Duty of care to animals on your property that you don't own

[Luci07]

People moan and moan about the RSPCA and say they aren't going to donate etc etc if nobody donated then they don't have resources to help the animals and they get bad press again. What should people be doing to help animals in need?[

There is an absolute plethora of animal charities to donate to and ones whose policies are far more open and are not in any way politically motivated. That argument doesn't stack up at all. There have also been far too many reports (both in the press, and shared experiences with friends working in rescues) of a willingness to PTS. I put my money and effort into smaller local charities.

 

[Dry Rot]

Yup I think essentially that means turf it back out on the road again ASAP. And under no circumstances allow the police to put a loose horse in your field

No, can't do that either, but can leave the gate open and pray!

If you turf them out, are you not allowing them to stray onto the public road? That would be an offence. Leave gates open, by all means.

The law is often not straight forward. I reported my neighbour to Trading Standards for persistently allowing his sheep to stray onto my land (I've 30 acres, he had >1,200 at that time, now a lot more) as it seemed to me to be a "movement" which is controlled. But, no, a "movement" apparently involves deliberately moving sheep! The problem was unfortunately solved when a motorcyclist hit a cow (not mine but my neighbour's) and was killed. Suddenly, an awful lot of fences were repaired in a hurry.

 

[Kaylum]

People moan and moan about the RSPCA and say they aren't going to donate etc etc if nobody donated then they don't have resources to help the animals and they get bad press again. What should people be doing to help animals in need?[

There is an absolute plethora of animal charities to donate to and ones whose policies are far more open and are not in any way politically motivated. That argument doesn't stack up at all. There have also been far too many reports (both in the press, and shared experiences with friends working in rescues) of a willingness to PTS. I put my money and effort into smaller local charities.

I wasn't arguing I was asking. Out of interest which charities do people support and how do you know exactly where the money goes?

 

[ester]

No, can't do that either, but can leave the gate open and pray!

If you turf them out, are you not allowing them to stray onto the public road? That would be an offence. Leave gates open, by all means.

The law is often not straight forward. I reported my neighbour to Trading Standards for persistently allowing his sheep to stray onto my land (I've 30 acres, he had >1,200 at that time, now a lot more) as it seemed to me to be a "movement" which is controlled. But, no, a "movement" apparently involves deliberately moving sheep! The problem was unfortunately solved when a motorcyclist hit a cow (not mine but my neighbour's) and was killed. Suddenly, an awful lot of fences were repaired in a hurry.

ah, gate open, bucket conveniently other side then..

 

[Dry Rot]

ah, gate open, bucket conveniently other side then..

No, can't do bucket as that's feeding and you are taking responsibility.

Your turn!

I suppose you could have an early Guy Fawkes night....

 

[LadyGascoyne]

I know it's NZ so not necessarily the same, but my husband was meeting with a client who is an organisation like the ones mentioned and he was suprised to overhear a situation where the organisation was doing everything it could to try to get the caller to say that a loose pig on the road was actually on private property, in order to avoid having to help.

He was very surprised at how the staff are trained to try to illicit that meaning from callers, getting them to trip up on their words and forcing them to accept responsibility for the stray.

 

[Regandal]

I think the RSPCA is the only charity with sufficient funds to mount a private prosecution. There is always the risk of losing and being liable for costs.
That could wipe out a smaller charity.

 

[smellsofhorse]

Regardless of the duty of care for animals on your land.

I think anyone that anyone that sees an animal suffering or abused and turns a blind eye should be punished.

How cruel.

 

[Dry Rot]

Regardless of the duty of care for animals on your land.

I think anyone that anyone that sees an animal suffering or abused and turns a blind eye should be punished.

How cruel.

I don't think anyone was disagreeing with that. What we were trying to sort out is the strict legal liability. Moral responsibility is another matter. I don't think anyone would argue that in the farmer's situation, they would either have called a vet and born the cost or called one of the rescue organisations.

 

[michelledud]

I worry that irresponsible or just plain lazy and/or uncaring horse owners can use this legislation as a get out clause for not looking after their horses correctly?

I know of two families who rent out their field or their stables and field, and who don't know the first thing about horses (the land just happened to come with their houses) If they saw a horse collicking in their field they'd just think it was tired or enjoying a roll. If one had lami they might just think it had a sore foot, nothing more.
It worries me that if a horse became ill in a way that wasn't instantly recognisable to a NON-horsey landowner, that they might be prosecuted if the horse owner wasn't attending daily to care for their horse.

And/or having to fork out for vet bills and trying to get the money back off an owner is surely nuisance enough with out the fear of being prosecuted

 

[Goldenstar]

if you look at the conditions on th farm in case that sparked this thread and read the stories you can see why the RSPCA threw the book at this individual .
However those who rent land and building still have a degree of responsibility for what goes on there.
But the duty of care is used to prevent people running commercial type DIY livery washing their hands of all responsibility for horses on their yards it forces a livery owner to take care whose on their yard and take an interest in what's going on .
A YOer being prosecuted would not prevent a case being taken against the owner of the horse you could easily do both .
It was my experiance most YOers understand their duty of care well and discharge it I dealt with helping YOers in trouble with bad owners a fair bit when I was doing welfare .
But I think it's likely most serve notice and move th problem on .

 

[Dry Rot]

if you look at the conditions on th farm in case that sparked this thread and read the stories you can see why the RSPCA threw the book at this individual .
However those who rent land and building still have a degree of responsibility for what goes on there.
But the duty of care is used to prevent people running commercial type DIY livery washing their hands of all responsibility for horses on their yards it forces a livery owner to take care whose on their yard and take an interest in what's going on .
A YOer being prosecuted would not prevent a case being taken against the owner of the horse you could easily do both .
It was my experiance most YOers understand their duty of care well and discharge it I dealt with helping YOers in trouble with bad owners a fair bit when I was doing welfare .
But I think it's likely most serve notice and move th problem on .

A court would decide on the basis of the contract between the horse owner and the landowner. If there is no written contract, they'll decide on the basis of the evidence. Other than that, they will decide on the facts and what is usually agreed in similar circumstances.

"Landowner" will have a broad interpretation and might mean a tenant, who has the right to let, or even an agent. A landowner domiciled in the Seychelles can hardly be held responsible for a abandoned horse that decides to colic! The courts are there to decide these things. So as I've said on here many times before, get it in writing!

 

[Goldenstar]

Of course land owner can mean any things .
It's my experiance that a very practical approach is taken by the RSPCA when they look at the duty of care .
They are not despite what you might think from some of the threads on here unreasonable in my direct experiance .
Just like the police would not prosecute a absent landlord whose tenant was running a cannabis farm in the attic of a house if you rent a yard and fields out the RSPCA would look at what it was reasonable for you to be doing / have done .
TBH They have a lot to do and persecuting yard owners unless in extreme circumstances is not what they are up to.
I think it right and proper that people who rent assents take some sort of overview of what's going on there.

 

[JillA]

What we all think is right and proper has no relevance in law though - the courts have to measure against statute or common law. I come back to the Animal Welfare Act which squarely places the responsibility on the person who "has control", and I don't know of any case law which says the land owner or landlord has taken on that control. Mostly the contract is for the use of grazing and housing, there is no implication as to the welfare of the animal, nor should there be IMO. The landlord, whether on site or an absent one, is no more liable than a visiting member of the public, unless, as in this case, he has intervened.
In my case I intervened directly, but I could have done so indirectly using one of the welfare charities.
I still disagree that the landlord has a duty of care to the animal, other than to ensure there are no hazards it can be affected by, and haven't seen any legislation which provides for that. The section quoted in the Control of (Horses) Act 2015 gives power to detain, not responsibility for. Can we have a link to what you have found Goldenstar?
The question of a landlord not knowing what to look for is another matter and those are the cases where the charities rely on the public to raise concerns. How can you be "in control" or take responsibility if you don't know?