To think that private property is just that :-/

[WithoutCaution]

We have a drive, at the top of the drive there is a gate onto our yard. Through the yard there is another gate which goes to the fields and at the end of that track there is a gate onto a nice quite road - leads to some nice hacking areas.

The entire of our property is private so no public access/right of way...

Recently I've noticed (since I'm at home a lot more) that several cyclists and walkers are using our drive/track as a cut through to avoid a busy junction and cycling/walking on a busy road (the same reason that we put the gate at the end of the track). I've tried putting up 'Private, No access' signs and locking the gates but I'm finding that the ones who feel it is their right to trespass are climbing the gates

I've also been told to go fuck my self when I've pointed out that they aren't meant to be on our property. My main problem at the moment is that we will be dog sitting my Uncles 2 outdoor GSD mixes for a month starting next week. These dogs will be living on the yard (they live on my uncles yard normally but the lady who's looking after his horses is scared of the dogs - They are big, very vocal if they spot someone who isn't meant to be there and have no problem launching themselves at the gates my ideal yard dog - If they know you they're fine). These entitled cyclists/walkers who use our yard/track as a cut through are going to be met with three locked gates/signs saying 'private property' and two big powerful dogs. I also have CCTV.

I think I've done everything I can to prevent them entering but I'm concerned that since they are entitled nob-heads they will continue to use our track and then claim some sort of injury as a result of the dogs. Is there anything else I should be doing? - Refuse to use beware of the dog signs as that is admitting some form of liability.

... It's more of an essay than I thought

If you've checked with the Council that there are no rights of way recorded, also ask if there are any applications or even evidence that there is an unrecorded right ofway here (although if there is an application you should have had noticed served on you). You can also lodge a S31(6) Highways Act notice that legally states you're not dedicating any rights, this also protects you from rights being gained from the date of that submission.
Then lock your gates - I think the wording that Quiet Tiger suggests is fine - Private Property, No Trespassing, Civil action etc.
If people think they have gained rights or there is historic evidence they need to take it up with the Council.

There is lo law of trespass in England and Wales - in Scotland, but not E&W.

All those trespass signs are useless in court. Plus, if people can show a common right of way has been used since time in memorium, they have the right to use it.

It might be a good idea to contact the local Police about the verbal abuse and ask their opinion on the safety of your boundaries hopefully with a site visit. I'm sure they would recommend suitable signage (and discuss the legality of barbed wire etc with you).

You can sue for trespass but it's rarely done as there is no monetary loss to the tort (a civil wrong).

I have a similar problem but only a daft jack russell and soppy labrador to yap at the trespasses in our orchard (not a right of way). We have taken to putting a generous daily mixture of treacle and molasses on the gate fastening to at least make life a little sticky for them. The police are no help.

The law on dangerous dogs only covers those that are lawfully on your property. So if the dogs bit the postie, you'd be in trouble. However, if they bite trespassers, there's nothing they or the police can do, they shouldn't have been there so tough titties.

Dawn
I thought it was where the danger was one where they could be reasonably expected to offer some protection. Only some protection not complete protection and that the courts had made it very clear that a common sense view would be taken in balancing the duty to the trespasser and the risk of injury, the activity that gave rise to the injury etc.

If you have kept the dogs on your property by closing the gates and put up signs warning of their presence then I would be surprised if the courts expected you to offer further protection to people who ignored the signs and climbed over the closed gates.

Dawn
I was thinking of the Tomlinson v Congleton BC case in the HL

It depends what the danger is Chazs.

Can't bring to mind any case law concerning dogs but if you knew they were 'dangerous' or likely to bite and kept them roaming free on your land (even with the gate closed) i think you would still be held liable because you haven't done all you can to minimise the danger.

In this case someone who has a right to be on your land is just as much at risk of getting bitten as a trespasser. You know trespassers regularly use your land and you don't keep the dogs indoors or tie them up. This, I'm afraid, may be seen as negligence on your part.

I think the only dangers to the entitled knobheads are falling from the locked gates as they climb over (nothing I can do to further prevent that), slips/trips/falls (track, drive and yard are well maintained) and potentially being jumped on/bitten by the yard dogs. I'm more worried about the dogs either being injured or injuring some idiot. They'll be behind two locked gates in the yard, one locked gate at the end of the track and one unlocked drive gate. They will have 24/7 access to a stable.

Thankfully the chickens can't get out of the garden or I'd have had to put up a beware of the chickens sign since they follow you, trip you up and peck you all while squawking 'fuck''fuck''fuck'

WithoutCaution well it sounds like you have done all you can which is reasonably practicable (didn't see before the dogs were behind several locked gates).

Like i said earlier I completely don't think you are being U and the law is way too soft on entitled knobheads . I was just trying to explain how liability for land/property works!

Dawn - Anyone with a right to enter the yard would be fine since the dogs know all the family who have anything to do with horses.

You can technically get from the drive to the track without entering the yard - Have to go through the fields (be mobbed by horses/sheep) but again that is still trespassing.

My mum and dad had a problem with people trying to use their property like this. They had a small house and garden, but their back gate was one one street, while the front was on another street, with access down a small alley betwee them and the next door. This alley only allowed access to those two properties and did not extend to the back gate so no chance of a right of way. But one lady constantly tried to use it as a short cut, coming into the back gate and trying to go out by the front alley. Every time she turned up mum or dad, or even me when I was there, would remind her it was private property and direct her out of the back gate. She always tried to get us to let her out the front gate but we never did.

This is an interesting view on the legal position
www.asdonline.co.uk/news/dog-bite-claims

Annoyed as you may be at trespassers (and it is somewhat understandable), if you believe there is a chance that these GSD's might attack someone, then you ought to not allow them to wander loose, regardless of property rights or the law. You would not want to be responsible for injury to a man, woman or child.

If you are aware of this risk and choose all the same to allow the GSDs to be out unmuzzled and they go on to actually attack a walker/cyclist, you could indeed be held liable for damages for personal injury, as you are rightly worried about. This is a sensible approach of the law to discourage people from allowing their dogs to attack people!

There are strict rules on Guard Dogs and dangerous dogs in the UK (which may or may not apply) but, regardless of the law, surely you would not want to be responsible for someone being hurt if it was foreseeable and preventable.

If these dogs are just normal pets that would not attack/bite/maul anyone just walking/cycling along, and merely bark a lot and are curious, then you are fine and have taken all the right steps.

If they are dogs that MIGHT attack human beings then they should be muzzled at all times when not chained up. Rightly or wrongly, we don't have corporal punishment in the UK. Nowhere in our statutes does it say that walkers trying to avoid a busy road junction by cutting across someone's field shall be lawfully mauled by large dogs as punishment. Try suing instead. Use your CCTV footage.

"Plus, if people can show a common right of way has been used since time in memorium, they have the right to use it."

This is true. You need to check with the council. How long have you owned the property?

Unfortunately 'anyone with a right to enter the yard' doesn't just include the family. Unlikely example but say a police office entering the yard wouldn't be classed as a trespasser but equally the dogs wouldn't know them.

Chazs the reason the judge ruled in our case, was the CCTV clearly showed that the rambler was a tosser our dog was working at the time, the ramblers poodle started yapping at livestock, our cattle dog ran out from the stock, barked at the poodle, the poodle went for her, she defended herself and then the rambler waded in to break up the fight. Our dog bit the rambler as he was trying to break up the fight.

There was a very clear chain of events. Had there not been, it could have been a lot more difficult.

We know our girl bites, because she's bitten DH twice, but each time there has been a mitigating reason. She's normally kenneled when not working, as she can be unreliable with strange people - hence we "minimise the danger" as dawn says.

How are you supposed to know these walkers/cyclists are just that and not burglars/psychos? If i was at home on my own I would call the police. Maybe if the police had a few calls from you they might then speak to the culprits as it sounds like its the same people trespassing.

housespouse
I don't think any of the specific dog legislation applies as the GD Act doesn't apply to agricultural land and dwellings and GSD arn't dangerous dogs.

I think this will turn on whether or not a duty of care exists and what is reasonable to do to control the danger.

Contact the police, you have regular tresspassers on your property & inform them that you are concerned about your safety & theft from your property.

They can send out an advisor who can advise you on how to legally secure your property to prevent further trespass

The way this reads on the 'most active' bit is AIBU...'To think that private property is just...' and I honestly thought it was going to say 'theft' when I read it

FWIW, I think you are unreasonable. I live in Scotland (right to roam), grew up a farm where people regularly walked right past our house on our land, sometimes having a wee look in to see us sat having lunch etc, with their dogs etc and we didn't give a stuff. Why do you care apart from keeping the dogs in and preventing injury? You are obviously bothered about it when the dogs aren't there too. It is very strange and I am guessing you have moved to the country from somewhere urban. Only townies and celebs get all hot and bothered about such things IME.

QuietTiger agreed that the CCTV helped and I with evidence like that I would have been surprised if the court found any other way. The walker waded into the middle of a dog fight and got bitten.

Its one of those horrible fuzzy areas of law about what are the reasonable steps for you to take. You just have to hope for an outbreak of common sense in the courtroom. You wouldn't believe the legal fights there have been over the difference between best endeavours, all reasonable endeavours and reasonable endeavours (actually you probably would believe it!).

If they do not go back the way they came when our your land and asked to leave, even in Scotland you can phone the police to deal with them if you consider they are damaging the field etc. If you ask them to leave they must leave by the way they came.