The team at Bishop & Sewell tell us about Vinnie- the innocent pet caught in a ‘no pets’ lease dispute.
Britain has a long history of being a nation of animals lovers and, in 1824, Britain was the first country in the world to set up an animal welfare charity (the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals). In 2020, with around 20M cats and dogs having loving homes, it is a badge that we as a nation wear proudly.
But what happens when your lease is clearly marked “No Pets”?
Most leases in the England and Wales will have some form of restriction on keeping pets in a flat, perhaps along the lines of “Not to keep any animal or bird on the Property without the prior written consent of the Landlord, which consent may be revoked at any time”.
Most people will seek the Landlord’s approval for their pet and obtain it.
But what happens when there is a conflict between a refusing landlord and leaseholder’s dog?
Believe it or not, there was a recent case on just such a matter. The case involves Mr and Mrs Kuehn and their terrier called Vinnie. The story captured the attention of both the national and local press at the time, as it is one of the few cases in which a “no pets clause” in a residential lease was litigated to such an extent (all the way to the High Court).
Mr and Mrs Kuehn purchased their flat in Limehouse, East London in 2015. The lease they bought contained a term stating –
“No dog bird cat or other animal or reptile shall be kept in the [Property] without the written consent of [the Management Company].”
Mr and Mrs Kuehn claimed that when they bought the property, they were told by the estate agent that their pet could stay, this sadly turned out not to be the case. Upon learning that the Mr and Mrs Kuehn had brought their dog into the property, the management company obtained a court order ordering the Vinnie the dog’s removal. Mr and MrsKuehn appealed this court order to the High Court.
The issue raised was whether the Management Company had complied with its implied obligation to deal with the leaseholders’ request reasonably. The argument advanced was that the blanket ‘no pet’ policy amounted to an illegitimate prejudgment of the issue and was unreasonable.
Sadly, the High Court ultimately held that the management company’s policy was not unreasonable nor unfair. When considering Mr and Mrs Kuehn’s request, it was quite reasonable to take into account the views of the majority of the other leaseholders in the building (who all supported the ban).
The management company had said that it would have taken in account any pressing medical concerns, as in the case of support/service animals, but this was not the case in this matter. The High Court held that the court order should remain, and Vinnie should be removed.
I asked Bishop & Sewell’s in-house canine law expert, Maisie the Golden Doodle, what she thought of the situation:
“For the average dog (and leaseholder) this case is a ruff reminder that while you may be told something about a property, unless it is supported by the lease, it may not be true. I would advise all dogs to ensure that their owners are aware of the terms of their lease and engage with the landlord so as to avoid the fate of Vinnie the terrier.”
