Hi all,
I am a Brit living in Belgium and I have just signed a new lease. The landlord waited until the very last minute to provide us with the contract (only had 15 minutes to review it). He knew that I had to be out of my current apartment in a matter of days, so knew I was in a position where I had to sign.
Unfortunately, there were a number of additional requirements listed which I do not agree with, including a clause that if I have a pet I need notify to obtain permission and pay €50 A MONTH.
I know that in Belgian law no-pet clauses in residential leases to be unreasonable, abusive, and contrary to public order, and have consequently declared them null and void. It is seen to infringe tenants’ fundamental rights to privacy and to inviolability of the home.
I understand that I signed the contract so will most likely have to accept that I need to pay to own a pet if I wish to, however, are there any lawyers out there who can confirm this?
If a no-pet clause is an infringement on my rights, then surely making me pay to have a pet is also unreasonable/a barrier to me exercising my right?
Thanks
I am a Brit living in Belgium and I have just signed a new lease. The landlord waited until the very last minute to provide us with the contract (only had 15 minutes to review it). He knew that I had to be out of my current apartment in a matter of days, so knew I was in a position where I had to sign.
Unfortunately, there were a number of additional requirements listed which I do not agree with, including a clause that if I have a pet I need notify to obtain permission and pay €50 A MONTH.
I know that in Belgian law no-pet clauses in residential leases to be unreasonable, abusive, and contrary to public order, and have consequently declared them null and void. It is seen to infringe tenants’ fundamental rights to privacy and to inviolability of the home.
I understand that I signed the contract so will most likely have to accept that I need to pay to own a pet if I wish to, however, are there any lawyers out there who can confirm this?
If a no-pet clause is an infringement on my rights, then surely making me pay to have a pet is also unreasonable/a barrier to me exercising my right?
Thanks