Cases

I manage over three hundred residential units across Greater Manchester, and this is the dispute I mediate more than any other. A tenant signs a tenancy agreement with a clear no-pets clause, then months later we discover they have been keeping a cat or a small dog. The animal is well cared for, neighbours have not complained, and the flat shows no damage. The tenant says the clause is a formality, that the pet is part of the family, and that enforcing it now would be petty. The landlord says a signed agreement is a signed agreement, and that if this clause is ignored, every other clause is negotiable. Both are reasonable people. The legal position is not really in doubt: in England and Wales the clause is enforceable, and a breach can lead to possession proceedings. But I have seen what happens when a technically correct eviction destroys a stable tenancy over a hamster. I am asking the jury to tell me what is fair, not just what is lawful. When an explicit contractual term is broken in a way that harms no one, does the landlord owe it to the agreement to enforce it, or does the tenant owe it to the landlord to have asked first?