Block management sent letter stating that no pets are allowed?

The lease actually doesn’t trump everything. The block managers can not impose a blanket ban. It would be a problem under both Disability Discrimination Act and possibly Human Rights Act (right to a family life).
Every case needs individual consideration and in the blocks we manage, we allow pets which are not an impact to others (fish etc) and dogs if there is a letter of support from a Doctor.

Reply to the comment left by Blodwyn at 30/06/2025 – 11:11
Not quite true.

All that needs to be applied is that is it REASONABLE to withhold consent for pets

Reply to the comment left by Kizzie at 30/06/2025 – 14:00
One is grateful to M’Lud!

So, what if a Head Lease drawn up in the late 1940s contained an explicit clause stating: “Strictly no Germans allowed”?
Could this really be included in a rental advert and form part of a Tenancy Agreement?

Reply to the comment left by Ian Cognito at 30/06/2025 – 14:43
Probably not but as landlord you could say, ‘my Lease says this so I don’t dare go against it but if you want to take it to court be my guest. Until there’s a ruling my hands are tied.

Apply to First Tier Tribunal for a deed of variation to be agreed by all parties to the lease and includes the freeholder (it’s their property). The freeholder cannot unreasonably withhold consent BUTthere are leases which stipulate that leaseholders are to be from a specific group.

Anyone know what happens in the case of a freehold block of flats owned jointly by two individuals (not a Ltd company)
Assuming if one freeholder formally objects then its ‘reasonable’ to refuse on this basis because it is about ALL tenants rights to quiet enjoyment not just one persons ‘right’ over another.

the best excuse for ‘reasonable’ grounds to refuse is in as a direct result of discriminatory legislation itself!
It is UNREASONABLE that a landlord has to agree to a pet request when there is no evidence that can be provided to show that the tenant has the ability to pay for any damages that could be caused to the property as a result of the pet being allowed to inhabit the space
A contract was offered AND ACCEPTED by both parties and a deposit taken to set aside monies for any potential damages to the property on the circumstances known at the time. (which did not include a pet)
As the law prohibits the landlord requesting or accepting a specific ‘pet damage’ deposit, nor allows the tenant to be asked to provide pet insurance, there is no obligation for the landlord to accept any amendments be made to the contract due to the imbalance of fairness due to unequal terms.

Reply to the comment left by Judith Wordsworth at 30/06/2025 – 14:25
The LL gives a ‘reasonable’ reply to decline a request for a pet the LL within the time allowed to reply then as far as I am concerned that’s the LL’s bit done.

It is down to the T to accept this or challenge it. If they wish to challenge then THEY must provide evidence to show the LL decision is ‘UNreasonable’. If this is the way they wish to go it wont look great if they then decide to get the pet anyway in the interim.

This would be grounds for a tenancy breach, regardless of the outcome of the ‘challenge’.

I’d therefore be inclined to serve them notice of possession at the same time as T is informed that their request is declined.

The types of discrimination that the Human Rights Act protects you from…

The Human Rights Act makes it illegal to discriminate on a wide range of grounds including ‘sex, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, PROPERTY, birth or other status’.

Property:
This refers to a person’s possessions or wealth. Discrimination based on property is prohibited.

Protection of property – protocol 1, article 1
This right means public authorities have a duty not to interfere with your property unless it’s in accordance with the law and in the public interest.

Property includes things like:
residential property and land
your business
intellectual property like a patent
shares
things you own like books, a car and furniture.

So looks like a LL can quote the HR Act as ‘reasonable’ justification to deny a request to have a pet in a rental property…No ‘public interest’ issue if I say no to a dog as its a private contractual arrangement.