Housing : being the annotated texts of The Housing Act, 1957 and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958 / by J.D. James.

  • Great Britain
Date:
1958
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Housing : being the annotated texts of The Housing Act, 1957 and the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1958 / by J.D. James. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    44/596 (page 16)
    No. 109.—HOUSING lack of air space or of ventilation, darkness, dampness, absence of adequate and readily accessible water supply or sanitary accommodation or other conveniences, and inadequate paving or drainage of courts, yards or passages. A house, for this purpose, included any yard, garden, outhouses or appur- tenances (see now s. 189 (1), fost). When unfitness for habitation was mentioned in the Act of 1936, the expression was sometimes qualified by . words such as “‘in any respect’ or “ by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects ’’; and sometimes it stood alone without such qualification. Further- more, by s. 188 (4) of that Act, an authority had to have regard to the extent, if any, to which a house by reason of disrepair or sanitary defects fell below certain byelaw or local Act standards or the general standard of working-class houses in the district. The reference to working-class housing standards was removed by s. 1 of the Housing Act, 1949 (61 Statutes Supp. 62; 28 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 607). The definition of “ sanitary defects’? was repealed by the Housing Repairs and Rents Act, 1954 (84 Statutes Supp. 1; 34 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 259), which also swept away the qualifying phrases from most sections (7.e., the words such as “in any respect ’’), and removed the requirement of comparison with byelaw standards. It also repealed certain local Act provisions which varied the general law (see now Ss. 4 (2), post). In s. 4 (1), post, there is now a list, taken from s. 9 of the Act of 1954, of the matters to which regard is to be had in determining whether a house is unfit. A house (including, of course, its yard, outhouses, etc.; see s. 189 (1), post) is to be considered unfit if, and only if, it is so far defective in one or more of these matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition. It is thought that the new standard in effect differs little from the old. The test remains a qualitative, indeed almost a subjective one. None of the matters listed necessarily renders a house unfit. Regard must be had to them, and to nothing else; but the medical officer of health, the local authority committee member, the Ministry’s officials, or the county court judge must each still decide the general question, having regard to those matters, of whether the house is fit to live in. It should here be mentioned that the Act of 1954 introduced two other standards. One, in connection with certain new “ patching ’’ powers, is that of a dwelling which can be regarded as “ adequate for the time being ’’. ‘The powers of retaining such accommodation temporarily for use pending demolition are mentioned briefly below. The other was a standard “ justify- ing an increase of rent ’’ under Part II of the Act of 1954 (which amended the Rent Acts, and is outside the scope of this book); it resembled the standard of fitness implied by s. 9 of that Act, but it was also essential that the dwelling should be in “‘ good repair ’’. It is possible that the recognition of these two other standards, one lower and the other more stringent than the general test of unfitness, may throw a little light on the interpretation of s. 4 (1) of the present Act, fost. The working classes. The Housing Act, 1936, like the earlier Acts mentioned in Chapter 1 of this Introduction, at p. 3, ante, was concerned with the housing of the working classes, and all but a few of its provisions were expressly confined to this class of the community (or to houses of a type suitable for working class occupation: see Green (H. E.) & Sons v. Minister of Health, [1947] 2 All E.R. 469; [1948] 1 K.B. 34; 2nd Digest Supp.). The Housing Act, 1949 (61 Statutes Supp. 60; 28 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 604), reversed this emphasis, and in consequence only a few sections of the Act of 1957, post, retain references to the working classes, ¢.g., s. 5 (back-to- back houses), s. 8 (duty to give information to tenants), ss. 55-57 (re- development areas) and most of Part IV (which relates to overcrowding of a “ dwelling-house ”’ as defined in s. 87, post; but this does not affect s. go which relates to lodgings). It should be noted that s. 6, post (conditions implied on letting small houses) is not expressly confined to working-class