Complaints from neighbours: my tenant keeps rabbits

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    Originally posted by agent46 View Post
    It's the revised version of Darwin's Law of Evolution: "Survival of the Cutest."

    If an example of the law's application is needed one only needs to look to "Dolphin Friendly" Tuna. Well it's not very Tuna-friendly is it? I bet if Tunafish could balance balls on their noses and perform other endearing anthropomorphic tricks then they wouldn't find themselves between 2 slices of bread so often would they?
    LOL - good one!
    ASSUME NOTHING - QUESTION EVERYTHING!

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by agent46 View Post
      If Tunafish could balance balls on their noses and perform other endearing anthropomorphic tricks...
      It's not very human-like to balance your balls on the end of your nose. Might make a good act for Channel 4, however.
      JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
      1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
      2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
      3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
      4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

      Comment


        #18
        The animal welfare act simply states that the 5 basic needs of any pet must be met. These being;

        1. a proper diet, including fresh water
        2. somewhere suitable to live
        3. any need to be housed with or apart from, other animals
        4. allowing animals to express normal behaviour
        5. protect from and treatment of, illness and injury

        Anything over and above this is guidance only and completely open to interpretation.

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Lyndy Lou View Post
          ...since the new Animal Welfare Act came in last year...
          There was no such thing as the Animal Welfare Act 2007. There was a 2006 Act of that title, however, mostly in force from 6 April 2007 (England) or 27 March 2007 (Wales). It provided a few updated measures to prevent:
          a. unnecessary suffering [s.4];
          b. mutilation [s.5];
          c. docking of dogs' tails [s.6];
          d. administering poison/drug without authority/excuse [s.7]; and
          e. animal fights [s.8];
          and it imposed duties to ensure animal welfare [s.9].

          Carebear's points (post #18) are mostly based accurately on s.9(2)- defining the animal's needs- whereas Lyndy Lou's (post #13) aren't.
          JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
          1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
          2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
          3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
          4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
            There was no such thing as the Animal Welfare Act 2007. There was a 2006 Act of that title, however, mostly in force from 6 April 2007 (England) or 27 March 2007 (Wales). It provided a few updated measures to prevent:
            a. unnecessary suffering [s.4];
            b. mutilation [s.5];
            c. docking of dogs' tails [s.6];
            d. administering poison/drug without authority/excuse [s.7]; and
            e. animal fights [s.8];
            and it imposed duties to ensure animal welfare [s.9].

            Carebear's points (post #18) are mostly based accurately on s.9(2)- defining the animal's needs- whereas Lyndy Lou's (post #13) aren't.
            Oh you're just splitting hares!
            Health Warning


            I try my best to be accurate, but please bear in mind that some posts are written in a matter of seconds and often cannot be edited later on.

            All information contained in my posts is given without any assumption of responsibility on my part. This means that if you rely on my advice but it turns out to be wrong and you suffer losses (of any kind) as a result, then you cannot sue me.

            Comment


              #21
              Not Split Enz, then. I don't why sometimes I feel frightened...
              JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
              1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
              2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
              3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
              4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by agent46 View Post
                It's the revised version of Darwin's Law of Evolution: "Survival of the Cutest."
                Darwin's original Law of Evolution is survival of the cutest.

                Comment


                  #23
                  Okay - you asked for it chapter and verse so here is the extract from the UTCCR guidelines verbatim:

                  Table 4.2: Examples of potentially unreasonable prohibitions
                  Obligation: Against keeping any pets.

                  OFT view

                  Our objection is to blanket exclusions of pets without consideration of all the circumstances. Such a term has been considered unfair under comparable legislation in another EU member state because it could prevent a tenant keeping a goldfish. We are unlikely to object to a term prohibiting the keeping of pets that could harm the property, affect subsequent tenants or be a nuisance to other residents.

                  Page 64 Guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements September 2005

                  Tell me I'm wrong then!
                  The advice I give should not be construed as a definitive answer, and is without prejudice or liability. You are advised to consult a specialist solicitor or other person of equal legal standing.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Answer: as you know, OFT guidelines are NOT LAW. They are simply wish-projections. Had Parliament intended to legislate away any terms (whether generally unfair or specifics), it would have done so.
                    JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                    1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                    2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                    3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                    4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
                      Okay - you asked for it chapter and verse so here is the extract from the UTCCR guidelines verbatim:

                      Table 4.2: Examples of potentially unreasonable prohibitions
                      Obligation: Against keeping any pets.

                      OFT view

                      Our objection is to blanket exclusions of pets without consideration of all the circumstances. Such a term has been considered unfair under comparable legislation in another EU member state because it could prevent a tenant keeping a goldfish. We are unlikely to object to a term prohibiting the keeping of pets that could harm the property, affect subsequent tenants or be a nuisance to other residents.

                      Page 64 Guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements September 2005

                      Tell me I'm wrong then!
                      So, that fairly much eliminates all things that go poo or pee in the dark unless it is in a bowl.
                      ASSUME NOTHING - QUESTION EVERYTHING!

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Don't most people use a bowl anyway? Few toilets are without one, except male urinals.
                        JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                        1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                        2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                        3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                        4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by jeffrey View Post
                          Don't most people use a bowl anyway? Few toilets are without one, except male urinals.
                          And that is why homo sapiens are ok to stay along with the guppy.
                          ASSUME NOTHING - QUESTION EVERYTHING!

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by Paragon View Post
                            And that is why homo sapiens are ok to stay along with the guppy.
                            "Homines sapientes are", surely?
                            JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                            1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                            2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                            3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                            4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Paul_f View Post
                              Okay - you asked for it chapter and verse so here is the extract from the UTCCR guidelines verbatim:

                              Table 4.2: Examples of potentially unreasonable prohibitions
                              Obligation: Against keeping any pets.

                              OFT view

                              Our objection is to blanket exclusions of pets without consideration of all the circumstances. Such a term has been considered unfair under comparable legislation in another EU member state because it could prevent a tenant keeping a goldfish. We are unlikely to object to a term prohibiting the keeping of pets that could harm the property, affect subsequent tenants or be a nuisance to other residents.

                              Page 64 Guidance on unfair terms in tenancy agreements September 2005

                              Tell me I'm wrong then!
                              Well firstly, I didn't say you were wrong, I simply asked for your reasoning.

                              Secondly, whilst we are on the subject, has this paragraph of the OFT wish-list ever been tested in court? I'll tell you why I ask that - I remember with fondness the time when I tried to argue a contractual term was unfair and relied on the OFT's guidance in support of that argument. I set out my submissions, cited the relevant passage of the OFT's guidance and respectfully reminded the learned judge that the Court was bound to take the said guidance into account when determining whether a term was unfair and unenforceable. I handed the book up to the judge, who opened the Gospel According to the OFT at the marked page, read the passage I had referred him to and then just scoffed "Absolute nonsense!" before asking me to continue with the rest of my submissions. That gives an example of exactly how much weight some judges give to the hallowed OFT Guidance on Unfair Terms.


                              Thirdly, the decisions of the courts of other EU states have no application whatsover in the courts of England and Wales. The only European Court that can hand down decisions which bind the English Courts is the European Court of Justice, and given their workload on matters of importance such as competition law and issues concerning multi-billion Euro inter and intra-state trade, I doubt very much that they would be troubling themselves with the question of whether someone was allowed to keep a goldfish.

                              Fourthly, I can't see the OFT ever getting round to bringing a test case in our domestic courts on the "goldfish" issue, so I very much doubt there will ever be binding authority on the matter. It's taken the OFT years and years to get round to bringing the banks to heel in respect of their over-limit charges in what clearly amounts to a multi-billion pound scam, and even then, they only brought proceedings because there was a popular media-led revolt.





                              STOP PRESS: And in a shock announcement, I also see that the OFT have now launched an investigation into unfair tendering practices in building contracts for public works because, shock horror, it has come to their attention that there might be a great deal of overpricing and bribery taking place in the sector. Doubtless, next on their list will be an investigation which uncovers the surprising findings that bears defecate in the woods and that the Pope is Catholic.....
                              Health Warning


                              I try my best to be accurate, but please bear in mind that some posts are written in a matter of seconds and often cannot be edited later on.

                              All information contained in my posts is given without any assumption of responsibility on my part. This means that if you rely on my advice but it turns out to be wrong and you suffer losses (of any kind) as a result, then you cannot sue me.

                              Comment


                                #30
                                The problem with goldfish is that they reputedly have a very, er, what was I saying?
                                JEFFREY SHAW, solicitor [and Topic Expert], Nether Edge Law*
                                1. Public advice is believed accurate, but I accept no legal responsibility except to direct-paying private clients.
                                2. Telephone advice: see http://www.landlordzone.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=34638.
                                3. For paid advice about conveyancing/leaseholds/L&T, contact me* and become a private client.
                                4. *- Contact info: click on my name (blue-highlight link).

                                Comment

                                Latest Activity

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X