Livery yards / rented fields and the law .

Goldenstar

Goldenstar

Well-Known Member
Joined
28 March 2011
Messages
47,712
Visit site
So , considering the interesting and pertinent comment that Popsdosh made on another thread I have been musing this all day .
The problem with licensing for all livery yards is that it is cumbersome and needs a great load of imput from a local authority which costs money making licenses expensive .
So would they contract the number of places available as smaller yards dropped out and some of these small yards provide great places for horses to live .
At the moment you as an owner or the person caring for a horse you are committing an offence if you don't meet the horses reasonable needs , sufficient suitable food housing water healthcare etc .
In the past it had to be proved that you had behaved cruelly and this had caused harm to the horse the current law sought to make it easier to pursue bad owners without the horses having to be in a extreme situation before anything could be done in law .
Livery owners/ field owners have a duty of care .
So would be better to approach forget licensing with all its complexity and burden on the good and tackle the issue of poor and inadequate livery yards/ rented fields
By tweaking the law to make it unlawful to provide substandard care and conditions while running a buisness .
That way if your fences are terrible and the horses continually get out then you are at risk of prosecution even if no horse has been injured yet as a result of that bad fencing .
Now it's not a trouble free answer cases are costly and someone ,it could only be the RSPCA ATM would have to prepared to prepare and take cases in order to get some case law.
What does everybody think .
 
I think that it's a good idea in theory. In practice though, whatever system is chosen, there will always be someone (be they terrible owner or vindictive jobsworth) who manages to ruin it for everyone else :( I also think they'll end up testing it here in NI first, because that appears to be the way things go. EG- NI had the mandatory microchips for dogs long before the rest of the UK. It would be nice if you guys were the crash test dummies instead for a change - not sure that the USPCA would have the time or resources to drum up sufficient case law anyhow.
 
Originally when the idea was being discussed, I was all in favour of licensing of horse owners. But I then wondered what the implications of an already dwindling livery sector would come to. Who would be responsible say, one of the five freedoms wasn't bring met, through enforced stabling when YO close turnout for months on end. The owner?? You could argue that they had no choice.
Therefore i have changed my preference to categorising horses as livestock, this should then bring about standards of care enforceable by DEFRA.
 
Nativelover said:
Originally when the idea was being discussed, I was all in favour of licensing of horse owners. But I then wondered what the implications of an already dwindling livery sector would come to. Who would be responsible say, one of the five freedoms wasn't bring met, through enforced stabling when YO close turnout for months on end. The owner?? You could argue that they had no choice.
Therefore i have changed my preference to categorising horses as livestock, this should then bring about standards of care enforceable by DEFRA.
Click to expand...

Under the current law stabling is not illegal but not meeting the needs of the stabled horse (Including exercise )would be .
Case law might decide that liveries with no turnout were not lawful ( I think this is unlikely ) .If that is how it panned out yards would need to amend their arrangements or close or risk prosecution.

Horses are not live stock in most cases within the U.K. .DEFRA would not be able to enforce anything ,they control farmers because they shove money in their direction so the farmers jump through hoops to get it .
And the welfare of farm animals is not good in many cases so I can't see how it would work any better if DEFRA was in control.
who
 
That might help resolve the issue of the fourth was it? livery horse escaping earlier this week into someone's garden (SusieT's?)
 
The Xmas Furry said:
GS, why shouldn't equines come under the boarding of animals act, exactly like dog kennels do?

Food for thought?
Click to expand...

They do, under the riding establishment act. That covers all riding schools regardless of level, so the dump with a couple of knackered ponies is regulated just the same as somewhere like Talland. The act also covers hunter hirelings, polo lessons etc. Any establishment that provides a horse for hire is within the act. Livery yards are not and I doubt they ever will be. Parliament considered it a few years ago and it was shelved.

The Licensing Act(alcohol) and the gambling act took a lot of time although both are now operational. At present parliament is considering repealing the hackney carriage and private hire law, but again time ran out and the end result was some deregulation but not an ideal result.
 
The trouble is that the vast majority of equestrian 'establishments' aren't providing horse's for hire though, and if a horse has an owner not bothered about it, and a land owner just taking the rent money and not bothered about it it isn't in a great place.
 
The Xmas Furry said:
GS, why shouldn't equines come under the boarding of animals act, exactly like dog kennels do?

Food for thought?
Click to expand...

I think it's a good idea.
But boarding kennels are licensed are they not .
To me it's not logical that riding schools are licensed , dog and cat boarding is licensed but livery is a free for all with premises with terrible conditions and appalling management .
But there's the cost issue with licensing it will reduce livery places .
Would having robust laws be better I am thinking that it might leave the good alone to get on with their job and make life uncomfortable for the bad .
LIcensing in the dog area has not stopped terrible breeding practises and poor care at some kennels licensing can become a box ticking exercise .
And yes the thread with the video of the escaped horse is a good example the horse has come to no harm ATM there's no reason for the idiots running the yard to a thing about it .
They can run their ramshackle operation take people's money and no body is going to do a thing .
I don't know the answer but I think we all need to be thinking about these things.
 
Average cost of a riding school licence is £300. Plus cost of annual inspection by a vet on the approved list.

Kennels and catteries are licensed and many council's have now implemented licensing for home boarding. I am exceptionally busy with home boarding it is taking off big time.
 
The Xmas Furry said:
GS, why shouldn't equines come under the boarding of animals act, exactly like dog kennels do?

Food for thought?
Click to expand...

I think there needs to be something set up but there are far more variables with equine care than required for short term boarding kennels, a dog will be shut in for most of the time with a tiny run outside each kennel and a set exercise allowance each day but this is usually for a week or two while the owner go on holiday, not permanent way for them to live so it is far easier to set minimum standards and for them to be monitored by the LA who issue the licence.
In an ideal world every horse would get all day turnout 12 months a year but in some areas there are far more horses than available land, it would be extremely hard to set a minimum requirement without either making many horses homeless or the cost of livery prohibitive.
I do think that anyone taking money for livery whether it is grass, DIY or full should take responsibility to check every field at least once a day not so much to see the horses but to check the gates are secure and do a quick check of the boundaries especially of off lying land, most farmers would do this in any field they have stock in so why do some leave a field full of horses for the owners to check, the land owner is responsible for fencing and a daily check should be done as routine, if they see a sick animal or think one is missing then they should contact the owner.
I did not comment on the other thread but think it extremely sad that anyone can just see livery as "easy money" with no responsibility for what is on their land, I only have a small yard but every horse is checked properly every day and the boundaries that are not easily seen get walked regularly, it is part of keeping horses to try and ensure they are as safe as possible.
 
So where do common grazers & free living herds fall into this? I only know Exmoor herds & I know they are well looked after, as we prize our Mealies very much, but the abandoned ponies on Dartmoor & Bodmin are a whole different story.
 
I'd suggest maybe it depends on whether the horse is fit for purpose to live in the conditions it is given, which would exclude some of those on dartmoor and bodmin. And iirc the rules for hill sheep regarding checking are different to those for lowland sheep (ie not daily) so I'd guess the same would apply.
 
I think any action you take has the potential to create other problems and probably wouldn't do much to curb the activities of the very worst places anyway. I think most people are doing the best they can for their horses in sometimes less than ideal circumstances, education is probably the best way forward so that people understand what a horse needs to be secure and healthy and can vote with their feet if a yard is unfit for purpose.
 
Dave's Mam said:
So where do common grazers & free living herds fall into this? I only know Exmoor herds & I know they are well looked after, as we prize our Mealies very much, but the abandoned ponies on Dartmoor & Bodmin are a whole different story.
Click to expand...

They are responsibility of their owners .
If they are abandoned sadly the landowner has to sort it out .
 
Goldenstar said:
So , considering the interesting and pertinent comment that Popsdosh made on another thread I have been musing this all day .
The problem with licensing for all livery yards is that it is cumbersome and needs a great load of imput from a local authority which costs money making licenses expensive .
So would they contract the number of places available as smaller yards dropped out and some of these small yards provide great places for horses to live .
At the moment you as an owner or the person caring for a horse you are committing an offence if you don't meet the horses reasonable needs , sufficient suitable food housing water healthcare etc .
In the past it had to be proved that you had behaved cruelly and this had caused harm to the horse the current law sought to make it easier to pursue bad owners without the horses having to be in a extreme situation before anything could be done in law .
Livery owners/ field owners have a duty of care .
So would be better to approach forget licensing with all its complexity and burden on the good and tackle the issue of poor and inadequate livery yards/ rented fields
By tweaking the law to make it unlawful to provide substandard care and conditions while running a buisness .
That way if your fences are terrible and the horses continually get out then you are at risk of prosecution even if no horse has been injured yet as a result of that bad fencing .
Now it's not a trouble free answer cases are costly and someone ,it could only be the RSPCA ATM would have to prepared to prepare and take cases in order to get some case law.
What does everybody think .
Click to expand...

I like your thinking, GS. Anyone who is taking money for providing facilities(even the most basic) or a service should be held to account if these are not provided to a reasonable, safe standard. Combined with defining all equines as livestock, this could make it much easier to "police" welfare standards. That would put the onus onto local councils, though and of course, they have barely enough funding for their statutory duties now, without adding to their workload.
 
I live in farming country. I could nip out and photograph fence repairs made of a pallet and baler twine, fence materials from old replaced fences left in fields, limping sheep, cows deep bedded in a barn for the whole winter with little room to move, hens without clean water, dogs chained up all day and night when they aren't working, and more.

I can't see how defining horses as livestock would solve this problem at all.
 
ycbm said:
I live in farming country. I could nip out and photograph fence repairs made of a pallet and baler twine, fence materials from old replaced fences left in fields, limping sheep, cows deep bedded in a barn for the whole winter with little room to move, hens without clean water, dogs chained up all day and night when they aren't working, and more.


I can't see how defining horses as livestock would solve this problem at all.
Click to expand...

Neither do I .
 
There is legislation already in place - the problem is enforcing it. I am also not sure how it has been amended by case law since my source was published several years ago, but it is common law that if you take horses on your land for reward, it is known as agistment and you have the responsibility to ensure the premises are safe (see Horses and The Law by John Weatherill. 1979 but common law is only developed by case law, unless it has been superseded, afaik it can't be repealed).
There are cases I can quote but there are too many to list here and they go back as far as 1875. It is a civil action and depends on the animal owner sueing the land owner. Insurance companies seem to be fairly lax in not taking the necessary action to minimise their risk?
If anyone can update my source feel free, but this seems to cover the DIYers as opposed to livery which means the property owner contracts to take care of the horse. Such a contract carries with it a duty to ensure the horse is adequately cared for, but again, the animals owner must sue for breach of contract (or their insurers?).
On the other hand if you lease or rent a whole field, the responsibility to ensure there are no hazards putting your animals at risk is yours, and if you fail to do so you will be in breach of the Animal Welfare Act. Enforcement is down to the Welfare societies or in the case of farm livestock, the Animal Welfare Officer at the local council.
If a licensing system were to be introduced it would impose a cost on everyone who isn't fortunate enough to have their own land, and IMO because of the above is neither necessary nor warranted.
 
Last edited:
That's the trouble though, it depends on the animal owner sueing the landowner.
In many cases the animal owner doesn't really seem to care either which is why they put up with it in the first place.
 
ester said:
That's the trouble though, it depends on the animal owner sueing the landowner.
In many cases the animal owner doesn't really seem to care either which is why they put up with it in the first place.
Click to expand...

No it would not .
It would illegal a criminal act like mistreating your own horse .
So the RSPCA could take cases or the CPS .
 
JillA said:
There are cases I can quote but there are too many to list here and they go back as far as 1875. It is a civil action and depends on the animal owner sueing the land owner. Insurance companies seem to be fairly lax in not taking the .
Click to expand...

It was in response to this.
 
Not sure that would prevent welfare cases. How many welfare cases are due to poor fencing, or leaky stables. Most welfare cases seem to be because of inappropriate feeding either not enough or too much {laminitis}, poor hoof care, or lack of veterinary care. If this is due to lack of money then anything which makes horse keeping more expensive in the short term at least will aggravate the problem.

What percentage of welfare cases that end up at charities come from horses kept at livery yards? If you look at most rescue charities you can see most horses have come in groups so maybe licensing and inspections are required for anyone owning more than a certain number of horses make it a fairly low number such as three and this would encompass breeders, and dealers or others who own multiple horses.

I can't see there ever being a ruling that yards with no turnout for part of the year would be illegal as this would mean a big change in the management of military and police horses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top