Block management sent letter stating that no pets are allowed?

There's a difference between the block management stating something isn't allowed vs it being explicitly stated in the Lease. Assuming the Lease says no pets, I would take it to be a reasonable excuse.

I would try to deflect any conflict over this so that the tenant and the Freeholder end up arguing in Court and not you.

'My hands are tied by the Lease. If you want to take it up with the Freeholder go head but I can't contravene my Lease terms.'

But I'm not a lawyer so just an opinion.

A landlord can refuse pets if the superior landlord has a restriction in the lease that prohibits pets in any of the flats. This would be considered a reasonable basis for refusal in the upcoming Renters' Rights Bill. It would also make sense in densely populated blocks, where other residents have occupied the building on the basis that the no pets clause be observed.

If there's nothing in the lease, the block managers have no authority to impose a ban.

I am not an expert in property law or leases but the following occur to me:
1. Many leases or tenancy agreements have a no-pets clause
2. That was enforceable
3. A Law passed by Parliament trumps anything agreed in a lease whenever agreed?
4. A no-pets clause has been rendered ineffective by force of law?

As stated in the previous comments.

The Lease is paramount for the does and do nots.

All flats in England are managed by the lease . So if the lease says no then no government legislation is going to overrule the Lease.

So if you wish to rent a flat and have a pet forget it if the Lease says NO.

The previous comment says that the trumps the Lease . That is incorrect.

To be honest a dog in a flat is unacceptable.

Pat Simpson is correct and I understand that the proposed legislation supports a lease prohibition as 'a reasonable excuse' to refuse dogs and other pets. However, I'm sure this will become a bone of contention (pardon the pun). For new letting I suggest including the lease provision in the tenancy agreement. I'm surprised that the animal charities haven't weighed in to support a pet ban.

Reply to the comment left by Pat Simpson at 30/06/2025 - 11:14You state that 'The previous comment says that the [Law] trumps the Lease . That is incorrect.',
Has your statement been tested in a Court of Law?
It has always been my understanding that the will of Parliament is paramount.

Pat Simpson is correct. A lease is legally binding on the parties to it. No-0ne else can interpret the covenants and that includes the courts, a Supreme Court judgment in I think 2015. It makes no difference how the wording may seem odd, it has to do exactly what the wording states is the original intention of the parties.
Bear in mind many leases have a mortgage and the lease is the asset /security on which the sum is lent.
Any new law always affects leases not yet agreed.

If a Head Lease doesn't allow pets then this is a reason to REASONABLY withhold consent

If a Lease doesn't allow pets then this is a reason to REASONABLY withhold consent

If a decision at an AGM was made in respect of not allowing pets that is also a valid ground to REASONABLY refuse and withhold consent for pets to reside in the building in the absence of a Head Lease.

If any owner-occupier or landlord of any flat in the building, or occupant of a flat, or any visitors to the building (which includes delivery people, postmen, tradesmen or contractors etc have allergies to pets eg cats/dogs/birds/reptiles/rodents then this is a valid reason to REASONABLY withhold consent and refuse any requests for pets.

If the building isn’t soundproofed, usually the case with conversions, and some pets may be a vocal nuisance to occupants of the building this is a valid reasonable ground for REASONABLY withholding consent and refusing any requests.