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.

    69/596 (page 41)
    SECTION 4 Sub-s. (1). Determining for any of the purposes. See particularly ss. 6 (lettings of small houses), 9 (“‘repairs’’ notices), 16 (houses beyond repair at reasonable expense), 18 (1) (a) (part of a building used as dwelling), post, in this Part (Part II); ss. 42 (clearance area), 55 (re-development area), 59 (compensation), post, in Part III; and also para. 2 of the Fifth Schedule (clearance orders), post. Under Part ITI, post, the opinion of the local authority on the question of unfitness may in effect be challenged by objection to the Minister against any compulsory purchase or clearance order. Under this Part (Part II) there is a right of appeal in general terms to the county court (see ss. 11 (1), 20 (1), and cf. ss. 27 (1), (3), 30 (5) and 36 (2), post) and the county court judge may differ from the view taken by the local authority. In connection, for example, with demolition orders under s. 16 e¢ seq., post, it should be noted that several stages may be involved: (1) the medical officer of health may make an official representation; (2) the local authority may come to the provisional view that the house is unfit, before inviting persons interested to submit any information or offer of an undertaking; (3) the local authority must thereafter reconsider the position in the light of any such information or offer; and (4) if the authority decide to make a demolition order, there is then the right of appeal to the county court. House. For definition, see s. 189 (1), post. As to parts of buildings and under- ground rooms, see s. 18, post. As to huts, tents, caravans, etc., see ss. 9 (3) and 16 (7), post, in this Part (Part II); andcf.s. 44 (8), post, as to their inclusion in clearance orders. Unfit for human habitation. Phrases such as “in any respect ’”’ or “‘ by reason of disrepair and sanitary defects ’’ which qualified the expression in earlier Acts were repealed by the Housing Repairs. and Rents Act, 1954; see the note “ History ’’, supra. The question whether or not a house can be rendered fit “at a reasonable expense ”’ still arises under certain provisions; see ss. 9 (I), 12 (1), 16 (1) and 39 (1), post, in this Part (Part II); and ss. 57 (3) and 59 (3), post, in Part III. Regard shall be had. Cf. the note to similar words in s. 39 (1), post. The following matters. The list is a milder version of that recommended by the Standards of Fitness for Habitation Sub-Committee of the Central Housing Advisory Committee (the ‘‘ Miles Mitchell ’’ committee) in 1946: cf. the notes to s. 9 of the Act of 1954 at 84 Statutes Supp. 25. Apart from the specific mention of food, the list differs little from the matters formerly relevant as “‘ disrepair or sanitary defects ’’ under s. 188 (1), (4) of the Act of 1936. The Act of 1954 drew a distinction for certain purposes between matters of repair and the other matters set out in paras. (bd) to (h) of sub-s. (1), supra; see the note “‘ Other standards ’’, supra, referring to s. 23 (repealed) of that Act. A similar distinction is drawn in s. 30 (3) (6) of this Act, post, relating to payments in respect of houses which are unfit but have been well maintained. Repair. In Summers v. Salford Corporation, [1943] 1 All E.R. 68; [1943] A.C. 283; 31 Digest (Repl.) 198, 3305, reference was made to the decisions on phrases such as “reasonable repair ’’ or “‘ habitable repair ’’ as used in leases. Lord Atkin suggested that the standard of fitness required under s. 2 of the Act of 1936 (see now s. 6, post) was difficult to distinguish from that of the ordinary repairing covenant, as in Proudfoot v. Hart (1890), 25 QO.B.D. 42, C.A.; 31 Digest (Repl.) 359, 4900. It has generally been thought that “ repair’’ does not extend to matters of, mere decoration, but might include, for example, painting or papering required to prevent decay. Some local Acts extended the provisions of the Housing Act so that matters of decoration had to be taken into account in considering whether a house was fit; these local Act provisions are repealed by sub-s. (2) (a), supra. See also the note, “ Other standards ’’, supra, as to the inclusion of decoration in the definition of “‘ good repair ’’ under the Act of 1954. Ventilation. Cf. Hall v. Manchester Corporation (1915), 84 L.J. Ch. 732, H.L.; 38 Digest 212, 470, and Johnson v. Leicester Corporation, [1934] 1 K.B. 638, C.A., at p. 649; Digest Supp. As to back-to-back houses, see s. 5, post. If and only if. These words confine attention to the condition of the house and to the degree to which it is defective in respect of the matters listed. Quaere, whether in considering such matters as ventilation, dampness, or natural lighting the affect of other houses or buildings on the house under consideration is to be regarded or not; see Hall v. Manchester Corporation, ubt., supra. For specific provisions about badly arranged houses and buildings, see s. 43, post (clearance areas), and ss. 72-75, post (obstructive buildings). Not reasonably suitable for occupation. In view of the very general nature of these words, it is submitted that many of the cases decided on earlier Acts (before the Act of 1954) still afford valuable guidance. See particularly Summers v. Salford Corporation, [1943] 1 All E.R. 68, H.L.; 31 Digest (Repl.) 198, 3305, and other cases cited in the notes to s. 6, post (letting of small houses). Hall v. Manchester Corporation, cited supra, was an important decision on a local Act. The Privy Council decision in Estate and Trust Agencies (1927), Lid. v. Singapore Improvement Trust, [1937]