Neighbour’s Cat Keeps Sh*tting in My Garden? High Court Says It Can Be a Statutory Nuisance (Get Video Evidence)

There are few phrases more likely to unite a nation than “cats have a right to roam”. And few more likely to start a neighbourhood cold war than “your cat has used my garden as a loo”.

Now the High Court has weighed in — not to declare war on cats, but to remind councils that other people’s cats repeatedly fouling your garden can fall squarely inside the law of statutory nuisance. In other words: this is not automatically “just a civil matter” or “one of those things”. It can be an “accumulation or deposit” that is “prejudicial to health or a nuisance” under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 — and the council has a duty to investigate properly. 

The case: a garden, a newborn, and a weekly “deposit”

The claimant, Richard Williamson, complained to Caerphilly County Borough Council in October 2024 that his neighbour’s cats were repeatedly fouling his garden. He said he had CCTV footage showing the cats doing it, and raised health concerns (including risks associated with cat faeces), especially with a baby who would soon be playing outside.

The council’s initial position was blunt: if animals are kept at a property and fouling isn’t picked up, that might be investigated — but animals “moving freely between properties” (i.e., roaming cats) were said to be outside statutory nuisance. The judge’s reply: the Act says “any deposit”, not “any deposit except cat poo”.

In R (Williamson) v Caerphilly CBC [2025] EWHC 3312 (Admin) (judgment dated 19 December 2025), HHJ Jarman KC held that the council’s determination “cannot stand” and must be redone.

The legal nub is this:

• The council focused on the wrong thing (how the cats were kept / “right to roam”) instead of the right question: whether the fouling in the complainant’s garden amounted to a statutory nuisance. 

• The judge saw “no justification” for reading down the words “any deposit” in section 79(1)(e) to exclude roaming-cat faeces. If Parliament had wanted a cat-poo exception, it could have written one. 

• Crucially, the judge said the cat faeces were “clearly capable” of being prejudicial to health — meaning the council had to grapple with that, not wave it away. 

This is the point many householders will care about: the High Court has confirmed that cat fouling can fall within statutory nuisance law — and councils can’t dismiss a complaint just because it involves roaming cats. 

Evidence matters (yes, you really should get video)

The case is also a public-service announcement about proof.

The claimant had CCTV. The council, at points, refused to look at footage unless it showed the act itself — ignoring clips showing cats entering the relevant area and behaviour consistent with fouling. The judge held that kind of material could be relevant evidence and should have been taken into account. 

So if you’re dealing with a “mystery deposit” problem, the practical lesson is painfully simple:

Get video evidence. Ideally time/date-stamped, repeated over time, and showing the animal(s) involved — or at least consistent patterns of presence and fouling in the same spot.

A quick, sensible caution: keep any filming focused on your own property, avoid capturing neighbours’ private areas, and be mindful of privacy rules. (The goal is evidence, not turning your doorbell cam into a reality TV channel.)

What “statutory nuisance” means in plain English

This isn’t about being precious. The statutory nuisance regime exists because some problems aren’t just annoying — they interfere with normal life and can create health risks.

Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, a statutory nuisance includes “any accumulation or deposit” that is “prejudicial to health OR a nuisance” – s79(1)(a). And councils have a duty, when a resident complains, to take reasonably practicable steps to investigate. 

If the council is satisfied a statutory nuisance exists (or is likely to recur), it can serve an abatement notice requiring steps to stop it. 

What this judgment does not mean

Before anyone starts drafting an abatement notice addressed to “Mr Whiskers of Next Door”:

• The judge did not decide that there was a statutory nuisance on the facts — only that the council’s decision-making was unlawful and had to be redone properly. 

• It does not create a general power to ban cats from roaming. It says that roaming doesn’t immunise the problem from statutory nuisance law. 

• The court also made clear the council shouldn’t rely on “right to roam” and “animal welfare” considerations when deciding whether a statutory nuisance exists (those points might arise elsewhere, but they weren’t the test the council had to apply at the investigation stage).

If you’re living the “weekly surprise” lifestyle: what to do next

In practice, if other people’s cats are fouling your garden repeatedly:

1. Keep a simple log (dates, times, where, how often, impact on use of the garden).

2. Gather evidence: short clips, photos, and notes of what you found and when.

3. Report it as a statutory nuisance complaint and explicitly refer to deposits / accumulation affecting health or enjoyment of your home.

4. Ask the council what steps they took to investigate (site visits, evidence review, assessment of health impacts).

5. If you get brushed off with “cats roam” or “civil matter”, point to the High Court’s message: the council must consider whether it’s a statutory nuisance on the facts, not reject the category outright. 

Because the real headline here isn’t “cat poo wins legal rights”. It’s: if someone else’s animals are repeatedly making your home unpleasant — even via a garden “deposit” — the law may already be on your side, and the council has to take the complaint seriously.

The Shepway Vox Team

The Velvet Voices of Voxatiousness