I'm a leasehold flat owner/resident. Residents are currently in process of putting together an RTM company and have appointed a new management company which is expected to take control from the current management company in December 2017. We are a block of 38 flats. The current management company happens to be the wife of the landlord so right from the beginning we've had problems in communicating information, what we are entitled to know and have, what not etc. We've decided to opt for an RTM company. I'm a pet owner and before I moved in I obtained a pet consent from the landlord and I'm the only one in the building with one. The lease states that no pets are allowed without consent by the landlord and this may be revoked at any time. Having a consent was a condition for me when I was buying my flat. My consent states that my consent may be revoked if there are nuisance complaints. To give you some context, the dog is a small poodle and very well behaved. I'm a responsible owner who works from home so I'm with the dog 24/7 and have never given the right to any resident to complain. Of course not everyone likes dogs, however no one has expressed any complaints. To date. Now, last week we received a very intimidating letter form the landlord, who has been stroppy from what we hear providing information to the new appointed company, stating that, amongst other inaccurate information, any permissions given for pets (and I'm the only one) will be revoked because they will not be able to monitor if their assets (residences) own a pet or not. I questioned that to the landlord since my consent has been in effect since permitted (Sept 2015) but also that it can only be revoked if there were nuisance complaints and not just decide unilaterally to revoke it whilst in effect because of the above reason. He did not respond.
Today, I received another more intimidating email from the management company (his wife) suggesting that they had nuisance complaints. They did not proceed to substantiate this statement with anything more than that and I started questioning whether this is just and factual and that I find it ridiculously coincidental with the fact we are transitioning to RTM and they are trying to go down whichever path they feel appropriate to cause trouble and make things difficult.
Moreover, management company wrote in a very bold closing statement that because I've questioned to find out the nature of these nuisance complaints in order to remedy the situation by offering to discuss with each and every resident (eventhough I think it's a whole load of crap and a made up lie citing this as a last resort to attempt to have my consent revoked) implies I'm directly and categorically refusing to comply with the terms of my lease and that they will see to take action against me!! To me this is an unjust and false accusation when in reality what I'm trying to do is get to the bottom of this. This comes from a management company that has always been taking one-sided approach for obvious reasons to every single complaint and issue residents ever raised. It would almost appear that emails are probably written by the landlord himself signed by the management company. Because he can! In addition, the email was marked "without prejudice" in an effort to protect themselves potentially in court and was dismissed in their closing statement saying they have nothing to further discuss with me and that is that! My reply to them bounced back - it is obvious they are making every effort to silence me.
Although I'm well aware that even after transition the new managing agent will be enforcing the lease agreement in any way possible, I feel as the only pet owner I'm caught in the middle being accused unfairly about something with no substantial evidence just because they want to make this transition difficult for us because the landlord is against it.
As such, I would like to be advised, how does the law protect me in this case?
1) which takes precedence? the lease agreement clause about no pets allowed without permission which can be revoked at any time or the pet consent which was offered to me on the basis of the condition there would be no nuisance complaints? if the former, should there not be fair and just reasons before such action is taken? how does the law protect me?and what constitutes a nuisance? what to nuisance is to one, might not be to another
2) based on my pet consent condition, the landlord can cite nuisance complaints out of the sudden without founded evidence whenever they feel like it. Again, what can I do in this case and how does the law protect my pet consent right if I have no way of proving who complained and according to them this information cannot be shared with because of "data protection?
Lastly, I don't want to reside in fear of intimidation and threats by the landlord or management company but if I'm forced to put up my property for sale because of the stress suffered, how does the law protect me?