Timeline for UK: What constitutes reasonable consent for not allowing tenants to keep a pet?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 13, 2018 at 8:48 | vote | accept | Jason | ||
| Nov 10, 2017 at 14:06 | comment | added | AndyT | @phoog - Ok. Thanks for commenting, it brought me back to this question so I researched and answered it properly. My research confirmed that you are correct, and a lack of stated reason makes the refusal unreasonable. | |
| Nov 10, 2017 at 13:58 | comment | added | phoog | @AndyT I'm not trying to be droll. I suppose a court might find that a good but undisclosed reason meets the requirements of the lease, but I don't expect that it would be likely. I don't know whether there is precedent for that. I did once manage to get out of a lease in New York on that line of thinking, however, because of a statutory clause forbidding the unreasonable withholding of consent to assignment and a refusal, without a stated reason, to consider any application for assignment. | |
| Nov 10, 2017 at 10:34 | answer | added | AndyT | timeline score: 3 | |
| Nov 10, 2017 at 4:58 | comment | added | phoog | @AndyT it seems to me that because the consent was withheld without giving a reason, it was "unreasonably withheld." | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 11:17 | comment | added | user4657 | Well, what would be the most reasonable way of fixing the broken clause - removing the bit that shouldn't be there but leave the bit that conveys the intent you were agreeable to, or scrapping the entire thing on a small technicality? Such a protection may be afforded even if not explicitly made part of the agreement. | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 10:16 | comment | added | Jason | @Nij - (New edited answer) I just searched through the contract for every occurrence of the word 'clause', I also read the start and beginning of the contract for anything that suggests what you said and wasn't able to find anything. If this is indeed the case would the entire clause be invalid and therefore buying the bird would not be in breach of the contract? | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 9:47 | comment | added | user4657 | On a minor tangent, your tenancy agreement is likely to include a clause such that any illegitimate clause is modified to the extent it is legitimate, and does not impact on legitimacy of any other clause except so far as that clause is independently illegitimate (i.e. the "no pets" bit is read without the inclusion of cats or dogs, and this does not change anything else about the agreement). | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 9:39 | review | First posts | |||
| Jul 18, 2017 at 12:52 | |||||
| Jul 18, 2017 at 9:35 | history | asked | Jason | CC BY-SA 3.0 |