"Eco-farmer faces jail in land dispute with neighbour..

Maria · "Eco-farmer faces jail in land dispute with neighbour..

...over grazing cows."

Scotsman 14th July

http://news.scotsman.com/dundee/E...mer-faces-jail-in-land.5455292.jp

and...

"Rampaging cows were set on cult members, court hears"

The Herald 25th July

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/n...t_on_cult_members_court_hears.php

...and if you're interested in the community (despite/inspite the negative media 'cult' language) here's the website http://www.culdees-ecovillage.co.uk/index.html

Smooth Hound

did you read the letters,

baldowrie

The Story sounds very familar for Perthshire folk...it's there so I will grab it!

Julie

This is one of the reasons that this prejudice against the English thrives up here. They come up and expect things to be the same as where they came from. In Scottish law, a verbal agreement can be legally binding and you never let anyone use your land for more than nine months of the year or they can claim tennants rights.
She entered into a binding agreement with the man without bothering to look into the legal implications of it and is reaping the consequences.
I can't find any sympathy for her I'm afraid, she has been phenominally stupid.
On the plus side, the publicity it has generated may bring these dangers to the attention of others and prevent future heartbreak for someone else.

Smooth Hound

lachlanandmarcus

I feel very sorry for her and to me the law is the ass here. When even the party claiming the land admits that there was no intention to create a tenancy, then it is wrong for the owner to lose it.

Smooth Hound

but as julie says like it or hate it, thats the law, i agree the law is an ass, thats kind of an established fact to me, but thats the way it is though, she should have looked into it, when dealing with land /property you would be silly not too,
i think she knows that now

but i still feel sorry for her, especially with what she is trying to do, but im sure theres a way around this anyway.

Maria

Julie wrote

Julie

I know, I've been thinking the same since I posted that, it wasn't fair of me to assume she was English. Had I read to the end of the article I probably would have known, eh.

It is true however, there are a great many incomers from down south that want the rural lifestyle but think that everything should be done as it was where they came from. It causes resentment within the local poulation if the English see Scotland as an extension of England rather than part of the UK with many of its own laws, a completely different school system and so on.
I also wondered if that farmer stood to lose cattle quotas if he lost the use of the extra land? There might be financial implications for him that weren't mentioned in the article but without knowing the bias of the author, it is impossible to know.
I'm not more sympathetic to him than her, but I do think that maybe all the facts may not have been presented in the article.

lachlanandmarcus

I dont think most southerners expect everything to be the same, but at the same time they probably dont expect it to be manifestly unjust...

Julie

You do know I'm English too?
I'm not speaking from a biased position here unless my belief that 'when in Rome you do as the Romans do' counts as bias. We have lived here for fifteen years and seen and heard quite a lot in that time.
I'm just trying to see it from both sides, iykwim.

lachlanandmarcus

I dont know whos what on the forum, wasnt commenting on that basis, dont really bother me either way where peeps are from, I just feel in this case that someone has taken advantage of someone else on the basis of their lack of knowledge and so while they might be able to get away with it legally, it doesnt seem a nice thing to do.

IainC

Doesn't just apply to incomers either. I knew of someone who was born and bred in the area he farmed in and who was caught out the same way. IIRC they can be on the land all but one day of the year and you don't have an issue, it's if they are on all year round, but I don't know for sure.

He had a hell of a problem trying to get shot of the sitting tennant after it happened... not quite sure how he did in the end but I do know it caused a lot of stress and anger (for a few other locals as well).

lachlanandmarcus

its counterproductive too, we had spare fields when we bought the place and they sat empty for a few years because noone could tell us how to be sure not to create a secure tenancy by mistake...we had farmers asking to put animals on but couldnt take the risk, so the law didnt act in their interest or ours.

Smooth Hound

its one of those land things, its swings and roundabouts, i expect in other countries its a minefield too. land laws can be tricky, thats why farmers have solicitors etc.

it does seem like the lady has been well stitched up though, to me anyway.

Julie

I went back and re-read the two articles - just to be sure I hadn't reacted to the issue unfairly.
It raised even more questions the second time around because I can see too many inconsistencies in the womans claims.
Why, for instance, if she purchased the land to start her eco village and cows didn't fit into her ethics for the reasons she stated, did she agree to have them there for four years?
Why was she cutting fences and blocking access points even after the court had ruled in the tennants favour? Petty behaviour at best.
Why can't anyone see that to suddenly ask a farmer to shift his stock right at the start of the movement ban might give him a problem?
£7,000 per annum is the going rate for renting that sort of acreage. If he has paid his dues, he is entitled to security of tenure surely?
My personal opinion from reading between the lines is that the farmer is so fed up with her griping that he is being bloody minded on purpose because he said that if she had been more reasonable earlier on it wouldn't have come to this.
I really hope this doesn't sound patronising - really not my intention - but I would strongly urge you to read the items again with your emotions taken out of the equasion and weigh up both sides. I don't think the whole picture has been presented here, just the tip of an iceberg. Read the 'he saids' and 'she saids' and see if they aren't as bad as one another.
The bottom line is that the law takes no account of who's been nasty or nice and deals with the facts as they stand based on the evidence available & the judge can only rule according to the law of the land. The goal posts can't be moved without setting a legal precedent and no judge does that lightly for obvious reasons.
Lastly, if you were the tennant, would you be glad there were laws to protect you from the changing whims of a fickle landlord? They could have done with this protection during the Highland clearances