resetting your browser cookies will reset these preferences.
Essential Cookies
These cookies enable core website functionality, and can only be disabled by changing your browser preferences.
Google Analytics cookies help us to understand your experience of the website and do not store any personal data. Click here for a full list of Google Analytics cookies used on this site.
Third-Party cookies are set by our partners and help us to improve your experience of the website. Click here for a full list of third-party plugins used on this site.
Comments