Friday 9 February 2018 6.10pm
Easy to answer John
The breach of tenancy/leaseholder contract would see the offender leaving the neighborhood. (They can collect a Darwin award for services to pigeondom as they depart for pastures new)
People who cause nuisance and expense and do not care about their neighbors or the environment will not be missed.
People who can read and sign an agreement as well as keep to their word will be more welcome as neighbors.
What do you think? In your opinion which of these methods do you think would most quickly put a stop to this selfish anti-social behavior?
faraday, since I've no idea who exactly is being accused of something that we might term 'aggravated pigeon feeding' I obviously can't answer your question.
IF they are a council tenant or leaseholder they MAY be in breach of their lease - but only IF they are feeding pigeons 'on the estate or in the locality of the property'. (Sorry - I don't have such a lease to check the exact wording - I'm just going by the draft lease that Southwark Council
put on line.) Now as the photos Jules62 posted show, this isn't on a council estate, it's on the public pavement. And 'in the locality of the property' are weasel words that any smart lawyer would tear to shreds. Do they mean in the back garden, adjacent to the entrance, within a certain (undefined) distance of the property boundary, or what? (Perhaps they meant to write 'in the vicinity
of the property' - equally indefinite, but at least it's proper English.) And clearly it leaves it open to a council tenant from one estate to feed pigeons on another estate (or in public) without being in breach of their lease.
That leaves only the other three possible charges that you so usefully set out - (1) littering, (2) having caused a current (not just potential) rat infestation, or (3) subsequent to a complaint by the neighbours of damage to their property or pigeon droppings.
No, it's NOT easy to answer, faraday. But look back at what you originally wrote - you complained of a Council 'scam' - the Council had, you believe, 'STOPPED prosecuting pigeon feeders so they can 'release' hundreds of thousands of our hard earned council tax'. So you want the Council to restart a previous (?) policy of prosecuting pigeon feeders. So presumably you know what exactly that policy was - please enlighten us as to which of the prosecution options they used to enforce.
It seems to be far from straightforward.
I'm sure people have seen http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2573001/Not-Pigeon-Lady-Pimlico-walks-free-court-despite-flouting-ASBO-banning-feeding-birds.html
from a few years ago
but it's also worth looking at the readers' comments on that story. If you sort them by 'best rated' you'll find the most popular were the ones that said things such as (I paraphrase) 'waste of police and court's time, prosecuting (persecuting?) a harmless old lady'.
Or see https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lonely-woman-must-pay-2300-7426683
Perhaps Southwark Council
don't want the bad press. 'Old lady driven out of her home for feeding pigeons'.
I notice Hillingdon Council has a page of advice about pigeons, which points out 'There is no law available to stop a person from feeding wild birds except the law relating to litter, if large quantities of food are being put down in a public place' and 'If your neighbour is a tenant, such behaviour, especially on communal grounds, may be covered by tenancy rules. You should contact the housing officer or Landlord to inquire.' See https://www.hillingdon.gov.uk/article/12791/Pigeons
Perhaps as a first step Southwark Council
could put out similar information about the legal situation in this borough.
Easy to answer, faraday? - No.