Lease agreement and pets!!

hellokitty2016 · 06-05-2016 1:25pm #1

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 · 06-05-2016 1:27pm

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 · 06-05-2016 1:32pm

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 · 06-05-2016 1:46pm

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 · 06-05-2016 1:49pm

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 · 06-05-2016 1:56pm

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 · 06-05-2016 1:56pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:05pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:14pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:18pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:23pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:27pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:33pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:39pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:42pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:43pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:44pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:49pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:49pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:50pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:52pm

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 · 06-05-2016 2:56pm

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 · 06-05-2016 3:02pm

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 · 06-05-2016 3:05pm

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

Tiddlypeeps · 06-05-2016 3:08pm

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 · 06-05-2016 3:13pm

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 · 06-05-2016 3:23pm

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 · 06-05-2016 3:27pm

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 · 06-05-2016 3:30pm

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 · 06-05-2016 3:32pm

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 · 06-05-2016 3:36pm

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?

intheclouds · 06-05-2016 3:46pm

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.

MarkAnthony · 06-05-2016 3:51pm

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.

intheclouds · 06-05-2016 3:54pm

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.

Tiddlypeeps · 06-05-2016 3:54pm

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.

MarkAnthony · 06-05-2016 3:56pm

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?

intheclouds · 06-05-2016 4:10pm

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.

Little CuChulainn · 06-05-2016 4:15pm

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.

MarkAnthony · 06-05-2016 4:16pm

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.

Paulw · 06-05-2016 4:34pm

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.

DivingDuck · 06-05-2016 5:33pm

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?

Discodog · 06-05-2016 5:45pm

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.

stoplooklisten · 06-05-2016 5:46pm

You are not allowed pets which cause disturbance to you neighbours

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

DivingDuck · 06-05-2016 6:06pm

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.

Little CuChulainn · 06-05-2016 10:54pm

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.

MarkAnthony · 07-05-2016 1:01am

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.

athtrasna · 07-05-2016 7:53am

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.

Paulw · 07-05-2016 8:46am

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.

campingcarist · 07-05-2016 9:05am

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.

Lease agreement and pets!!

Comments