mission

Hi there, i was wondering if anyone would know what the legal stance would be on the following:

there is an apartment which i absolutely love and i want to lease for the year, it's in a brand new building which has just come on the market - currently the building is barely 10% occupied.

According to the owners association the building is a 'no pets building' (i have a small chihuahua). The owner of the apartment which i want to lease has absolutely no objection to me leasing the unit with a pet. The building's management have also said pets are allowed as long as one uses the service lift when taking the pet in and out of the building.

If i was to move in, whats the worse that could happen - ie could i get evicted and where would I stand legally?

Any infor/advice would be appreciated - thanks.

DXBtoDOH

Yeah, it's one of those grey areas.

I know people who have lived for years in "no-pets" buildings and happily had pets. One of my friends had cats in his no-pet building and once there was a sign in the elevator reminding tenants to clean up after their dogs (outside) or the management would be forced to enforce the no-pet clause in their contracts. Apparently people got the point quickly and he's still living there happily with his cats.

It's probably still a risk because it does mean that the management could suddenly decide to genuinely enforce the clause and you'd be stuck because your contract would explicitly say no pets despite any verbal agreements. It's easier to keep cats as you don't have to take them out for walks.

Frankly, I'd just look for another apartment in a building that does accept pets from the get go so I'd never have to worry about a sudden turnaround.

mission

thanks DXB - the tenancy contract itself has no clause to say 'no pets' allowed. This is why i am wondering what the legal stance would be, if push came to shove.

It's been a nightmare trying to find another apartment (i am still trying too), as soon as i saw this one, i literally feel in love with it, which is why i am thinking of the worse possible scenario.

Realistically i find it very hard to believe that a building which is almost 90 flrs high, with several units on each flr, is not going to have a number of families with some sort of pet, by the time the building is fully occupied.

I'm at a point where i am willing to move in and if the worse comes to the worse and they evict me, that's fine, as long as as they give me my due notice and am refunded the remainder of my lease.....this is what i am trying to find out from a legal stand point.

scrubbedexpat141

Worst case scenario is you'll have to fight any issues.

IF you lose, you'll have to pick the apartment or the dog.

My building is no pets - they have signs up saying so, but it doesn't stop anyone, ever. People take their dogs out past the security guys and nobody says anything.

The posters / warnings only reappear when some **** lets their animal shit or piss in the lift and just leaves it.

Eeyore

Our building in DG was officially no pets, but one guy on the ground floor had two dogs. They never made noise, but they'd crap around the outside of the building and it would often just get left there. After a while both dogs disappeared.

Undoubtedly the security guards were scared of him. He was a violent-looking Western bloke, almost the visual stereotype of the built-like-a-brick-sh*thouse tattooed *****wit. I know that I was always polite to him, just in case. He and his wife rode Harleys that made a noise loud enough to split concrete. Always fun when they arrived home late or left early.

mission

thanks guys....after making further queries with independent sources and RERA, there is no legal jurisdiction that I could be evicted (worse case scenario) - however RERA did advise to check what the contract says between the developer and the owner ie if there is a clause specifically stating no pets will be allowed in the unit/building....which I have done, and there is no such clause in his property contract, and so the most the developer can do is fine the landlord who in turn would pass the fine to me (I assume).
However the amount of the fine is entirely up to the developer. I guess no one knows of anyone how has been fined and how much?
It appears there are a number of buildings which are meant to be 'no pet building' but families have kept pets, and it's only an issue if and when animal poo is left around, or the animal is causing a nuisance to the other residents.
I think I'm going to blow caution to the wind and go for this apartment, the landlord has no issues, contract wise i'll be on solid ground and as SCAMP pointed out IF an issue arises, i'll have to deal with it.

Millhouse

does a chihuahua count? I've owned bigger hamsters.

mikewot

Hhhmmm, I had you down as a cat lady, at least half a dozen.

scot47

Some of us cannot bear to be separated from our familiars.
"Familiar" in this sense -
http://www.witchcraftandwitches.com/terms_familiar.html

mission

apparently so

mission

WTF lol
Although I do have a kitten

mission

quick update.....after much to'ing and fro'ing....it transpired that there was a clause in the owner's purchase agreement re no pets are allowed in the unit...not even a cat....so I was unable to take the apartment....feeling well gutted....bloody b*stards!

mikewot

And the other side of the coin is that people who do not enjoy other peoples pets will be sighing in relief in finding a building which does not allow the yowling critters in it

mission

Max (my Chihuahua) is a gem - he a good boy, just like his owner so no disturbance to other residents.

Millhouse

I wonder where the rule stops?

Hamsters, Bearded Dragons, Fish, an ant factory...