PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING
Hello Forumites! In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non-MoneySaving matters are not permitted per the Forum rules. While we understand that mentioning house prices may sometimes be relevant to a user's specific MoneySaving situation, we ask that you please avoid veering into broad, general debates about the market, the economy and politics, as these can unfortunately lead to abusive or hateful behaviour. Threads that are found to have derailed into wider discussions may be removed. Users who repeatedly disregard this may have their Forum account banned. Please also avoid posting personally identifiable information, including links to your own online property listing which may reveal your address. Thank you for your understanding.Chickens & s.12 Allotments Act 1950
Options
Comments
-
Section 12 is explicit that the right to keep chickens exists irrespective of any clause in a tenancy etc. So the tenancy cannot over-ride statute. Neither can a local bye-law over-ride statute.
I would be a bit more prudent here, Yorkie1.
Section 12 only states that any contractual provision or covenant against keeping rabbits or hens is of no effect.
IMHO that would indeed cover the property's deeds, but not any byelaws, which are not contractual obligations but indeed the law (and breaching them is a criminal offence), and thus would stand and prevent you from keeping these animals.0 -
Indeed jj:
And of course whilst tenant could keep bunnies landlord could try evicting for breach-of-tenancy-terms (can't see that working but you never know, tenant may not turn up & landlord have other ammo to use to Judge...)
Ah, wish I'd done law... fascinating innitt eh???0 -
Actually, on further reflection about the bye-laws point, and re-reading s.12, I tend to agree with you. Bye-laws cannot over-ride statute, but as jjlandlord says, s.12 isn't written that way.
A penalty could / would be prosecution for breach of bye-law rather than being sued for breach of tenancy [although obviously a s.21 notice can always be issued because that is non-fault based].
Good point and thanks for making it.0 -
I just want to say I found it fascinating to read all your posts as I am too am looking for some legal loophole for a similar problem. I was under the impression that you could however as a law student I have always been told to read all annexes of any Acts, statues or other which relate to that particular which led me to the annex of The Allotments Act of 1950 Appendix 2: Modern Allotments Legislation and right down at the bottom it quoted:
"The Department now having supervisory powers over allotments authorities in England is the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions. Formerly, allotments were the responsibility of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. The functions were transferred by S.I. 1970, No. 1681."
This unfortunately means the The Allotments Act 1950 has been revised and the actual 1950 Act will no longer be relevant.0 -
rayerayesunshine wrote: »This unfortunately means the The Allotments Act 1950 has been revised and the actual 1950 Act will no longer be relevant.
What you have quoted is not relevant.
It does not change the fact that the Allotments Act 1950, and specifically section 12, is still law.0 -
jjlandlord wrote: »What you have quoted is not relevant.
It does not change the fact that the Allotments Act 1950, and specifically section 12, is still law.
Sorry to bring up an old thread, I came across the allotment act then searched more and found this thread which generally concludes how I read section 12. I looked it up because my covenant says I can't have poultry in the garden.
I agree with the above quoted, that it's not relevant. The post by rayerayesunshine was very misinforming as "Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions" was established in 1997 and disolved in 2001. It was replaced by "Department for Communities and Local Government", "Department for Environment", "Food & Rural Affairs" and "Department for Transport".
As mentioned though, generally irrelevant to the topic and section 12 of the allotment act fortunately over rules my restrictive covenant in the deeds of a property I am buying. I've just contacted the local council the property is in to ask if there is any Bye-law's prohibiting me from having hens in a coop in my back garden. Fingers crossed!0 -
Sorry to bring up an old thread, I came across the allotment act then searched more and found this thread which generally concludes how I read section 12. I looked it up because my covenant says I can't have poultry in the garden.
I agree with the above quoted, that it's not relevant. The post by rayerayesunshine was very misinforming as "Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions" was established in 1997 and disolved in 2001. It was replaced by "Department for Communities and Local Government", "Department for Environment", "Food & Rural Affairs" and "Department for Transport".
As mentioned though, generally irrelevant to the topic and section 12 of the allotment act fortunately over rules my restrictive covenant in the deeds of a property I am buying. I've just contacted the local council the property is in to ask if there is any Bye-law's prohibiting me from having hens in a coop in my back garden. Fingers crossed!
RRS's post was indeed just plain wrong, as confirmed by JJL.
Section 12 will over-ride the restrictive covenant and any bye-laws.
The trouble with s.12 is that it is not frequently known of, and you can end up fighting lengthy and even costly battles with others who don't understand its provisions and who seek to enforce the covenants / bye-laws etc. This could even lead to you having to declare a neighbour dispute if you ever wished to sell, if it's the neighbours who kick up an ill-informed fuss in principle.
The other point about s.12 is that it is not an absolute right to keep chickens - in the sense that you must always be careful of not causing a statutory nuisance.0 -
Sorry to bring up an old thread, I came across the allotment act then searched more and found this thread which generally concludes how I read section 12. I looked it up because my covenant says I can't have poultry in the garden.
I agree with the above quoted, that it's not relevant. The post by rayerayesunshine was very misinforming as "Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions" was established in 1997 and disolved in 2001. It was replaced by "Department for Communities and Local Government", "Department for Environment", "Food & Rural Affairs" and "Department for Transport".
As mentioned though, generally irrelevant to the topic and section 12 of the allotment act fortunately over rules my restrictive covenant in the deeds of a property I am buying. I've just contacted the local council the property is in to ask if there is any Bye-law's prohibiting me from having hens in a coop in my back garden. Fingers crossed!
Doesn't really matter.
"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise any
hens or rabbits to be kept in such a place or in such a manner as
to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance or affect the operation
of any enactment"
The second someone complains about noise or smell they are a nuisance and the act cant help you anymore.
So by all means use the act to get the chickens there in the first place, but be prepared to get rid of them after a few complaints.0 -
martinsurrey wrote: »The second someone complains about noise or smell they are a nuisance and the act cant help you anymore.
At law, there would need to be much more than that.
The Act allows hens, so as long as you keep a couple of them in a proper coop at the end of the garden it would be near impossible for a court to deem this a nuisance or risk to health.
Essentially, you would have to be unreasonable in some way to have problems.0 -
martinsurrey wrote: »Doesn't really matter.
"Provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise any
hens or rabbits to be kept in such a place or in such a manner as
to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance or affect the operation
of any enactment"
The second someone complains about noise or smell they are a nuisance and the act cant help you anymore.
.Miss_Samantha wrote: »At law, there would need to be much more than that.
The Act allows hens, so as long as you keep a couple of them in a proper coop at the end of the garden it would be near impossible for a court to deem this a nuisance or risk to health.
Essentially, you would have to be unreasonable in some way to have problems.
I've known a few domestic chicken keepers who had a neighbour that made complaints to the local council (environmental health) about the fact they kept chickens. EH came out and backed up the chicken keeper each time, as the birds were being kept in safe, sanitary conditions that did not breach the threshold of causing a statutory nuisance.
Miss Samantha is correct; in law, a few complaints - without there actually being a statutory nuisance - will not suffice.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.8K Spending & Discounts
- 235.5K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.4K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.2K Life & Family
- 248.1K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards