The tussle on keeping pets

A small number of the numerous landlords that provide the housing services know the legal provision that allows tenants to keep pets; this comes as a warning to the landlords who have imposed a no pet policy in their property. The provision was unearthed by the recent case of a tenant who was breeding chicken as pets after the landlord took some action against her from apparently breaching the agreement of the tenancy, she has the pets in her home in the greater Manchester which is leased by the New Charter Housing trust. In the court she argued that the contracts wording did not by any provision apply to the pets that she was keeping, the loophole was very evident and the judgement could not avoid the overwhelming nature of the mistakes in the contractual agreement.

The argument was in par with the provisions in the section 12 of the Allotment Acts 1950 as the judges would later check which nullified any form of policy that was against pets in a short term tenant- landlord lease program. In accordance to the said act, a tenant as every right to keep animals in the compound and more importantly place buildings in the same land that he/she is in possession of at the time. The right though as limitations which include: the pets should not be kept for the reason of business- selling eggs will nullify the claim, and secondly is the pets area nuisance then the landlord can use his/her policy.

It is important for the landlord to note that the law has provisions to empower the tenant-leasee- of the property which means it is very easy to lose claims to the tenant in a court of law. The laws are made to lift the pressure of the tenants since they are regarded as the minority in the sense of power and control over the property they are using, the court case come as a wake up call for the housing trust.  The spokesman of the trust had to acknowledge the tenant for bringing the provision to their attention but insisted that the other agreements on the contract should be keenly adhered to without fail.

Ms Brooks (name of the tenant) was allowed to keep the chicken but on condition that other regulations were followed, the landlords need to be conversant with the nature of the rights that the tenants have in regard to the property in order to avoid the altercations and abuse of the rights. The landlord relationship though is very rigid in the past years, the landlords are imposing very unreasonable rules that infringe on the tenants freedom to what they want with the property. The regulations are now hitting the roof with some against friends in the house, handing the curtains, hanging pictures on the wall or even repainting, the landlords seem to be using emotions to run the tenancy instead of logic and understanding. The war is likely to escalate revealing more provisions for both the tenant and the landlord.

A small number of the numerous landlords that provide the housing services know the legal provision that allows tenants to keep pets; this comes as a warning to the landlords who have imposed a no pet policy in their property. The provision was unearthed by the recent case of a tenant who was breeding chicken as pets after the landlord took some action against her from apparently breaching the agreement of the tenancy, she has the pets in her home in the greater Manchester which is leased by the New Charter Housing trust. In the court she argued that the contracts wording did not by any provision apply to the pets that she was keeping, the loophole was very evident and the judgement could not avoid the overwhelming nature of the mistakes in the contractual agreement.

The argument was in par with the provisions in the section 12 of the Allotment Acts 1950 as the judges would later check which nullified any form of policy that was against pets in a short term tenant- landlord lease program. In accordance to the said act, a tenant as every right to keep animals in the compound and more importantly place buildings in the same land that he/she is in possession of at the time. The right though as limitations which include: the pets should not be kept for the reason of business- selling eggs will nullify the claim, and secondly is the pets area nuisance then the landlord can use his/her policy.

It is important for the landlord to note that the law has provisions to empower the tenant-leasee- of the property which means it is very easy to lose claims to the tenant in a court of law. The laws are made to lift the pressure of the tenants since they are regarded as the minority in the sense of power and control over the property they are using, the court case come as a wake up call for the housing trust.  The spokesman of the trust had to acknowledge the tenant for bringing the provision to their attention but insisted that the other agreements on the contract should be keenly adhered to without fail.

Ms Brooks (name of the tenant) was allowed to keep the chicken but on condition that other regulations were followed, the landlords need to be conversant with the nature of the rights that the tenants have in regard to the property in order to avoid the altercations and abuse of the rights. The landlord relationship though is very rigid in the past years, the landlords are imposing very unreasonable rules that infringe on the tenants freedom to what they want with the property. The regulations are now hitting the roof with some against friends in the house, handing the curtains, hanging pictures on the wall or even repainting, the landlords seem to be using emotions to run the tenancy instead of logic and understanding. The war is likely to escalate revealing more provisions for both the tenant and the landlord.