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.

    95/596 (page 67)
    SECTION 16 Within twenty-one days. Cf. the note tos. 11 (1), ante. Under this subsection the period is 21 days in all cases, although a longer period before the meeting may have been allowed in the notice of ‘‘ time and place ”’ under sub-s. (1), supra. Serve upon the authority. Sees. 168, post, for mode of service. Such reasonable period. What is in fact a reasonable period would seem to _ depend on the circumstances of each case; cf. Ryall v. Cubitt Heath, [1922] 1 K.B 275; 38 Digest 215, 498, cited in the note ‘“‘ Such reasonable time ”’ tos. 9 (1), ante. Semble, the authority may perhaps allow a further period of time if the period at first allowed proves inadequate; see the Interpretation Act, 1889, s. 32 (24 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 225), which provides that statutory powers may be exercised, and duties shall be performed, from time to time as occasion requires. A person concerned, as an owner, etc., will need time to take expert advice, and may wish to submit a revised list if his first list seems unlikely to be acceptable to the authority. Semble, also, that if the period allowed by the authority is in fact unreasonable, it will be advisable to submit a list of works as soon as possible. If the authority then proceed to make a demolition order (or take other steps under s. 17, post), it may be worth while to appeal to the county court under s. 20, post. It is submitted that in such a case the judge would have power to quash the order (or determination to purchase) as unreasonable or premature; or perhaps even to accept an undertaking despite s. 20 (3), proviso, post (see notes thereto). Sub-s. (4). Consultation. As to what constitutes consultation, cf. Rollo v. Minister of Town and Country Planning, [1948] 1 All E.R. 13, C.A.; 2nd Digest Supp., and Re Union of Beneficies of Whippingham and East Cowes, Derham v. Church Commissioners of England, [1954] 2 All E.R. 22, P.C.; 3rd Digest Supp. Undertaking. It appears there is no limitation on the kind of undertaking which may be given by an owner, or mortgagee, and accepted by the local authority under this subsection; see Johnson v. Leicester Corporation, [1934]1K.B. 638, at p. 647, per Slesser, L.J. The learned Lord Justice was considering the provisions of ss. 16 to 19 of the Act of 1930; with the substitution of the section numbers of the present Act, the explanation given was as follows: ‘‘ I cannot see that there is any limitation as to what sort of an undertaking an individual may give under [s. 16 (4)]. Ex hypothest, before [s. 16] comes into operation at all, the local authority have already satisfied themselves that the repairs cannot be carried out at a reasonable expense, as mentioned in [ss. 9 and 39 (2)], because, if it is a house which can be repaired at a reasonable expense, then it is one which they are satisfied could come within [s. 9]. That, however, does not mean that the owner under [s. 16 (4)] cannot give any undertaking which he thinks fit to give. ... In my view the owner is entitled under [s. 16 (4)] to give any under- taking which he thinks fit.”’” In the same case the court held that the conversion of two unfit houses into one fit house was an undertaking which might be accepted by the local authority and, on appeal, by the judge. When the stage of consultation with the owner is reached it is no concern of the local authority whether the sum which the owner is prepared to spend is reasonable or not: their only concern is whether the house can or cannot be made fit (Stidworthy and Stidworthy v. Brixham Urban District Council (1935), 2 L.J.C.C.R. 41; Coleman v. Dorchester Rural District Council [1935], L.J.C.C.R. 113). That he will . . . carry out such works, etc. The local authority, it is sub- mitted, may accept this type of undertaking even if the requirements of sub-s. (3), supra, have not been complied with (although the judge could not do so on appeal; s. 20 (3), proviso, post). If the undertaking is accepted but broken, see s. 17 (1) (a), post. Or that it shall not be used. For penalty for breach of this undertaking, see sub-s. (6), supva, and for consequences, see s. 17 (1) (b), post. The owner may obtain possession (see sub-s. (5), swpva) and put the house to use for other purposes, although this will probably require planning permission under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act, 1947 (48 Statutes Supp. 44; 25 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 506). Cf., as to closing orders, s. 27, post, whereunder no use can be made without the approval of the authority, which is not to be unreasonably withheld. Cancel the undertaking. There is no specific provision for appeal against a refusal to cancel an undertaking. Semble, if an owner contends the house has been made fit, but the authority refuse to cancel the undertaking, the owner could allow it to be used for human habitation. The authority might then proceed under s. 17, post, and the owner might appeal under s. 20, post, against the demolition order, or other action taken. Sub-s. (5). Rent Acts. J.e., the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions Acts, 1920 to 1939, see s. 189 (1), post. The present subsection is one of many derived from s. 156 of the Act of 1936; see the Table of Repeals and Replacements (Appendix I, post), and see in particular ss. 22 (5) and 27 (5), post. The power to stay or suspend execution of an order for possession under s. 5 (2) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act, 1920 (103 Statutes Supp. 143; 13 Halsbury’s Statutes (2nd Edn.) 990), is a power which affects the right to