Rabbits in my flat

Miss_Samantha

AdrianC wrote: »

A
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...

I do not say that this is what it means.
- The English language says what it means,
- Lawyers expert in the field agree (see http://nearlylegal.co.uk/2011/04/oh-cluck/ previously posted by Artfulloger)

Since you are interested, I'm sure that you Googled a bit and found such articles as this one:
http://www.landlordsguild.com/tenant-wins-right-to-keep-chickens/

Now, I have had enough trollish argument for today. Have a nice weekend.

Cornucopia

Both those pieces are about the same case. And they both relate to keeping chickens in a garden, not rabbits indoors.

This isn't a "trollish" argument - just one of those where there are multiple views that are irreconcilable and impossible to prove within the limitations of this medium.

bobobski

I don't think people misunderstanding statute are helping you here, OP. The interpretation section of the Allotments Act 1950 makes it clear that the Act only applies to allotments, and logically that is true as well. And as somebody else said, the rest of the Act relates only to allotments, and courts interpret provisions of statute by reference to the statute as a whole, just as they do sections of a contract in line with the rest of the contract.

And whoever quotes the Law of Property Act 1925 for definitions: interesting idea, but those provisions are not incorporated within the Allotment Act 1950, so not relevant.

OP: I think you need to get rid of the rabbits on paper, but as people have suggested, it's worth a conversation to see if your landlord will give in.

Miss_Samantha

bobobski wrote: »

The interpretation section of the Allotments Act 1950 makes it clear that the Act only applies to allotments, and logically that is true as well.

Except, of course, it does not do anything of the sort...

Could people stop making stuff up as they go please?

bobobski

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Except that, of course, it does not do anything of the sort...

Could people stop making stuff up as they go?

The law is an effective weapon when used correctly. Unless you are SURE that, despite all of the evidence to the contrary, a court has ruled that the provision you quote so fervently applies in OP's situation, I suggest you stop suggesting that OP goes in guns blazing thinking that the law is on their side. That attitude won't get OP anywhere.

There may be a few lawyers on here but I've not yet met a judge on these forums. Judges interpret the law, not laypeople. Until one has ruled that this provision works in OP's favour, I wouldn't place my hopes on it.

Miss_Samantha

bobobski wrote: »

That attitude won't get OP anywhere.

Have I touched a nerve?

You made a claim that wasn't even remotely backed by anything. Now you are trying personal attacks.

AdrianC

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Except, of course, it does not do anything of the sort...

14 Interpretation.

(1)In this Act the expressions “allotment garden” and “landlord” have the same meanings as they have for the purposes of the M4Allotments Act, 1922, and the provisions of subsection (1) of section twenty-two of that Act relating to the continued application to parties of the designations of landlord and tenant shall apply for the purposes of this Act as they apply for the purposes of that Act.

(2)References in this Act to any other enactment shall, except so far as the context otherwise requires, be construed as references to that enactment as amended by any subsequent enactment, including this Act.

Could people stop making stuff up as they go please?

Still waiting for any kind of precedent, y'know.

bobobski

AdrianC wrote: »

Still waiting for any kind of precedent, y'know.

That was my point.

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Have I touched a nerve?

You made a claim that wasn't even remotely backed by anything. Now you are trying personal attacks.

It's difficult to be giving OP the opinions sought when it comes to this. I really shouldn't have to say this on an MSE forum but... please read my post again, nothing in it was a personal attack, you didn't touch a nerve, please calm down... etc etc.

I will repeat my point and what Adrian has said: do you have an example of the courts interpreting this Act the way you suggest it should be interpreted?

(Sorry if that comes across as a personal attack, although I'm really not sure how it does...)

Miss_Samantha

Thank you for posting the the interpretation section.

I trust that anyone with a decent command of the English language will immediately notice that it does not "make it clear that the Act only applies to allotments" as was claimed.

Your calls for precedent is the usual straw man argument.
The Act is clear that section 12 does not only apply to allotments.

The only uncertainty is perhaps whether a lease on a flat is a lease for the occupation of land. It does seem that it is because a flat is obviously on land.
But I am of course curious if anyone has actual serious input on this.

bobobski

Miss_Samantha wrote: »

Thank you for posting the the interpretation section.

I trust that anyone with a decent command of the English language will immediately notice that it does not "makes it clear that the Act only applies to allotments".

Your calls for precedent is the usual straw man argument.
The Act is clear that section 12 does not only apply to allotments.

The only uncertainty is perhaps whether a lease on a flat is a lease for the occupation of land. It does seem that it is because a flat is obviously on land.
But I am of course curious if anyone has actual serious input on this.

Straw man argument? I'm not sure if that sentence was accidentally really clever - by bringing up a straw man argument, you have created a straw man argument. That's quite good.

However, the law does work on the basis of precedent. Where there is no precedent, the courts interpret the law by reference to a set of rules, including reading statutory sections in the context of the statute as a whole. Sorry, but without precedent or statutory interpretation rules behind you, I'd like to see you win this one in court. A command of the English language unfortunately is not the only tool needed to be able to interpret statute. In fact, I had several lectures during my law degree on contractual and statutory interpretation, and I would still get it wrong, a lot. That's why we have professionals whose skill sets go beyond a command of the English language.