Notice to Quit - So upset

jamesd

You mean other than knowing how to read parts of acts in their correct context, the Stationary Office and the Thorpe Report all giving its correct application and it originating in a report about allotment legislation that recommended changes to the law covering them? You can't go picking odd bits of a statute out and claiming wider application than the area the statute is covering.

You don't like the correct application, I assume. While I'm not affected either way, other than wanting people to correctly understand what the law really says.

If you really do want more detail on this, Hansard is where you'll find it.

jjlandlord

What the law really says has been quoted to you several times, but you seem to have decided to ignore it.

The stationary office page you linked to does not say anything to support your argument.
The same goes for the Thorpe report.

If you believe the statute quoted to you says something else than what is quite apparent, you must show references that specifically address the issue. Best would be a case law, which would be an authoritative interpretation.

What you quoted at best shows that section 12 applies to allotment gardens. Everyone agrees on that since that section states that it applies to any tenancy and any land.

We would be more interested in references explaining how 'any' could mean 'allotment gardens only'...

Solicitors seem to agree that 'any' does mean 'any'.
Just 2 examples:
http://www.morrlaw.com/news/pet-hates-the-landlords-guide-to-avoiding-creature-discomfort
http://nearlylegal.co.uk/blog/2011/04/oh-cluck/

jamesd

I've read the text but I don't ignore the context in which it exists or the other official descriptions of when it applies. That's why I suggest looking at Hansard, which will presumably have the reasons for that part of the Act existing and whether it was or was not intended to apply beyond the context of the allotments report that led to the Allotments Act.

The blog post about the Brooks and Cole case links to this story that gives more reason for the decision in relation to them: "Her cousin, Stuart Cole, asked the housing association to consider the case under the Provision of Allotment Act, which states hens are allowed on all council owned allotments in England and Wales. New Charter agreed that Ms Brooks could keep the two birds"

The Morrisons solicitors page is much more interesting. Thanks for linking to it. I have some reservations about it because it incorrectly says that it is something left over from World War II legislation when the legislation didn't arrive until five years after the war in 1950.

I doubt whether this disagreement over when it applies is going to be resolvable without something like Hansard's records that may or may not say that it's supposed to apply beyond the allotments context.

But don't take my disagreeing with you as anything fundamental that won't change given some official record of what that part of the Act is covering. If Hansard says it's supposed to apply beyond allotments I'll switch to agreeing with you.

It's all still moot for Tygermoth, though, since the tenancy there is an AST and the new one probably will be also, and in that situation the landlord can just decline to create the tenancy or give notice. I hope that they can find a suitable place for both them and the animals they keep.

jjlandlord

jamesd wrote: »

I've read the text but I don't ignore the context in which it exists or the other official descriptions of when it applies. That's why I suggest looking at Hansard, which will presumably have the reasons for that part of the Act existing and whether it was or was not intended to apply beyond the context of the allotments report that led to the Allotments Act.

The issue that whatever was intended or discussed does not matter any more. What matters is how the statute is drafted.

Note that the Act is split in several parts.
The first one entitled "Allotments", a second one "Abolition of contractual restrictions on keeping hens and rabbits" that contains section 12, and a third one "Supplementary".
Based on that it is not straightforward to argue that section 12 was intended to apply to allotments only irrespective of its wording since it was purposely separated from the "Allotments" part.

jamesd wrote: »

The blog post about the Brooks and Cole case links to this story that gives more reason for the decision in relation to them: "Her cousin, Stuart Cole, asked the housing association to consider the case under the Provision of Allotment Act, which states hens are allowed on all council owned allotments in England and Wales. New Charter agreed that Ms Brooks could keep the two birds"

Note that the issue was keeping chickens on the property's garden.
Note also the solicitor's comment: "Nor does the Act define lease, tenancy or land in such a way as to limit it to allotments."

jamesd wrote: »

I doubt whether this disagreement over when it applies is going to be resolvable without something like Hansard's records that may or may not say that it's supposed to apply beyond the allotments context.

Again, this is not relevant beyond finding out whether section 12 was badly drafted.
The Act clearly states 'any' so that this must apply as such unless a case law has been created to the contrary.
I would be surprised that a court found that 'any' was not clear enough, though.

It's a bit like the recent stream of decisions on the Housing Act 1988 regarding s.21 notices and deposit protection: Some are commenting that the courts' interpretation is not what was intended or supposed to be.
That might very well be the case, however the law is what the statute says and the courts must apply that.

Tygermoth

Hi guys - thank you for your replies.

Umm not counting my chickens...

But we have potentially secured an abode. We had to go more rural more expensive and downsize. Which was a bit galling.

However the chickens get to come along, as well at the cats n dog.

Its going to be a squeeze as we have dropped from a large three bed with dining room to a very small two bed without.

But heyho its somewhere

makeyourdaddyproud

Have you any idea why the landlord is doing this? Is there going to be development in the area or does he only want higher market type rents?

DaftyDuck

.... and you can count your chickens, after all. With a bit of luck! At least with no dining room the temptation for a roast chicken supper may be reduced.

Well done, hope it works out.

Tygermoth

Makeyour daddy - who knows. These cottages are a state and he is just selling them off as is.

With half a brain you would do them up and get so much more. But the landowner is always in dire financial straights and has been selling off parts of the estate left right a centre since his mother died. These cottages are the last he owns.

It baffles me as he gets a solid monthly income, why take a hit on value and sell en mass when its nets you at least 4K a month in rent.

Its not like we were troublesome tenants we had all been here forever and none of us ever missed a payment.

sigh