Livery Yards, Horse Welfare and the Law

minesadouble

minesadouble

Well-Known Member
Joined
18 June 2005
Messages
3,210
Visit site
I have seen numerous posts stating that DIY livery owners can be prosecuted under the Animal Welfare Act 2006 if there is a welfare issue with a horse on their yard. Can someone please point me in the direction of what provision in the law there is for this as I have searched and cannot find it.

I found this on The Horse Trust Website from 2009 ;-

"1) At present, Livery Yards in the UK are not regulated, unlike many other establishments that look after animals, such as catteries and kennels. Defra has said that it may draft secondary legislation around the 2006 Animal Welfare Act to regulate livery yards in the future"

and this on the DEFRA Website;-

"Who will be responsible if there is a concern of poor welfare at a livery yard – yard owner or horse owner?
Our initial thinking is that there should be a written agreement between yard owner and each horse owner – this would make clear who is responsible for what.


Why has the proposed date for the introduction of a livery yard licensing scheme been put back?
MPs and peers in Parliament focused on welfare issues elsewhere, so our limited resources are now prioritised on work that was considered more urgent."

So in light of these statements it would seem there is still no onus on the yard owner, unless the secondary legislation has come into force since 2009. If this is the case can someone point me in the direction of it please?
 
I think livery yards should be licenced. OK both YO and liveries may moan, but it is a chance to increase welfare and sto pa lot of cash in hand black economy . I am all for it,its long overdue. I expect that it will be the YO responsibility to deal with a neglected or abandoned horse in the first instance.
 
Under current legislation (animal welfare) the owner or keeper of the horse is responsible for the welfare of the horse.
A livery yard owner should be in possession of the passports of every horse on their yard and they are therefore deemed to be the keeper in the absence of the owner.
 
OWLIE185 said:
Under current legislation (animal welfare) the owner or keeper of the horse is responsible for the welfare of the horse.
A livery yard owner should be in possession of the passports of every horse on their yard and they are therefore deemed to be the keeper in the absence of the owner.
Click to expand...

This isn't practical, as you need your passport everytime you take your horse off the yard, competing, hunting etc. Also if YO is basically just renting you field and stable and the rest is your responsibility do they constitute being a YO.

I would have thought the YO if present should have a responsibility to report where they believe there is a welfare issue but that the actual responsibility lies with owner.
 
OWLIE185 said:
Under current legislation (animal welfare) the owner or keeper of the horse is responsible for the welfare of the horse.
A livery yard owner should be in possession of the passports of every horse on their yard and they are therefore deemed to be the keeper in the absence of the owner.
Click to expand...

I really don't think this would stand up at all if a case ever came to court unless it specifically stated this in Statute.
 
As a yard owner I would not be comfortable asking my liveries for their horses passports and as a previous livery wouldnt of wanted to hand over my horses passports. We all know there are some yards out their where the owners would hold onto the passport if someone tried to leave etc (I never would) but I really dont think its right.
 
But thats irrelevant. Its like saying "I'm not comfortable wearing a seat belt" or "I'm not happy to pay all the council tax , I think I wont bother". If YO are ment to be in possession of the passports then they should be. Owners need to ask for them before boxing up. Its easy to arrange,all passports being in a locked box in the tack room perhaps, with owners having a key for access in YO absence. what happens if a vet has to visit the yard in an emergency and the owner is at work with the passport at home? THe passport should be with the horse,and clarification about authorising humane destruction needs addressing too.
 
If you allow a horse onto land owned by you, you are deemed to have accepted some level of responsibility for its welfare. What this means is that if an owner does a bunk it is not acceptable for the yard owner to sit back and watch the horse starve to death.
 
I think that the YO should be responsible. I am a YO and would never put up with any neglect of any horses on my yard. I do not offer DIY, but one of my liveries does all her own mucking out. I am very strict that this has to be done by 8.30 am unless they notify me otherwise. If it's not done by the time I finish the others then I muck the horse out and charge them double the usual rate. This works well. There really is no excuse for any neglect to be going on at any yard. It makes my blood boil.

However, I am against licencing because it would cost more money. Livery prices would have to go up. I have just finished my accounts for last years profits and despite working 7 days a week 365 days a year, I made less than £4k! I must be mad. :D
 
Spudlet said:
If you allow a horse onto land owned by you, you are deemed to have accepted some level of responsibility for its welfare. What this means is that if an owner does a bunk it is not acceptable for the yard owner to sit back and watch the horse starve to death.
Click to expand...

I am looking for the legislation that stipulates this - where is it???

I just can't see how this can work on a DIY yard. If I let a flat to someone and they abuse their child am I liable for that abuse? It's a subtle difference!
 
minesadouble said:
I am looking for the legislation that stipulates this - where is it???

I just can't see how this can work on a DIY yard. If I let a flat to someone and they abuse their child am I liable for that abuse? It's a subtle difference!
Click to expand...

I actually don't think there is any. I have seen reprts regarding people being banned from keeping horses due to neglecting them and it is the owners, not the yard owners that have been prosecuted.
 
Wagtail said:
I actually don't think there is any. I have seen reprts regarding people being banned from keeping horses due to neglecting them and it is the owners, not the yard owners that have been prosecuted.
Click to expand...

Yes me too. I'm not looking for arguments as to rights and wrongs just where the legislation regarding DIY livery that people keep quoting is??

I agree with you, I can't find anything in the Animal Welfare Act and I have never heard of a livery yard owner being prosecuted in respect of a horse belonging to someone else. There is an obvious responsibility if you are providing a full livery service but if you simply letting a stable it becomes more murky.
 
Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act:

A person commits an offence if-
a. an act of his, or failure to act, causes an animal to suffer
Click to expand...

Nothing there about being the owner. If the horse is there on your yard and the owner isn't looking after it and you do nothing, you have committed an offence.
 
Although obviously if a YO has any sense at all they will protect themselves by calling in the welfare agencies and by building a clause into their livery agreements that allows them to sell the horse if the owner vanishes...
 
From what I gather this is an extremly grey area (along with alot of the animal welfare act). A solictor friend of mine (experienced in these areas) has on numerous occasions defended yard/land owners who have been taken to court for these reasons. Problem is that they were taken to court in the first place (when maybe they shouldnt have - who knows).
 
Haven't had personal experience of rogue YO's but when a horse on a yard I've been on, has been neglected to some degree, the YO usually has a strong word telling the owner to look after the horse or leave.
I wouldn't be in favour of YO holding my horses's passports, in the case of a surprise inspection, I think I read somewhere that passport holders have 3 hours to produce them. Vet has never asked to see one for treatment or euthanasia, and for jabs, if I forget them, I generally drop it off at the surgery afterwards. Only get them out for transporting.
I tend to think licensing yards would make small YO's less likely to offer livery and push prices up on other yards. If a yard looks sub standard, I don't put my horses there. Only yard I've used that was BHS approved was awful, horses out in thick mud 24/7 over winter, no grass and neurotic YO who screamed at the horses constantly. Regulation doesn't always cover the things that matter.
 
Wagtail said:
I think that the YO should be responsible. I am a YO and would never put up with any neglect of any horses on my yard. I do not offer DIY, but one of my liveries does all her own mucking out. I am very strict that this has to be done by 8.30 am unless they notify me otherwise. If it's not done by the time I finish the others then I muck the horse out and charge them double the usual rate. This works well. There really is no excuse for any neglect to be going on at any yard. It makes my blood boil.
Click to expand...

I don't think you can class not mucking out by 8.30am as neglect:D

Hell- I mucked out at 3pm on saturday ( admittedly, the horses had been out from 7.30am......)
 
Spudlet said:
Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act:



Nothing there about being the owner. If the horse is there on your yard and the owner isn't looking after it and you do nothing, you have committed an offence.
Click to expand...

I don't think that does not make the YO liable, otherwise everyone on the yard would be liable if they did not act.
 
CuriousYellow said:
I don't think you can class not mucking out by 8.30am as neglect:D

Hell- I mucked out at 3pm on saturday ( admittedly, the horses had been out from 7.30am......)
Click to expand...

I say mucking out, it also includes filling the water bucket and haying him up. Sorry, I guess that was a bit misleading.
 
notjustforchristmas - you have obviously never owned your own yard. You seem to think we are all rolling around in cash and only in it for the money. No-one who runs a yard does it for the money and compulsory licencing would really push the prices up. I run a nice friendly tidy yard where all the horses are well looked after and all the profits are ploughed back into improvements! Holding someones passport would be a big responsibility. What if they wanted to go to a show and I was on holiday or out for the day. I certainly wouldn't leave them lying around and they would need to be kept safely. Licencing is all very well but shouldn't be necessary on a well run yard
 
We have riding horses as well as livery's as such we are inspected every year we have nothing to hide so i am in favour of Livery licencing on another note all my liveries have lodged their passports with me they know i have them and they are always ready when they are off somewhere and always here should they need the vet and if they want to move their horses they get them back I cant see what the problem is with returnng a passport to an owner should they decide to move on, life's to short to bear grudges if i have done my best then there is nothing else I can do to change things then so be it
 
Spudlet said:
Section 4 of the Animal Welfare Act:



Nothing there about being the owner. If the horse is there on your yard and the owner isn't looking after it and you do nothing, you have committed an offence.
Click to expand...

So basically the responsibility of the yard owner (if DIY) is no more than that of A N Other as far as the law is concerned. Obviously most people would feel they had a moral responsibility to act but I was not questioning morality only legality.

I think the crux of section 4 is the proviso

"he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so," (to result in unnnecessary suffering) and again it would be easily arguable tht fellow liveries are more likely to know what's going on with a horse than the YO if all he does is provide stabling and grazing and offers no 'hands on' services.

So pleading ignorance is going to be a defence to that one. Very interesting, I hasten to add I do not know of any 'neglected liveries' all just hypothetical :)
 
were currently at loger heads as at our yard i have to pay more livery because I a have a large horse so there for more food bedding etc yet when hes mucked out hes allowed one bale of straw the same as the 12hh ponies, during the week they drag the bedding from round the stable and put in the middle of the box where all the wet is because there deep littered
 
Wagtail said:
However, I am against licencing because it would cost more money. Livery prices would have to go up. I have just finished my accounts for last years profits and despite working 7 days a week 365 days a year, I made less than £4k! I must be mad. :D[/QUOTE

I totally disagree. I believe that until "PROPER" licensing comes into force we will always have the "cash in back pocket" "no real welfare/safety" situation" When I say proper I mean ensuring that NNDR is paid, the correct insurance in place, Fire Regs including correctly sited extinguishers & Fire Alarms.Staff on a decent rate for a decent days work. (almost unheard of in most yards) Plus many other things.
If & when this happens we can all be on a level playing field. Yes charges may go up but as long as services & care go in the same direction this has to be a good thing. I guaranteee you will no longer have to chip at to keep them lower than the neighbouring yard, & Voila you will no longer be working 24/7 365 days of the year for £77 per week. Think about it!
Click to expand...
 
Section 3 of the Welfare Act 2006

And as correctly stated above Section 4.

A YO/YM is sadly responsible for the horses on the yard whether DIY or Part or Full under this act and so are the horse owners themselves. Even if a horse is on FULL LIVERY the horse owner is if you like still 50% responsible for the care of the horse.

Hope that helps
 
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/45/contents


Responsibility for animals E+W.(1)In this Act, references to a person responsible for an animal are to a person responsible for an animal whether on a permanent or temporary basis..
(2)In this Act, references to being responsible for an animal include being in charge of it..
(3)For the purposes of this Act, a person who owns an animal shall always be regarded as being a person who is responsible for it..
(4)For the purposes of this Act, a person shall be treated as responsible for any animal for which a person under the age of 16 years of whom he has actual care and control is responsible..


Unnecessary suffering E+W.(1)A person commits an offence if—.
(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,.
(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,.
(c)the animal is a protected animal, and.
(d)the suffering is unnecessary..
(2)A person commits an offence if—.
(a)he is responsible for an animal,.
(b)an act, or failure to act, of another person causes the animal to suffer,.
(c)he permitted that to happen or failed to take such steps (whether by way of supervising the other person or otherwise) as were reasonable in all the circumstances to prevent that happening, and.
(d)the suffering is unnecessary..
(3)The considerations to which it is relevant to have regard when determining for the purposes of this section whether suffering is unnecessary include—.
(a)whether the suffering could reasonably have been avoided or reduced;.
(b)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was in compliance with any relevant enactment or any relevant provisions of a licence or code of practice issued under an enactment;.
(c)whether the conduct which caused the suffering was for a legitimate purpose, such as—.
(i)the purpose of benefiting the animal, or.
(ii)the purpose of protecting a person, property or another animal;.
(d)whether the suffering was proportionate to the purpose of the conduct concerned;.
(e)whether the conduct concerned was in all the circumstances that of a reasonably competent and humane person..
(4)Nothing in this section applies to the destruction of an animal in an appropriate and humane manner..


This is the whole of Section 4 but I do not know if there are any subsequent amendments. The legislation only sets out what the intention is. It looks like its written to be a catch all to me so there is less cahnce for someon eto wriggle out of responsibility. I work a lot with waste legislation and although I do not know much about this particular legislation I don't think from this you could categorically say a YO was responsible for one of their clients horses DIY or full livery - it would depend on the facts of each case. These are the bare bones and usually case law has to be used to determine how they should be interpreted. Any Judge would look at all the facts including any government guidance on the issues to determine where any fault lay. It would not be in the interests of any prosecuting body to pursue a case against a yard owner or anyone else unless they have a very good case.

With a DIY yard in particular I think it would very much depend on the contract and the level of control the YO takes. If you saw a horse starving to death every day you visited the yard then you could have done something about it and by checking the yard you are taking some sort of responsibility. But if you rent out your fields and never visit them then I think it would be difficult to prove you had any responsibility for the animal or are "in charge of it"

Have any YO been prosecuted - if so what was the outcome?
 
robysfarm said:
As a yard owner I would not be comfortable asking my liveries for their horses passports and as a previous livery wouldnt of wanted to hand over my horses passports. We all know there are some yards out their where the owners would hold onto the passport if someone tried to leave etc (I never would) but I really dont think its right.
Click to expand...

Do what I do keep a photocopy of the registration, markings and vaccinations pages.
 
[QUOTEUnnecessary suffering E+W.(1)A person commits an offence if—.
(a)an act of his, or a failure of his to act, causes an animal to suffer,.
(b)he knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that the act, or failure to act, would have that effect or be likely to do so,.
[/QUOTE]

What about the situation where the YO is very rarely around and so unaware of the suffering? Many YO just leave the DIY to it, some even have a separate section for DIY. What about another DIY person knowing all about the abuse or neglect and doing nothing? The wording of the act makes them responsible too. Personally, I think everyone who is witness to such abuse or neglect should do something about it and report it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top