Landlord reduced grazing area...can I reduce my rent accordingly

S

swag

New User
Joined
29 July 2011
Messages
6
Visit site
Hi all...it's a long time since I have posted, but I would sincerely appreciate some advice! My husband and I have rented privately for our horses for 22 years at the same property. The landlady died last year and the property was placed on the market and sold very quickly. The new owners asked us to stay on. We were delighted. After two months of the new ownership and promised the agreement paperwork ...without warning, we were given notice. So we have ended up on a verbal contract with myself only outlying the briefest of agreement details in paperwork accompanying our first payment. My request to be given the grace of time to find new accommodation for our 6 horses was granted....however, we have been intimidated, threatened and bullied into leaving soonest....for example, at the weekend I was informed that the stables and tack room were to be knocked down mid this week and if I do not remove my stuff it would be bulldozed with the building and disposed of! As if this isn't bad enough...What really concerns me is an incident that happened back in April ..which is where I would like some advice please.... with 1 days notice, the 7acres of fields our horses grazed were harrowed and rolled (behind our back the landlord bribed a local farmer to manicure into no other purpose that extended lawn) the landlord knew full well that we could not put our horses back on to graze and claimed the land was thereafter 'out of bounds'. The landlord told us that he had consulted an 'authoritative source' and that we could keep 6 horses on 1/4 acre and chuck hay at them! We battled to retain 2 acres of grazing, but have had to manage the horses so carefully to preserve the grass and have spent a fortune on additional feed and hay to make up for the loss of grazing. My question is ....as we were not involved in this decision (that has had obvious implications on our horses management and welfare)... can I legitimately reduce the grazing element of my weekly rent to proportionally reflect the inflicted reduction in grazing area? Final payment will be forwarded on full vacation (yet to be paid) so any advice would be appreciated! ...on a brighter note we have secured grazing for our horses and they have moved to their new home. Sorry it's a long one!....and many thanks in anticipation of your time to respond!
 
I would be tempted not to pay up given that you've safely moved the horses, but then I wonder what else these people will do.

You would be best to seek legal advice I think - through your insurance or BHS membership if you have either?
 
To give an opinion, I think sight of the agreement would be needed. As they've recently bought and are intending to do building works, it is a reasonable assumption that they've had legal advice. I suspect all you've had over those years has been a licence to use the facilities (stables and grazing) unless you have had 'exclusive possession' which is what you'd need to prove to have a lease.

No, I don't think you can withhold the rent or even part of it, but I think you should enter into separate negotiations for a reduction or rather a refund. Be polite and ask nicely. You might get it without a struggle. But if you don't, I think you have a good case to take to small claims. If you did so, you would do so 'with clean hands'. You have done everything you are obliged to do in the agreement, it is the other side who may be acting unreasonably.

Does rolling and harrowing really make a field unfit to graze? I'd certainly want to rest it before putting my horses back on and I might seek my own 'authoritative advice' (my vet?) if they decided to make a fight of it.

Just my opinion. I'm in Scotand and I'm not a lawyer (but I used to be a land agent a long time ago).
 
Our fields are harrowed and rolled with the horses still in them, they've been done this way since before I was a livery there. I thought it was ok? We have a ton of good grass and adlib hay during the winter months, not sure if that makes the difference?
 
Once you have harrowed, horses are meant to be kept off it for 6 weeks minimum. This is for the safety of the horses. Rolling would have no impact.
 
Dry Rot said:
I suspect all you've had over those years has been a licence to use the facilities (stables and grazing) unless you have had 'exclusive possession' which is what you'd need to prove to have a lease.
Click to expand...

But using the trusty Street VS Mountford as a benchmark, surely they have exclusive possession after 22years? I would be surprised if during those 22 years of occupation they didn't maintain, repair and replace fencing, upkeep buildings, manage the land. Regardless of what is written on a piece of paper, it is not a licence if they have occupied without interference of the landlord and if I were the OP I would be approaching a solicitor for legal advice.
 
If you want to annoy them they need planning permission to turn it into a lawn as it is currently a field. they would also have needed planning permission to keep your 6 horses on 1/4 acre with you feeding them hay. If you keep a horse in a field and supplement them with feed then you need planning as you are changing the use of the field from agriculture to land for the keeping of horses. you dont need planning if you graze your horse in a field with no supplementary feeding.
 
sarahann1 said:
Our fields are harrowed and rolled with the horses still in them, they've been done this way since before I was a livery there. I thought it was ok? We have a ton of good grass and adlib hay during the winter months, not sure if that makes the difference?
Click to expand...

Yes harrowing does encourage the grass to grow....the objective is to spread out the poo as fertiliser...however, in doing this the poo is broken up and under wet conditions encourages parasite eggs to hatch...both unhatched eggs and larvae are then ingested by the animal as they occur on the grass blade and in water droplets on the blade..so increasing the parasite burden. Harrowing should be undertaken during dry conditions...but in this country dry conditions don't persist for very long! By leaving the harrowed ground for ~6 weeks the eggs and larvae are exposed to sunlight, frost and are killed, so helping to sterilise the grass. The time duration give the grass and ground a rest also from constant grazing. Deep harrowing may be detrimental to ground disturbance if there is a degree of soil contamination underlying and may mobilise contaminants and their uptake into grass. It's recommended by various bodies as good ground / pasture management.
 
Hi...you are right and had we been invited to have been party to these discussions I may have been sharp enough to have pointed this out. But under the delicate circumstances we were forced into could we have been evicted by seen to being obstructive...something we could not risk! We were stuck between a rock and a hard place. It has been an awful few months I can assure you!
 
Hi.... Also from what I understand you can feed supplements but only where the main feed stuff is grazed grass as this rule applies to other farmed livestock too.
 
swag said:
Yes harrowing does encourage the grass to grow....the objective is to spread out the poo as fertiliser...however, in doing this the poo is broken up and under wet conditions encourages parasite eggs to hatch...both unhatched eggs and larvae are then ingested by the animal as they occur on the grass blade and in water droplets on the blade..so increasing the parasite burden. Harrowing should be undertaken during dry conditions...but in this country dry conditions don't persist for very long! By leaving the harrowed ground for ~6 weeks the eggs and larvae are exposed to sunlight, frost and are killed, so helping to sterilise the grass. The time duration give the grass and ground a rest also from constant grazing. Deep harrowing may be detrimental to ground disturbance if there is a degree of soil contamination underlying and may mobilise contaminants and their uptake into grass. It's recommended by various bodies as good ground / pasture management.
Click to expand...

Makes sense, though we have a robust worming programme in place and more grass than you can shake a stick at so hopefully that reduces the risks. Certainly my two veteran lads have been here for 5.5yrs and are in great shape :)
 
Yes I was thinking of issues outside of worms as we poo pick so not an issue but the ground is harrowed to try and help the moss situation. I suspect we do have a 6 week break it's just not something I have ever thought about so info noted ;)
 
Op, do you live at the same place as your horses were kept? Sorry I can't seem to work that out.
If so, what kind of tenancy do you have? After 22 years, it's a possibility you have an assured tenancy. It would be worth checking to see if you have an AT or an AST - assured short hold tenancy.
None of this sounds legal at all but need more information to ascertain.
 
The good news is that if you have had uninterrupted occupation for 22 years then you could go to the court and claim a tenancy which the landlord would be obliged to give you.
This would cost money as it could well end up in the High Court.
They are very lucky to have got rid of you (even if this is the result of intimidation) as you would have had the law of the land on your side had you refused to move.
In view of the way they have treated you I would ask them initially for a written bill (which I suspect they will not give you) but if you receive one then respond accordingly and ask for compensation for the loss of use and enjoyment of the land.
 
dieseldog said:
If you want to annoy them they need planning permission to turn it into a lawn as it is currently a field. they would also have needed planning permission to keep your 6 horses on 1/4 acre with you feeding them hay. If you keep a horse in a field and supplement them with feed then you need planning as you are changing the use of the field from agriculture to land for the keeping of horses. you dont need planning if you graze your horse in a field with no supplementary feeding.
Click to expand...

After the length of time the land has been in equestrian use no planning permission would be needed .
 
RunToEarth said:
But using the trusty Street VS Mountford as a benchmark, surely they have exclusive possession after 22years? I would be surprised if during those 22 years of occupation they didn't maintain, repair and replace fencing, upkeep buildings, manage the land. Regardless of what is written on a piece of paper, it is not a licence if they have occupied without interference of the landlord and if I were the OP I would be approaching a solicitor for legal advice.
Click to expand...

Street vs. Mountford expressly refers to residential properties. We don't have enough information to declare the OP's occupancy as a lease.
 
RunToEarth said:
But using the trusty Street VS Mountford as a benchmark, surely they have exclusive possession after 22years? I would be surprised if during those 22 years of occupation they didn't maintain, repair and replace fencing, upkeep buildings, manage the land. Regardless of what is written on a piece of paper, it is not a licence if they have occupied without interference of the landlord and if I were the OP I would be approaching a solicitor for legal advice.
Click to expand...

The old lady who lived along the lane from us when I was a kid, rented her three paddocks to a local retired farmer who kept 10 or so milkers on them. I don't think there was ever a contract, but when the old farmer died and his son took over the cows, he claimed squatters rights on the land - and won! She was left with just the one paddock adjoining the house. We were appalled, and I bet his father would never had done such an underhand thing either.
 
OWLIE185 said:
The good news is that if you have had uninterrupted occupation for 22 years then you could go to the court and claim a tenancy which the landlord would be obliged to give you.
This would cost money as it could well end up in the High Court.
They are very lucky to have got rid of you (even if this is the result of intimidation) as you would have had the law of the land on your side had you refused to move.
In view of the way they have treated you I would ask them initially for a written bill (which I suspect they will not give you) but if you receive one then respond accordingly and ask for compensation for the loss of use and enjoyment of the land.
Click to expand...

I would imagine the new owners were told about this and that's why they've acted as they have...get the tenants off before they realise what rights they have.

OP. Fighting this or not is up to you. Personally, I think I'd just move on but that's because for me, I see little point in prolonging all the tension and stress, but it's you're call.
 
fatpiggy said:
The old lady who lived along the lane from us when I was a kid, rented her three paddocks to a local retired farmer who kept 10 or so milkers on them. I don't think there was ever a contract, but when the old farmer died and his son took over the cows, he claimed squatters rights on the land - and won! She was left with just the one paddock adjoining the house. We were appalled, and I bet his father would never had done such an underhand thing either.
Click to expand...

Squatters rights or an agricultural tenancy?

A grazing licence was always for 364 days or less so that the occupant couldn't claim an agricultural tenancy. All livestock had to be removed for that one day. Presumably the old lady had title deeds to the fields? By law, all conveyances of land must be in writing -- Law of Property Act 1925 if I remember correctly. Having said that, the law may have changed since I had much to do with it.

OP, be careful of relying on advice given over the Internet. If you must, consult a lawyer or a chartered land agent as they have professional indemnity insurance and you can sue 'em when they get it wrong!
 
Last edited:
How much money are we talking about here? If it's just the grazing part of your rent since April, it can't be worth it except to make a point, can it? That said, I'm a bolshy ****** and I'd probably have a go even if it were only a few quid, but I can quite see that it would be easier to just let it go and move on if you can.
 
Dry Rot said:
Squatters rights or an agricultural tenancy?

A grazing licence was always for 364 days or less so that the occupant couldn't claim an agricultural tenancy. All livestock had to be removed for that one day. Presumably the old lady had title deeds to the fields? By law, all conveyances of land must be in writing -- Law of Property Act 1925 if I remember correctly. Having said that, the law may have changed since I had much to do with it.
Click to expand...

Yes this happened to my parents many years ago, they rented to the neighbouring farmer and he put 365 days in the contract, meaning we couldn't use the land for my ponies later on when we wanted it back. He kept the use of the field for many years until we bought his adjoining fields at an extortionate price to get rid of him. My parents were very naive in leaving the contract up to him and learned their lesson!

Re the OP's case, I would put my energies into finding a new, safe place to keep my horses if you've been given notice anyway. I wouldn't want the stress. (I can understand why you'd be hacked off though).
 
If letting grazing, it is definitely not a god idea to let a field but rather "grazing", making sure the horse owner does not have exclusive possession. I used to let grazing and the agreement included a clause stating that I could move horses around to allow fields to be maintained. The most useful clause was instant dismissal with no notice required or reason given! I never had to use it as the threat was enough. Yard disputes did not last long! :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top