Rabbits in my flat

Miss_Samantha

TheGardener wrote: »

IMHO - s.12 of the Allotment Act 1950 does not apply to land other than land defined as an allotment in that it is owned or leased by an allotments authority (LA) for that purpose but if you believe that it does, then as my daughter would say "good luck with that then"

I think you have to explain to us simple punters why 'any land' actually means 'only allotment land'...

TheGardener

'simple punters' !? Rather a derogatory term perhaps - and not one I would use.

As a response to the Enclosures Acts where 'common land' was fenced off and became private land (whole epic history of social injustice of people rights to cultivate land in there) the 1908 Small Holdings and Allotments Act was enacted to place a statutory duty on local authorities to provide sufficient allotment land for the residents of their parish/borough/district (the Statutory duty falls to the most local level of local government) Schedule 1 of the Act deals with the powers needed to acquire land for the purpose of providing allotments - most of the rest of the Act determines how to administer the land and to protect the rights of both the tenants and the landlord. If put to a legal test I would imagine that the argument would need to be whether the Act does or does not relate to 'any land' - or - 'any allotment land' as determined in Schedule 1.

The Hens and rabbits thing was a response to wartime need for meat and eggs during rationing but does not detract from the fact the 'allotments' must be wholly or mainly for the production for fruit and vegetables' It might also be worth noting that the hens and rabbits permissions can be overruled if the keeping of them is in such a manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance
Any allotment site not owned by a Parish/Town/Borough/unitary authority it not subject to or afforded any protection by the Act. Even if the case for 'any land' could be made, my argument would be that unless the OP's flat or the land it stands on belongs to the LA - the Act would not cover it anyway.

Miss_Samantha

That's very nice.

Again, section 12 (not the whole Act) explicitly states that it applies to 'any lease' for 'any land'. That is the actual wording, not an interpretation.

So please explain why 'any' does not mean 'any'.

TheGardener

My belief is that the Schedules of the Act relate specifically to land to be acquired for the purpose of providing allotments - as such, I don't believe the any subsequent part of the Act relates to any land other than land acquired for that purpose.
In my experience with Land law - you take the whole Act or none of it - I have no experience of individual words and phases being taken so far out of context successfully. However, I work in a profession that is often proved wrong and if your theory is correct, then I would be surprised but happy to accept it.

Even if the OP could prove a case - the landlord could probably use the 'nuisance' clause in s(12)to enforce removal

Miss_Samantha

TheGardener wrote: »

My belief is that the Schedules of the Act relate specifically to land to be acquired for the purpose of providing allotments - as such, I don't believe the any subsequent part of the Act relates to any land other than land acquired for that purpose.

I can repeat again: It says 'any lease' for 'any land'.
I can add that section 12 is also not within the 'allotments' part of the Act, but in its own part.

The interpretation I put forward (which is really just the meaning of words in the English language) is the one generally accepted. Note that the original link provided by theartfullodger is to an article written by solicitors specialising in land and tenancy law.

TheGardener wrote: »

I have no experience of individual words and phases being taken so far out of context successfully.

Nothing is taken out of context. It is just refraining for inventing meaning and restrictions where there are none stated.

TheGardener

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that one.

...but let me know if you set or find a precedent

Miss_Samantha

I think I fell for it again. Silly me... Only on MSE.

davidmcn

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

I can repeat again: It says 'any lease' for 'any land'.
I can add that section 12 is also not within the 'allotments' part of the Act, but in its own part.

Note also the description of the Act: "An Act to amend the law relating to allotments and to abolish restrictions on the keeping of hens and rabbits." - which rather suggests the hens and rabbits bit was intended to be separate from "the law relating to allotments". I guess they thought the "Allotments, Hens and Rabbits Act" didn't sound so snappy.

AdrianC

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

I think I fell for it again. Silly me... Only on MSE.

An interesting response to being asked - AGAIN - for any kind of precedent to support your interpretation, despite your assurances that it has been proven many times in court.

So far your only responses have been along the lines of "Have you read it?" and "Because I say that's what it means". The first is particularly amusing in response to a poster who says he implements it on a daily basis...

May I refer back to my final para in post 21...

19lottie82

Since the OP believes they knew the rabbits were there via cameras or a concierge, it seems likely they will know.

I'm guessing the last time the rabbits were spotted they were taken down in a cage or similar. Next time all they have to do is take them down out of sight in a box or similar. It's not really hard.