Hello. I or we have a problem. We are a family of 6 with 4 children. All a bit bigger. Now we would like to have all of a family dog. My husband and I also have dog experience. We live on the outskirts of Berlin in a rented apartment in a house with 10 units. Now we have the housing association wrote to the purpose of a license for dog ownership. Is supposed to be permanent, so the official way. This was to our surprise but rejected on the grounds that it in quarter common complaints came for the purpose of dog droppings in parks and barking. Other tenants would probably despite promises not kept it to collect the droppings. It was therefore rejected.
I always thought the owner would have to consider the individual case and may only refuse with good reason. We do not want either a big dog still a fighting dog.
Moreover also other tenants in the house and also in the neighboring house dogs. Whether they are registered and approved I do not know. But what about equality. Understand also much on the Internet as if it were my right a dog hold unless really see why not.
So may be entirely rejecting?
thank you in advance
The best answer
a landlord can the dog ownership after a request to turn down, but need to good, understandable reasons. The he has outlined to you. There is too much dog mess around - so the rejection came therefore, and not in a reason of your family especially betriff.
Of course, you have still a chance. Keep your eyes open, whether and where in the neighborhood now or in the near future feeding a new dog. Speak the owners on whether they have received permission.
Then you have two options:
- The owners - according to your request and denial - get permission, then you can ask the owner why. He can not you deny permission to the above reasons and give to others. He would never get through to trial.
- Have the owner's permission is not - then let you guys complain course the landlord and hope that he gives. But that entails of course for other dog owners (and the dog) is a great danger that the illicit dog must be abolished - and that means unfortunately usually "shelter".
I always thought the owner would have to consider the individual case and may only refuse with good reason. We do not want either a big dog nor a Kampfhund.Also may be entirely rejecting?
He has given a justification, even wen the flat-rate sound is it comprehensible way.
You could try to go to court and there you'll get either legal or not.
Moreover also other tenants in the house and also in the neighboring house dogs. Whether they are registered and approved I do not know. But what about equality.
Especially if there is already more than one dog that's certainly a reason to prohibit a further dog ownership. Just because a dog Other have bedeuetet not mean that You must also keep a dog.
But what about equality.
They do not exist: A common law or a principle of equal treatment knows the Tenancy not simple: -O
You can therefore not claim dog just because it has been approved other.
as if it were to keep a dog unless really what speaks against my law.
Yes, but there are factual reasons were even now put forward: barking. The VM thinks a dog in the house would be enough, believes rightly, expectable dominant least Territorial several dogs leads to complaints and disturbances of tenants peace. And just because he knows the disposal of legacies in the other tenant, he must not take with you.
The landlord may refuse dog ownership when other tenants behaved incorrectly in the past. Question even if it against a dog's fair to keep him in a rented apartment in the city. Depending on the breed and age, and size of the apartment is not necessarily.
So may be entirely rejecting?
The dog ownership was just not entirely rejecting, but with a justification that is comprehensible.
We do not want either a big dog still a fighting dog.
What does that have to do with it? Small dogs pooping and barking too!
Moreover also other tenants in the house and also in the neighboring house dogs.
And? The landlord is not obligated all tenants to be treated equally. And if he allowed 100 dogs, the 101st he can refuse.
You can now sue for approval. Whether this is but conducive to the tenancy, I doubt it.
The reasoning is for Katz.Aber now by a dog goes to purchase not .Klagen could helfen.oder a persöhnliches week.
if the homeowner says "No" then no is ...... he does not have to allow in each apartment a dog etc, which he can freely decide. And there are enough home owner who want no children, you have to then also accept so (if he can justify it) I had until now always lucky I've never come across a landlord who wanted no pets.
In these huts, who call themselves tenements, offers regular, mathematically to be calculated distances people who
- About everything and everyone complain (Babbitt / Asis 1st order) or
- People above a reason to give (Asis 2nd order).
The housing cooperatives (perhaps in Berlin ...) get this running battle between warriors who actually quite different have stored problems and cause only a kind of proxy war, always full from and are therefore trying to - of course without success - to keep everything at bay, which is one reason would be to complain.
One reason you've got anyway. Good? No, not really, it reflects more helplessness than sovereignty, and this is typical)
You can try to deny this reasoning. You can also threaten necessary to go to court, you could even do this. Whether it helps, you can advance no say ... But I think most, an attempt is worth it.
Children brings you in that they have to accept a "No" - How do you bring the your children in, if you do not get the parents as to the series? I am the good contact with my landlord important ... What people do make other, but I'm not verantwortlich..Auch we have dogs in the house that are not approved, but I will stick to my lease, although the desire for a dog is very large. I then just content myself with the dogs of my daughter ...
The rejection is not a lump sum, but justified. Packages would mean that the attitude is generally rejected without explanation.
The landlord can not simply so sweeping ban livestock. See.
http: //www.anwaltsregister.de/Rechtsprechung/Vermieter_duerfen_das_Halten_von_Hu ...
If other tenants have dogs, it does not mean a long time that it applies to everyone. The landlord must the dog ownership also curb, otherwise it would indeed in Hudegebell unparalleled ausarten.Da Looks like you're at a disadvantage. Or you look for another apartment.