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.

    78/596 (page 50)
    No. 109.—HOUSING Ilkeston Corporation (1931), 96 J.P. 7, C.A.; Digest Supp.; and Leslie Maurice & Co., Lid. v. Willesden Corporation, [1953] 1 All E.R. 1014, C.A.; 3rd Digest Supp. It is fairly common for an appeal to be made to the county court on the ground that the expense would be excessive and unreasonable; when such an appeal succeeds, the authority will have an opportunity to back their own opinion by purchasing the house and executing the works (see s. 12, post). Where the authority consider the house cannot be rendered fit at reasonable expense, the proper procedure will be to serve a notice under s. 16, post. That procedure may lead to the demolition or closing of the house, or to the acceptance of some undertaking, or, in some cases, to its purchase for temporary housing purposes; see ss. 17 et seq., post. Serve. As to mode of service see s. 169 (1), post. The “‘ person having control ’’ must be served, under sub-s. (1), supra; and sub-s. (2), supra, confers a discretion as to whether other persons interested in the house should also be served. As to obtaining information as to ownership, etc., of premises, see s. 170, post. Person having control. The definition in s. 39 (2), post, should be studied with care. It corresponds broadly with the definition of ‘“‘ owner ’’ in many statutes dealing with public health and other local government topics, and is entirely different from the definition of ‘‘ owner ’’ in the present Act (s. 189 (1), post). Notice. A separate notice should, it seems, be served in respect of each house (cf. West Ham Corporation v. Charles Benabo & Sons, [1934] 2 K.B. 253; Digest Supp.), but not for each separate dwelling into which a house may have been divided (Benabo v. Wood Green Borough Council, [1945] 2 All E.R. 162; 2nd Digest Supp.). As to authentication, see s. 166 (2), post, and the earlier of the two cases just cited. The prescribed form of notice is Form No. 2 in the Second Schedule to the Housing (Prescribed Forms) Regulations, 1957 (S.I. 1957 No. 1842) (Appendix II, post), made under s. 178, post. The time allowed for appeal is 21 days from service of the notice; see s. 11 (1), post. As to the coming into operation of a notice, see s. 37 (1), post. Requiring him. The duty to comply is placed primarily on the “ person having . control’’. For default power of the local authority, see s. 10, post. As to protection of a person having control who is only an agent or trustee, see s. 10 (3), proviso, post. For other provisions, see ss. 13-15 and ss. 163 and 164, post. Such reasonable time. Note that the time must in fact be reasonable and also not less than 21 days. An.appeal under s. 11 (1), post, holds up proceedings under this section. What is in fact a reasonable time must depend on the nature and extent of the works required to be executed; see Ryall v. Cubitt Heath, [1922] 1 K.B. 275; 38 Digest 215, 498. Twenty-one days. It is suggested that this. period of not less than 21 days must run from the date when service is effected on the person having control, rather than the date of the notice itself; and that it is prudent to allow a few extra days to avoid any doubt, especially where the authority see fit to serve other persons under sub-s. (2), supra. P Works specified. These should have reference only to matters which render the house unfit for habitation; see Adams v. Tuer (1923), 130 L.T. 218; 38 Digest 215, 5or. The works should be specified in some detail, and be sufficiently definite to enable an owner to ascertain what is required of him; see Cohen v. West Ham Corporation, [1933] Ch. 814, at pp. 827, 828. Where a notice ‘contains requirements going beyond what is needed to render the houses fit, it seems the county court judge might vary the require- ments under s. 11 (3), post; but he is entitled to quash the notice 7” toto where some items have been wrongly included (Cochrane v. Chanctonbury Rural District Council, [1950] 2 All E.R. 1134, C.A.; 2nd Digest Supp.). Will render the house fit. Where an owner proposes to effect improvements, perhaps going beyond the requirements of a notice under the present section, he should not overlook the provisions of ss. 69 and 70, post, as to certificates. Such certificates are in broader terms than para. (b) of sub-s. (1), supra, and provide a measure of pro- tection against the exercise of certain powers in this Act for a period of some five to ten years. In some cases, where such improvements would conflict with the requirements of a notice under the present section, it is suggested that an appeal should be lodged under s. 11 (1), post, and that a list of works might be submitted under s. 69 at the same . time. The authority may then be willing to accept the owner’s proposals and com- _ promise the appeal; or the proposals might properly be accepted by the judge. Sub-s. (2). Other person having an interest. Cf. s. 170, post (power of authority to require information). See also s. 33 (1), post, whereunder an owner who is not in receipt of the rents and profits of a house may require the authority to give him notice of proceedings under this Part of the Act. Note also ss. 13-15 and'ss. 163 and 164, post. Under Ss. 16 (Z), post, dealing with houses thought to be beyond repair at reasonable cost, all ‘‘ owners ”’ have to be given notice, and also all mortgages so far as it is reason- ably practicable to ascertain such persons. Although this is not necessary under the present section, there will be many cases when it is desirable to serve other persons in addition to the person having control of the house.