Often, the most practical short-term solution is for the land user to erect an electric fence within their boundaries to contain their stock and keep it safe, perhaps until another agreement can be reached. In our view, the new clause is not far from representing the existing common law position. I believe Mr. Williams referred to Egerton v. Harding, brought before the Court of Appeal in 1974, where it was held that it was quite true that a customary law to fencing could exist. It is very likely that on most commons in England and Wales there is a customary right for neighbouring landlords to fence off common property. Customary law is the custom of a place that has existed since time immemorial. The courts will uphold this right if it can be proven. Typically, in such a case, several elderly farmers were brought to court to testify that they and their ancestors had always considered it customary to fence off the community. In fact, almost all of our highland communities are surrounded by stone walls, some of which are of considerable vintage and have long been maintained by the owners of adjacent land. Another common problem arises when land previously used for hay harvesting is then grazed without altering fences to keep livestock: keyword disgruntled neighbor who sees no reason why he should go to cool to keep someone else`s animals away from his lawn. Cattle and sheep are included in the definition of “livestock” in the 1971 Act, and you could be held liable for any damage caused by livestock to the land and property of others, including the owners of the bungalows.
The tired phrase “A farmer is responsible for fencing his own livestock” is therefore a useful reminder given the extent of negligent liability in Williams v. Hawkes. Checking one`s own deeds to establish contractual fence obligations with neighbours may show that they have to bear some of the burden of maintaining the border. However, it is important to recognize that owning animals both inside and outside the farm is legally responsible and, therefore, insurance against the liability of an escaped animal as well as a claim for negligence remain an important area of coverage. Describe your legal, tax, financial, insurance or farm management question in no more than 350 words and Farmers Weekly will present it to a panel member. Please provide as much information as possible. One owner in particular that is slow to meet its legal fencing responsibilities – it`s probably the worst thing I`ve been to – is Railtrack. Railtrack has to be named and shamed every time you want a fence to be reset. He will do everything possible to avoid spending on fences, but we know how many sheep are killed each year on railway lines, which can often lead to serious accidents. Another problem is that disused coal mines and steel mills are often located on commons. A Ownership documents for your farm and neighboring bungalows may include information about whether you or the owners of neighboring bungalows have a positive obligation (obligation) to fence and, if so, whether the obligation imposes an obligation to fence to a certain standard or specification (and to maintain and repair a fence).
We are particularly concerned about the situation when forest land is adjacent to a common area. The owner of a forest might think it is wise to maintain a fence during the period of establishment of the forest and trees, but if the trees reach such a size that they should not be damaged by livestock, he or she could allow the fence to degrade. This, of course, would greatly disadvantage livestock owners in the commonplace, as cattle could roam over a large area. We believe there have been examples where the owner of a logging operation resells it without requiring the future owner to maintain the fence. The situation is deteriorating considerably. Of course, the member would say that it can be costly to prove custom in court and that few people will accept the challenge. I also acknowledge, as he suggested, that in recent years some landowners, particularly owners of land that is no longer used for agriculture, tend to take the opposite view and believe that it is the responsibility of citizens to prevent their livestock from moving away from communal and adjacent land. This can sometimes lead to resentment in local communities when sheep end up in the owners` gardens. These problems are particularly acute in parts of South Wales and in valleys where adjacent land is or has been used industrially and where old practices are difficult to apply. The law requires that an animal owner be liable for these cattle and any damage caused by these cattle. However, there has been a practice — certainly in the areas I represent — that people who occupy lands adjacent to and around the Commons should be responsible for putting in place a secure fence and keeping it in a state that prevents the stock from leaving the general public and accessing the land that those people occupy.
Some jurisdictions support this assertion, including the case of a lady who owned a cottage and garden adjacent to a shared cottage. The cattle entered the garden from the commune and caused damage, but it was determined that the owner of the cattle was not responsible for the damage, as the lady should have erected a fence and kept it in good condition. I think Mr Llwyd will raise another case. In this case, a Charolais driver was killed after jumping over a 6-foot fence, running down a highway and colliding with a car. The car was badly damaged and its driver sustained significant injuries and filed a lawsuit against the cattle farmer for negligence and liability under the 1971 law. I hope that the Minister will respond in due course, because the situation is not only difficult for citizens, but also an animal welfare issue, since animals that get lost are often killed. I hope he can reassure us as to whether any aspect of the act could help citizens who find themselves in such a situation. They don`t want phone calls telling them that their sheep are wandering, but when their fences are cut down, what choice do they have with the best will in the world? As for the Labour candidate, Mr Smith, who said that we need fines locally, everyone knows that we have existing legislation to cover that – the Animals Act 1971.
I ask the minister to address the long-standing problem and I am sure he will do it in his usual way. Section 4 of the 1971 Act also provides that where cattle are lost on land in the possession or occupation of a person who is clearly not the person who owns the livestock, the farmer is liable for damage to that other person`s land or property and for all costs incurred by that person in keeping the livestock. until he can determine who owns the livestock. The hon. member for Brecon and Radnorshire made another important point. More and more tree populations are being sold by the Forestry Commission. The Commission has taken a responsible attitude towards fencing, but some of the commercial companies to which the trees are sold do not have quite the same feeling about their responsibility for fences. The Honourable Gentleman rightly said that these stalls are often sold without a fence, so once the new owners have removed the trees, or even before, do not bother doing maintenance.
Strong and stable fences are essential, regardless of the type of animal kept, but they are not cheap. Problems can arise when a landowner allows someone to graze livestock on their land, but does not repair or make fences safe. The first question is always: who owns the fence? Sometimes the reference to the land registry helps, but it doesn`t identify who created it. When part of a field is sold for development, it is usually the buyer who is required to erect a watertight fence, but this is not always the case. With precise and, I hope, non-partisan political references to the remarks about Blaenau Gwent, I understand that there seems to be a problem there. Part of the reason for that, as I understand it, is that a minority of farmers allow fences to deteriorate when there is a question of ownership or responsibility for the fences. It is also about fences cut by illegal motorcyclists trying to access open spaces. There is uncertainty as to the extent to which off-roaders and farmers are therefore responsible for stray animals.
If bungalow owners are not subject to an obligation (in your favor) to fence to a certain standard, you cannot force them to improve the level of their garden fence. Some of their garden fences are now completely inappropriate as cattle fences, but allow the property a wonderful view of our land all the way to the coast beyond.