[hamstergbert]

I will point out that currently I am neither a landlord, a tenant nor a keeper of chickens!

However...

if a 'no chickens' clause were in a lease document accepted by the tenant and subseqently ignored by the tenant, if it came to court would the tenant claim that due to the inclusion of that clause the lease agreement was rendered invalid - and therefore accept liability to vacate due to not having a valid lease agreement?   

Or would the lease contract be considered to stand as an agreed variation and therefore the tenant by breaking that agreement be deemed in breach of contract?

Seems bizarre to me!  Increasingly it would seem that ownership of anything means having no rights over what you own!  Surely the safest thing if renting somewhere is to rent somewhere for which the keeping of poultry is agreed?   Apart from anything else, keeping chooks where the owner of the premises is agin' it can't do much for tenant-landlord relations!

A legal system that barmy would be capable of anything - even, say, where a farmer has  a group of <certain type of people> illegally trespassing on his land with their caravans and vehicles the law would not only not assist him in evicting him but prevent him from doing so - and fine him £20,000 because his land is being camped on by the <certain type of people> against the rules of the Dartmoor National Park.   Good job it isn't THAT barmy, eh!   Oh, my mistake, it is......

[/bemusement]

[LittleRedHen]

Every council is different, but you should have a neighbourhood officer from your housing authority that knows everything about your tenancy.  If you have been in the property for more than a year, you have a much better chance of having your lifestyle (having those hens) respected and honoured by the council.  The complaint is about cockerels.  If you don't have any, then there's no fuel for the fuss, is there?

[Yorkie]

@hamster, no it wouldn't invalidate the tenancy but it's just that that clause is unenforceable.  The person drafting the contract has sought to override the law of the land, and the courts will not allow them to do so.  This has always been the law - just because someone owns land, the courts have never allowed them to override statute.

A comparable example is where landlords try to insist that a tenant gives two months' notice at the end of a fixed term, or if the tenancy rolls onto a monthly rolling contract.  In the first instance, no notice is due (although it's courteous for the tenant to give it), and in the latter instance, only 1 month's notice is due from the tenant.  If a LL tried to enforce the clause then the courts would refuse to uphold it.  The same would apply in principle here.  That being said, I am not aware of it ever being tried in the courts ...

I don't understand your example.  You seem to be arguing that if people camped on a person's land illegally, the courts would refuse to award an eviction order because it's also against the rules of the national park.  That doesn't make sense at all.  The national law relating to eviction would override any local bylaws relating to the land.  So, the courts would indeed enforce the eviction. 

Anyway, this is getting further away from the original question so I suggest we let the topic get better back on topic now.

[hamstergbert]

My example was an attempt to metaphorically shake my head in bemusement at the strangeness of law and how it appears to look after the interests of everyone but the owner of the land - in the example the farmer being threatened with a fine because his land is being 'occupied' although that occupation is against his wishes. 
story here

Agree that as you suggest the thread should drift back to the original topic.

[Dominic]

Hamster
I agree, the law is silly, the owner should be able to put whatever he likes in his agreement.
But, the law is the law.

The Government gives you the right to keep chickens.
You can choose not to exercise it, but you cant surrender it, whether you want to or not.

The Government does not give you the right to keep Pigs, but you may, if the landowner is willing.

The Government has taken your right to keep lions, and you may not keep them, even with the land owners position.


The law doesnt end at the property line.
You cant kill your tenant for failing to clean the floors, even if the tenancy agreement says you can.  Well, I suppose you could, be jailed for murder though.

[uktitan]

Council has just been, and Stated that We have to get rid of our chickens and downsize to 6, And that the allotment act Doesn't apply to them, and they don't have to follow it, because we are in a council house Not an Allotment.

Even though, after talking to legal help and being told that the allotment act covers ALL land despite being called the allotment act, and the fact that its a Parliamentary Act the council are choosing to Ignore it.

SO it looks like its time to contact my Local MP and See what he has to say about the council choosing which Parliamentary laws they choose to follow.

[hillfooter]

This is an issue about your "statutary" rights which are enshrined in law where as an agreement is contract law and can't take away your statutary rights.  You will often see on warrenties that manufacturers guarentees do not affect your statutary rights.  However in this case you still would need to ensure that you weren't infringing any of your neighbours statutary rights too.  In a dispute an expensive court ruling might be involved which you could lose and even if you won you might have to pay expensive legal costs.  So it pays to be squeeky clean on such matters.
  
I must say in this case 25 hens is a lot particularly, if for example they were all hybrid layers as they can't be justified on personal supply of eggs alone.  So that could be used as an arguement to limit your numbers.  You would be better placed if they were different breeds and you justified their numbers on the grounds that they were pets or theat breeding was a hobby.

On a different tack not related to this particular issue. statutary rights has implications on personal liability.  If you allow someone onto your property or for example loan them a tool (ladder) and they injure themselves due to your negligence ie poor maintenance, failure to protect/warn them from/about hazards, you could find yourself personally liable for their injuries and compensation, irrespective of whether you asked them to accept liability beforehand.  ie clauses refering to doing this or that "at your own risk" could be irrelevant if a statutary right was involved.  Your safest protection would be to ensure you had public liability insurance and the other person was also covered for personal accident cover.  

Best of luck

[hillfooter]

if a 'no chickens' clause were in a lease document accepted by the tenant and subseqently ignored by the tenant, if it came to court would the tenant claim that due to the inclusion of that clause the lease agreement was rendered invalid - and therefore accept liability to vacate due to not having a valid lease agreement?
   

The validity of a specific clause would not necessarily invalidate the whole agreement so you are extrapolating beyond what is reasonable in reaching your conclusion. 

Often laws are contradictory or in conflict in specific situations and a ruling has to be made in court it's what keeps lawyers in business and often leads to what appear on the surface to be absurbities.  Precident is an important principle in deciding such issues which is why Yorkies comment about this situation having been tested in court is so relevant.
HF

HF

[uktitan]

I don't Actually Have 25 Hens, The Neighbor Lied to the council when she complained just to be a ***** , she also complained about Cockerels that we Don't have and a Duck pond that we are apparently building for our Ducks that we Don't actually Have, Ive never had ducks and don't ever intend to get any, and don't plan on building a Duck pond either. I actually have 16 hens, Not 25. Most are Pure breeds.

I am Disabled and i keep my Hens as my hobby because well i Love chickens. it helps to relieve stress because of my situation. I also Keep hens because you cant beat fresh eggs, I keep Extras, because my mum and step dad love fresh eggs, but don't have room for chickens,
My dad and Step mum also love fresh Eggs so i keep a couple Extra hens for then also, I also keep a Hen for my sisters eggs, and for my uncle to.

[Yorkie]

I love Dominic's explanation!

Council has just been, and stated that we have to get rid of our chickens and downsize to 6

Your statement is contradictory.  The council has either allowed you to keep hens, but a maximum of 6 - or to get rid of them.  I assume it's the former?

If so, then they are not forbidding you to have hens, but restricting the number, presumably on the grounds of potential / actual nuisance. 

Irrespective of what the neighbour may or may not have said in their complaint, the council has inspected you and made its independent decision.  You need to move on from issues such as cockerels and ducks.

In my view, the council are wrong in their interpretation of the application of the Allotment Act. 

The introduction to the Act states it is "An Act to amend the law relating to allotments and to abolish restrictions on the keeping of hens and rabbits".  If the section on hens related only to allotments, it would be worded differently.  The wording clearly indicates that the Act has two, unrelated purposes despite its general title.

Furthermore, sections 1 - 11 of the Act are headed "Allotments", whereas the s.12 heading expressly states "Abolition of contractual restrictions on keeping hens and rabbits".  Again, if it was intended to apply only to allotments, it would a) have included it in the allotment section, and b) it would have used the phrase 'tenancy of an allotment garden' rather than 'any lease or tenancy or in any covenant, contract or undertaking relating to the use to be made of any land'.

However, as Hillfooter (I think it was) said, a court case over this will be unpredictable and costly.

By all means write to your MP but don't get involved in a court case unless you are prepared to spend money on it.  It would be a case of principle because, as I say, they have not actually banned you from keeping hens.

Sorry for the long post but hope it helped.

[hillfooter]

There's really two issues here.

1   Have you a statutory right to keep chickens irrespective of any contractural agreement?  I strong believe you have and I think there have been other cases involving local authorities where this has been accepted even if it may not have been tested in court which i don't know one way or the other.  You are on pretty firm ground I think and the LA is acting illegally if it seeks to deny you your statutory rights either expressedly or by implication.  However that doesn't mean you can raise two fingers to them see below.

2  Does your neighbour have a case for complaint (are you infact infringing on her staturory rights).  We don't really know because we don't know what the complaint is or what the circumstances are or the facts of the case.  It could be that there are conflicting legal issues here.

Whatever the rights & wrongs it is in nobodies interest that this becomes a legal dispute.  Someone will win and someone will lose there will be disaffection on one side or the other.  Costs to all parties could be high.  

The role of the LA should be to act as an honest broker to arrive at an amicable agreement.  If you are antagonistic to a settlement you may alienate the LA who may decide to prosecute on behalf of your neighbour and you will be involved in a lot of cost and a possibility of losing.  If you cooperate with the LA and are willing to compromise based on the facts you may well not lose a great deal.  For example you could commit to not having more than 16 chx or any cockerels or to having ducks all of which would cost you nothing and take away (according to what you have said) much of your neighbour's complaint.  Generally I agree with Yorkie that you need to move on from just disputing the facts.  You can actually use the misinformation to your advantage.

One thing the LA can't do is dictate a settlement based on a tenancy agreement and all you need say to them is that you have a statutory right to keep hens and they can't legally deny you your statutary rights.  So any settlement will need to be on the basis of concensus.  Show you are willing to make compromises and you will probably not lose much if anything and have the LA backing.
Best of luck
HF

[compie]

for all those saying a tenancy agreement would over ride the allotments act they would not as they were made after the allotments act and therefor are illegal tenacy agreements as my council has now found out after trying to stop me having hens 

[hillfooter]

for all those saying a tenancy agreement would over ride the allotments act they would not as they were made after the allotments act and therefor are illegal tenacy agreements as my council has now found out after trying to stop me having hens 

The timing of a tenancy agreement is irrelevant here since a tenancy agreement is a contract which does not have prescedent over law enacted by parliment.  Your rights to keep chickens is enshrined within statutory law you cannot contract that away and anyone who seeks to do so is in fact breaking the law and could themselves be prosecuted.  This is still illegal whether they do this openly ie tell you your rights are limited by an aggreement or simply imply that they are.  This is why all guarentees and warranties these days state "'this does not affect your statutory rights".

HF

[Dominic]

http://www.ruleworks.co.uk/poultry/allotments_uk.htm

Abolition of contractual restrictions on keeping hens and rabbits.

12. --(1) Notwithstanding any provision to the contrary in any lease or tenancy or in any covenant, contract or undertaking relating to the use to be made of any land, it shall be lawful for the occupier of any land to keep, otherwise than by way of trade or business, hens or rabbits in any place on the land and to erect or place and maintain such buildings or structures on the land as are reasonably necessary for that purpose: Provided that nothing in this subsection shall authorise any hens or rabbits to be kept in such a place or in such a manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance or affect the operation of any enactment.
(2) This section shall have effect as from the time when Regulation sixty-two B of the Defence (General) Regulations, 1939, ceases to have effect as respects England and Wales.

Supplementary

You lease your land, your arent a poultry trader or running a poultry business, that leaves health and nuisance.
The council cannot rule that more than 7 birds if a health risk or a nuisance, only a court could, and they arent going to prosecute, because unless you actualy do keep your chickens in poor conditions, they will almost certainly lose.

Its always best to avoid legal action of course, but dont be afraid of the jumped up social worker.

My local housing authority was recentloy forced to back down in a case like this, but over 3 hens.

[Sassy]

Council has just been, and Stated that We have to get rid of our chickens and downsize to 6, And that the allotment act Doesn't apply to them, and they don't have to follow it, because we are in a council house Not an Allotment.

Even though, after talking to legal help and being told that the allotment act covers ALL land despite being called the allotment act, and the fact that its a Parliamentary Act the council are choosing to Ignore it.

SO it looks like its time to contact my Local MP and See what he has to say about the council choosing which Parliamentary laws they choose to follow.

Write to the council solicitor and their monitoring officer stating the facts and the law and see if that helps. Good luck