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.

    81/596 (page 53)
    SECTION 10 service ’’ of the notice means, for example, that if a notice is dated 30th January and received on 1st February, seven days must then elapse, and 9th February is the first day on which an offence might occur. Workman or contractor. The terms seem to refer to servants and independent contractors respectively. An offence under this subsection is committed where: (i) a notice has been served on the person having control; (ii) seven days have expired after service; (iii) a workman, ov a contractor, employed by the local authority is carrying out works in the house; (iv) there is in the house, for the purpose of carrying out any works, the person having control, ov a workman employed by him, ov a workman employed by a contractor employed by him; and (v). the person having control cannot prove the urgent necessity of carrying out the works to obviate danger to the occupants. Similarly, an offence may arise where notice has also been served on any other person as owner, if that owner is in the house, for the purpose mentioned, ov his work- men, ov his contractors’ workmen. ' Thus it would seem desirable, if the local authority have cause to think there will be obstruction, to serve all persons interested as owners with notice under this subsection (so as to avoid doubt as to the person by whom any workmen are employed) and to serve all such persons at the same time (to avoid doubt as to when the seven days expire). Deemed to be obstructing. Cf. s. 160, post, as to obstructing the execution of this Act; but note that the present subsection provides its own penalty. It is difficult to see, therefore, why any reference to obstruction is necessary in this subsection, unless it is to simplify the statement of the offence in laying an information. See also s. 161, post, as to obtaining an order to permit the carrying into effect of the provisions of this Part (Part II) of the Act. Summary conviction. Cf. the note tos. 8, ante. Twenty pounds. The penalty is the same as that provided by s. 160, post. As to imprisonment in certain circumstances, see the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1952, s. 64 and Third Schedule (32 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 470, 526). Unless he proves. The onus of proving the “ urgent necessity ’’ is thus cast on the defendant. It seems he need only establish a balance of probabilities in his favour, 7.e., the burden on him resembles that in civil cases, and is not the same as that which rests generally on the prosecution in criminal cases. Sub-s. (3). Expenses incurred. The authority should be careful to limit their demand to expenses reasonably and bona fide incurred in carrying out the works specified in the notice under s. 9, ante, or in the notice as varied on appeal; cf. London County Council v. Harling Street, [1935] 2 K.B. 322; Digest Supp. With interest. See sub-s. (6), supra. Demand for the expenses. As to authentication, see s. 166 (2), post. In West Ham Corporation v. Benabo (Charles) & Sons, [1934] 2 K.B. 253; Digest Supp., it was held that the authority were not entitled to succeed in an action for the recovery of expenses under the corresponding section of an earlier Act because there had been no valid demand for payment. The demands were invalid for two reasons:—(a) they were not signed by the Town Clerk; (b) they did not specify the sums spent on each of the houses concerned. As to (a), cf. Becker v. Crosby Corporation, [1952] 1 All E.R. 1350; 3rd Digest Supp., in which a notice to quit, served by the authority, was held to be invalid because it was not signed by the Town Clerk, and there was no evidence that the housing manager (who in fact signed the notice) was his lawful deputy. In Benabo v. Wood Green Borough Council, [1945] 2 All E.R. 162; 2nd Digest Supp., the local authority served notice on an appellant under s. 9 of the 1936 Act calling on him to repair. On his default the authority did the work and served a demand for recovery under s. 10 of the 1936 Act. The appellant refused to pay, contending that the house was let as two separate tenements and should have been treated as two separate houses and that he had not been served with particulars of the expense incurred and had had no opportunity of challenging the amount. Held, that the notice was good as the building was one house though it might be two dwellings for the purposes of the Rent Acts or Rating Acts. The items in the account should have been challenged by ings under the present section. Summarily as a civil debt. The procedure to recover as a civil debt is by com- plaint to a magistrates’ court, and such court is authorised to make an order for the payment; see the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1952, s. 50 (32 Halsbury’s Statutes (znd Edn.) 460). As to time limit, see ibid., s. 104, and sub-s. (4), supra. The court may not issue a warrant for the arrest of the defendant if he fails to appear (Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1952, s. 47 (8) ), and may only commit to imprisonment in default of pay- ment or distress where it can be proved that the defendant has means to pay, or has ,