Welsh council must take fresh look at homeowner’s cat feces complaint

In an email to his local council, the homeowner said he "wakes up with dread" every day thinking of the "cat mess" in his yard.(CN) — A South Wales borough council cannot brush off a homeowner’s complaint about his neighbor’s cats using his yard as a toilet just because felines have a “right to roam,” the U.K. Court of Appeal ruled Tuesday.While refusing to make any final determination on the merits of the case, Lord Justice Robert Miles, writing for the three-justice panel, said “cat fouling” can legally constitute a “deposit” and a potential health nuisance under environmental law.Cat fouling refers to a cat urinating or defecating outside its litter box or in unwanted outdoor areas — in this case, the front yard of a disgruntled neighbor.Though the ruling stops short of turning outdoor cats into outlaws, it does mean councils can no longer shrug off nuisance complaints without proper investigation.The dispute dates back to October 2024, when Richard Williamson, of Bedwas, Wales, complained to the Caerphilly County Borough Council that his neighbor’s cats were repeatedly doing their business in his garden.In an email to the council he sent alongside CCTV footage catching the felines in the act, Williamson said he “wakes up with dread each day wondering if there is yet more cat mess” in his yard — noting attempted resolutions with his neighbor proved fruitless.While domestic cats, unlike dogs or livestock, have a legal “right to roam” in the U.K., Williamson argued they do not have the right to cause a statutory nuisance — noting concerns about his family’s newborn baby given the health risks associated with cat feces.“The cats are fouling on a weekly basis, and I’m exhausted from repeatedly cleaning up after someone else’s pets,” he added in an email to the council. “My daughter should not be exposed to such dangers in her own home environment.”The council investigated his claims, later dismissing the complaint, claiming that cats are generally allowed to move freely, that it was satisfied with how the cats were kept and that the animals had proper litter tray access.An officer of the council further informed Williamson that cat owners are required to make “considerations of welfare,” noting owners not letting cats outside can be detrimental.Last December, Judge Milwyn Jarman of the High Court of Justice quashed the council’s decision and ordered it to redetermine Williamson’s complaint under the U.K. Environmental Protection Act — which covers statutory nuisances under distinct categories, including both how animals are kept and any “accumulation or deposit” prejudicial to health.“Had Parliament intended that section should not apply to cat feces left by roaming cats, it very easily could have made this an exception,” Jarman said in his December ruling. “The cat feces in the present case were clearly capable of being prejudicial to health.”Jarman ruled, and Miles affirmed, that borough councils cannot dismiss animal-related complaints purely under the “how animals are kept” rule, or rely on a general “right to roam” without independently investigating whether physical deposits, like cat fouling, constitute a health hazard or nuisance.The appeal court rejected the council’s argument that, for something to qualify as a “deposit” under the act, the item must have been placed by a purposeful or willful act — ruling deposit alone refers to the physical existence of a substance, regardless of how it got there.“This is all about the physical world and has nothing to do with anybody’s actions or responsibility,” Miles wrote in the order. “The duties of inspection and investigation are concerned with whether there is a statutory nuisance falling within the subsection, not with who has caused or suffered it to happen.”While the council cautioned the court that a ruling against it could have “profound consequences for cat owners and local authorities,” Miles clarified the ruling simply orders a redetermination of Williamson’s complaint.“It emphatically does not decide that the cat fouling about which the respondent has complained constitutes a statutory nuisance,” he said in the order.Neither party’s attorneys responded to initial requests for comment.Lord Justice Christopher Nugee and Lord Justice Stephen Males rounded out the panel.Subscribe to our free newslettersOur weekly newsletter Closing Arguments offers the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world, while the monthly Under the Lights dishes the legal dirt from Hollywood, sports, Big Tech and the arts.Additional Reads