Just thought I would post about this because many people have problems with pesky cats in their neighborhood, and I see the same responses on the internet again and again. The problem is that many of these responses are written by people from the USA, and many of the solutions they propose are actually illegal in the UK. If you are resident in the UK, and you take their advice, you could end up being sued, being fined heavily, or worse. Therefore, I thought I should explain the legal status of cats in the UK, and discuss legal solutions for your problems.
The Legal Status of Cats
The legal status of British cats is an interesting one. In order to fully understand it, we have to go back to 1926, and the legal case of Buckle vs Holmes. Buckle was a pigeon fancier, who lived next door to Holmes. Holmes had a cat who, over a period of time, killed several of Buckle's birds. Buckle then sued Holmes for the cost of 13 homing pigeons and 2 bantams. Now, at first glance, this appeared to be an easy case to solve. Buckle had actually seen the cat catch one of the birds, and Holmes did not deny that the killer cat was indeed his. However, the judge ruled against Buckle. Buckle appealed twice, and lost every appeal he made. This may seem strange to US readers who are used to leash laws, and indoor only cats. However, there were several reasons why Buckle lost.
See the original newspaper article here: http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1368&dat=19260104&id=kVpQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=Vw8EAAAAIBAJ&pg=7310,2895448
The judge in this case made his ruling based on the following points of law (Source: http://www.noelsweeney.co.uk/the-cat-burglar-who-stole-his-neighbours-pigeons/).
"(i)
That the roaming character of cats was a recognised habit and the
custom was to allow them to roam about freely. Consequently the
responsibility in law was on the owner to keep them out of the way of
cats and not the owner of the cat to prevent him from attacking pigeons;
(ii) The other reason was that in the case of a cat attacking pigeons it was necessary to prove scienter,
the knowledge of a vicious propensity, before the responsibility in law
could be laid on the owner of the cat. So liability would only arise if
the cat possessed a vicious proclivity which was known to the owner"
The appeal judge agreed.
"Apart
from particular statutes, the owner of a domestic animal was not
responsible for any damage done by it unless he was aware that the
animal had acquired a character different from the generality of that
species… It
was said that the doctrine of law was different in the case of cats.
There was no authority, but in my judgment one could not draw a
distinction. Both cats and dogs were animals which their owners were not
expected to chain up, and a cat was, even more than a dog, able and
willing to trespass over a neighbour’s roofs, gardens, and trees.’"
Therefore, a trespassing cat would only be liable for the damage it did if it possessed an unusually viscous nature which the owner was already aware of. However, this does not mean that cat owners have a carte blanche as far as their pet is concerned. Whilst cat owners are not responsible if their cat should kill a neighbor's rabbit or bird (seeing as birds and rabbits represent a natural part of the feline diet), they are responsible if the cat acts in a way which is not typical for the species. For example, a while back then I heard complaints from the neighbors of my in-laws, who reported a large, un-neutered tom cat in the local area. This cat had already killed at least one other local cat, and was terrorising the rest. Whilst cat fights are normal and expected behavior, killing other cats is not. In this case, it would certainly have been possible to take legal action against the owner of the offending cat, provided that the injured party could prove that the owner of the murderous tom cat had been made aware of the unusual and viscous nature of their animal, and had neglected to take appropriate steps to prevent the cat from killing its own species again. But we digress. Back to Buckle vs Holmes.
"Buckle then tried to claim that as regards birds, cats should be treated as falling within the category of ferae naturae. That would have given Buckle an advantage as Holmes would be liable without proof of knowledge of his cat’s ruthless nature towards birds. Mr. Justice Shearman rejected that out of hand as: ‘That would be making a third class, unknown to the law. It was impossible at this stage to introduce that distinction: a cat was obviously a tame animal, and unless there was evidence or knowledge of acquired vice the owner was not responsible.’" [Underlining mine]
What does this mean? Buckle was trying to get the judge to declare the cat to be a wild or a feral animal. If Holmes had owned a pet which was classified as wild or feral, he would have been responsible for preventing it from roaming. However, the judge dismissed this argument. British readers will undoubtedly have heard people say "a cat is classified as a wild animal, which is why owners are not responsible for its actions". In fact, this is not the case. Moreover, if the cat was a wild animal, then cat owners would not be able to take legal action against people who injure their cats. This is NOT the case, as I shall go on to explain.
Now that we have established that cat owners are not liable for damage their cats do, unless the cat acts in a manner unusual for the species, and the owner is aware of this unusual tendency, let's look at what happens to people who either harm cats, or do things like trap, neuter, release to an owned cat.
Killing or Injuring Cats: A few months ago, there was some arsehole troll who enjoyed posting on internet forums about how he shot neighborhood cats. He claimed that the cats endangered entire bird species (for reasons why this claim is simply untrue in most areas of the UK, see my earlier post about indoor and outdoor cats; the RSPB is Britain's number one authority on bird populations, and they specifically report no link between species decline and cat predation). He claimed that it was the responsibility of the cat owner to keep the cat indoors (we have just established that legally, in Britain, this is not the case). He also claimed that shooting cats was legal "everywhere on God's green earth".
Let's start with the fact that it is actually quite difficult to get a licensed firearm in the UK, that it is illegal to discharge it inside a built up area, that anyone who shot a cat would summarily have their firearms license removed by police, and that owning an unlicensed firearm carries a mandatory prison sentence. All of this aside, what offenses would this man have committed, had he lived in Britain?
Answer: Anyone who kills or injures a cat is guilty of two offenses.
1. A breach of the Animal Welfare Act 2006. Now, the punishments under this act aren't too severe... our shooter would have been fined, ordered to pay court costs, and banned for keeping animals for a period of time (usually 5-10 years). If he had any pets (for example, dogs) they would have been removed from his care and rehomed. This ban would also have prevented him from being responsible for any animal within the time period in question... therefore, if he went to his daughter's house, for example, and she went shopping, leaving him as the only adult at home with her dog, he would have been guilty of breaching his ban, and could have been returned to court for further punishment.
2. More serious for our shooter is the Criminal Damage Act 1971. Because the law regards cats as property (remember that Buckle v Holmes specifically said that cats were NOT feral, but owned) then an offence is committed under this act "if a person, without lawful excuse, kills or injures a cat belonging to another person" (Source: http://www.cats.org.uk/uploads/documents/cat-care-leaflets-2013/EG13_Cats_and_the_law.pdf). The punishments under this act are more severe... and they depend on how much money is in question. If the cat's owner claims damages of less than £5,000 (for example, the cat was killed, and their out of pocket expenses only covered cremation costs) then the maximum penalty for our shooter is a £2,500 fine and/or 3 months imprisonment. However, if the owners of the cat have incurred expenses of over £5,000 trying to save the cat (for example, after an injury), or the cat was an exceptionally valuable animal worth over £5,000, then the penalties increase to a maximum of a £5,000 fine and/or 6 months imprisonment. (Source: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/damage_-_simple/). An example of a man being prosecuted and sent to prison for setting his dog on a cat trapped inside his shed can be found here: http://www.scunthorpetelegraph.co.uk/MAN-JAILED-PET-DOG-KILLED-CAT/story-11175273-detail/story.html
Trap and Release/ Removing Problem Cats: In 2012, an elderly man trapped his neighbors' cats inside humane cages because they were messing up his garden. He then took them miles away and released them in the countryside. There is no evidence that he harmed the cats. Question: what offences, if any, did this man commit?
Answer: as the cat is property, this man is guilty of an offence under the Theft Act 1968. Even if the cat is lost or has strayed, it is still the property of the original owner. It is therefore necessary to make "reasonable efforts" to find the original owner. This includes, for example, taking the cat to be scanned for a microchip at the local vet or rescue centre, and advertising the animal's whereabouts. If you have an animal in your possession through whatever means, and you do not take reasonable steps to reunite the animal with a potential owner, you are guilty of theft. I want to make this absolutely clear, because on some sites then I see people saying "my neighbor does not care for her cats" and people advise the original poster to simply take the cats from her. Make no mistake about it: this is THEFT. Even if the cat is in your back garden when you take it, it is STILL THEFT. Even if you find a distressed cat, you decide to adopt it, and you do not take reasonable steps to find the owner, that is ALSO THEFT. You cannot simply assume that a free roaming cat does not have an owner... this is simply not true.
The maximum penalty for theft is ten years' imprisonment. That's right... TEN YEARS. I will briefly summarise the relevant parts of the theft act here:
"A person is guilty of theft if he
dishonestly appropriates property belonging to another with the intention of
permanently depriving the other of it.... It is immaterial
whether the appropriation is made with a view to gain, or is made for the
thief’s own benefit.... Wild creatures,
tamed or untamed, shall be regarded as property; but a person cannot steal a
wild creature not tamed nor ordinarily kept in captivity, or the carcase of any such creature, unless either
it has been reduced into possession by or on behalf of another person and
possession of it has not since been lost or abandoned, or another person is in
course of reducing it into possession.... Property shall be regarded as
belonging to any person having possession or control of it, or having in it any
proprietary right or interest (not being an equitable interest arising only
from an agreement to transfer or grant an interest).... A person appropriating property
belonging to another without meaning the other permanently to lose the thing
itself is nevertheless to be regarded as having the intention of permanently
depriving the other of it if his intention is to treat the thing as his own to
dispose of regardless of the other’s rights; and a borrowing or lending of it
may amount to so treating it if, but only if, the borrowing or lending is for a
period and in circumstances making it equivalent to an outright taking or
disposal....A person guilty of theft shall on
conviction on indictment be liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten
years." Source: http://sixthformlaw.info/06_misc/statutes/16_theft_act_1968.htm
In this case, our cat thief got off lightly... he paid a £205 fine and £250 damages to the owners of the cats, which would have been reduced because of his age, infirmity, and public apology for his actions: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9768885/Pensioner-trapped-neighbours-cats-in-homemade-cages.html
It is really important to state that this law applies to missing cats, lost cats, and even dead cats... as the carcass of an animal belongs to its owner (not to mention the animal's microchip and collar), the same legal requirements to find the owner of the animal apply. You are therefore required to take reasonable steps to find the owner before disposing of the corpse.
Trap, Neuter, Release:This is another one I hear all the time online. A person is having issues with a neighbor's cat, usually an un-neutered tom cat. The US posters suggest trapping the cat, neutering it, and releasing it. Question: what offences, if any, would someone commit by doing this?
Answer: the person is guilty of medical trespass. I am less aware of the penalties for medical trespass, having only been made aware of it recently. I was made aware of it when I humanely trapped an un-neutered, injured tom cat in a poor state, and took it to the vet. He was treated for his injuries, and I asked about what would happen next. What I actually found out surprised me. The vet (having scanned the cat for a microchip and establishing that it was not chipped, tattooed, or otherwise marked as being an owned cat) immediately contacted the RSPCA and the local police. They were told that they could not neuter the cat unless they had taken reasonable steps to establish that the cat did not have an owner. Scanning the animal for a microchip and checking for a tattoo was not sufficient. If the cat was neutered then and there, the vet would have been guilty of medical trespass and could have lost their license to practise. We therefore attached a paper collar around the neck of the cat, noted its physical condition, and logged it. The idea was that any owner would read the paper collar and call one of the contact numbers on the collar. If the cat was caught a second time, a few weeks later, and there had been no contact in the meantime, it could then be neutered and rehomed.
Please note that RSPCA advice and Cat's Protection advice differ on this point: the RSPCA advise people to release neutered ferals to the place where they came from. In contrast, the CPL attempts to rehome ferals to managed feral cat colonies (for example, on farms). The UK does not have a significant feral cat problem, unlike some areas in the USA... this is also important to note.
Anyway, it transpired that this cat actually had an owner... in this case, a very irresponsible one. However, there was very little that I could do about it. The owner was under no obligation to neuter her cat or keep it indoors. If I had removed the cat, I would have been guilty of theft. If the vet had neutered it, they could have lost their license to practise. I would therefore ask US based posters to please be aware... before you advise people to TNR, they must be made aware of the legal penalties they could face if they are UK based.
Hit and Run: This area of law is murkier. Whilst it is true that you do not have to report any car accident involving a cat to the police (unlike, for example, an accident involving a dog, which you MUST report) then you have still committed damage to property. In this case, however, the onus of proof lies on the cat owner (or other interested party) to indicate that the driver was speeding, driving without due care and attention, or committing another road traffic offence at the time they hit the cat. For example, if a driver deliberately swerved to hit the cat, that is classified as dangerous driving. Not only is dangerous driving a motoring offence (and a serious one), a conviction would allow the owners of the cat to sue for damages. The problem in this instance is proving the offence.
Hit and Run: This area of law is murkier. Whilst it is true that you do not have to report any car accident involving a cat to the police (unlike, for example, an accident involving a dog, which you MUST report) then you have still committed damage to property. In this case, however, the onus of proof lies on the cat owner (or other interested party) to indicate that the driver was speeding, driving without due care and attention, or committing another road traffic offence at the time they hit the cat. For example, if a driver deliberately swerved to hit the cat, that is classified as dangerous driving. Not only is dangerous driving a motoring offence (and a serious one), a conviction would allow the owners of the cat to sue for damages. The problem in this instance is proving the offence.
Summary: Whilst a cat owner is generally protected from any damage its cat does, anyone who harms, steals, removes, or neuters an owned cat without the permission of the owner can be prosecuted under British law.
What you CAN do about Problem Cats
There are a few legal things you can do about problem cats, however.
1. Talk to the owner. This should always be the first step. Hopefully the problem cat has a collar and a tag. If not, you can borrow a hand held microchip reader and scan the cat. If you call the appropriate microchip registry, they will then call the owner on your behalf, and the owner will hopefully come to pick up the cat from your house. If the cat is then doing something unreasonable, you can talk to the owner about it. HOWEVER, please be aware that the law is not on your side. If you own rabbits, for example, Buckle v Holmes makes clear that it is your responsibility to make sure that the cats do not get your rabbits... it is not the responsibility of the cat owner to prevent this. A more productive solution would be to suggest that the cat wears a collar with a bell and a tag. Bells significantly reduce predation. You could even buy the cat such a collar as a gift. You could also suggest that the cat owner sets out an outside cat toilet, or create one in your own garden, therefore limiting where the cat toilets to a single area. A covered outdoor litterbox will provide the cats with a nicer place to go than your roses!
2. Set up sprinklers. You can get motion activated sprinklers. If you do not own pets yourself, these can be set up whenever you are not in the garden. After a few sprays, kitty will soon learn that the garden is not a nice place to be. If you own cats yourself, keeping your own cats in at night and setting the sprinklers up then is also a solution. You could also keep the cats in for a few days and switch the sprinklers on during that time, in the hope that other cats will back off. The sprinkler method is much better than the "spraying the offending cat with water" method. As anyone who has had cats knows, all that happens when you spray a cat is that the cat thinks "why is this arsehole spraying me?". You want the cat to be deterred from the garden... NOT just from you!
3. Make your garden unattractive. Covering beds with wire, or using clippings from rose bushes, holly, or pine cones as fertiliser prevents digging. You can also use bits of citrus fruit, such as lemon peelings. Cats hate citrus. Used coffee grounds can also deter cats, although they do change the PH of your soil, so be careful! An alternative would be to use commercial cat repellants. You can even use urine... cats mark territories with scent. Therefore, peeing into a jug and pouring it around the garden can repel cats by making them think that a huge cat has already claimed the area as their territory. Alternatively, dog pee works well (for obvious reasons). I even read about someone who used lion pee from the local zoo!
4. Use ultrasonic cat repellents. These are available from the RSPB website. They are remarkably effective. The only problem is that they drive all animals within their range absolutely crazy, so if you live in a terraced house then you may find that you become the least popular neighbor on the block when all the local dogs begin to howl non-stop, and the cats all start wailing. If you have no pets, and a good sized garden, however, these are a great solution.
5. If the cat is genuinely a feral, the Cats Protection League can advise you about trapping them (don't bother calling the RSPCA... they are more interested in cases of cruelty). Bear in mind that you will have to trap them twice. The first time you trap them, they need to be checked for injuries, logged at your local vet, and fitted with a paper collar just in case they are an owned animal. The second time you catch them, they can be neutered and rehomed somewhere more appropriate (provided that the owner has not contacted the vet in the meantime, of course).
6. Legal action. There are a few laws which can help you here. Bear in mind that cats are an exception to the Animals Act 1971, so trespass is not covered. Nor can you sue cat owners for damages, as I have already demonstrated. However, there are a few laws which can help you. The first is the Environmental Protection Act 1990. If you have a local cat who howls non-stop, you can ask the council to install hardware which measures noise within your property. Should the cat howl loudly enough to be registered on the equipment, the owner will be in breach of the EPA and can be fined. They will also have to take measures to reduce the howling. The EPA covers any instance where the "noise is loud and intrusive, whether that’s persistent or intermittent, and which affects the quality and comfort of your everyday life" Source: http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/your-rights-under-environmental-act.html
The EPA also gives local authorities the power to prosecute "where an animal is 'kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance'... It is the function of the Courts to decide whether, in a particular case, the keeping of animals in the manner in which they are kept or in the circumstances in which they are kept, amounts to a nuisance. Since the law of nuisance only applies where there is 'material' discomfort or annoyance the Courts are unlikely to grant an injunction in relation to a nuisance relating to the fouling by cats unless the fouling is on a substantial scale, for example, where a very large number of cats are kept by one particular person" Source: http://www.inbrief.co.uk/animal-law/cats-fouling.htm
In practise, this law only applies to people who are keeping an inappropriate number of cats in an unsuitable premises. Likewise, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders can also be used against people who hoard cats or keep them inappropriately. However, this is unlikely to apply to a normal, standard, cat owner. Gloucestershire Council specifically states: "The following list outlines some of the common complaints we receive, and either do not deal with, or cannot be dealt with under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.... Animals not under a person’s control. For example, pigeons, or cats which stray and foul neighbouring gardens". Source: http://www.southglos.gov.uk/Documents/COS060021.pdf
5. If the cat is genuinely a feral, the Cats Protection League can advise you about trapping them (don't bother calling the RSPCA... they are more interested in cases of cruelty). Bear in mind that you will have to trap them twice. The first time you trap them, they need to be checked for injuries, logged at your local vet, and fitted with a paper collar just in case they are an owned animal. The second time you catch them, they can be neutered and rehomed somewhere more appropriate (provided that the owner has not contacted the vet in the meantime, of course).
6. Legal action. There are a few laws which can help you here. Bear in mind that cats are an exception to the Animals Act 1971, so trespass is not covered. Nor can you sue cat owners for damages, as I have already demonstrated. However, there are a few laws which can help you. The first is the Environmental Protection Act 1990. If you have a local cat who howls non-stop, you can ask the council to install hardware which measures noise within your property. Should the cat howl loudly enough to be registered on the equipment, the owner will be in breach of the EPA and can be fined. They will also have to take measures to reduce the howling. The EPA covers any instance where the "noise is loud and intrusive, whether that’s persistent or intermittent, and which affects the quality and comfort of your everyday life" Source: http://www.problemneighbours.co.uk/your-rights-under-environmental-act.html
The EPA also gives local authorities the power to prosecute "where an animal is 'kept in such a place or manner as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance'... It is the function of the Courts to decide whether, in a particular case, the keeping of animals in the manner in which they are kept or in the circumstances in which they are kept, amounts to a nuisance. Since the law of nuisance only applies where there is 'material' discomfort or annoyance the Courts are unlikely to grant an injunction in relation to a nuisance relating to the fouling by cats unless the fouling is on a substantial scale, for example, where a very large number of cats are kept by one particular person" Source: http://www.inbrief.co.uk/animal-law/cats-fouling.htm
In practise, this law only applies to people who are keeping an inappropriate number of cats in an unsuitable premises. Likewise, Anti-Social Behaviour Orders can also be used against people who hoard cats or keep them inappropriately. However, this is unlikely to apply to a normal, standard, cat owner. Gloucestershire Council specifically states: "The following list outlines some of the common complaints we receive, and either do not deal with, or cannot be dealt with under the provisions of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.... Animals not under a person’s control. For example, pigeons, or cats which stray and foul neighbouring gardens". Source: http://www.southglos.gov.uk/Documents/COS060021.pdf
Whilst a good neighbor will be sensitive to your concerns, please bear in mind that they are under no legal obligation to pay for any of these expenses. This may seem unfair, but I do not make the law. I'm just telling you how it is, so you don't have any problems in the future!
P.S. Since writing this, I have been made aware that there have been some successful prosecutions in Scotland with regards to cats who have caused damage to property, under the Environmental Protection Act. I'm not sure exactly how this works in law, but can only speculate that Buckle v Holmes has only been accepted as a legal principle in England and Wales, but not necessarily in Scotland or Northern Ireland. If someone could inform me on this point, I would be grateful.
P.S. Since writing this, I have been made aware that there have been some successful prosecutions in Scotland with regards to cats who have caused damage to property, under the Environmental Protection Act. I'm not sure exactly how this works in law, but can only speculate that Buckle v Holmes has only been accepted as a legal principle in England and Wales, but not necessarily in Scotland or Northern Ireland. If someone could inform me on this point, I would be grateful.
