London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972
View report page
Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
Fulham 1922
Annual report of the Medical Officer of Health for the year 1922
This page requires JavaScript
(2) Re 18-23, Novello Street.
| £ | s. | d. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Claim | 78 | 7 | 5 |
Appeal against demand. Inquiry 21st September, 1922.
Order of Ministry, 6th January, 1923, reduced claim to
£85 17s., and ordered Council and Appellant to pay
expenses of Inquiry, £7 9s 10d., equally, and to bear
their own costs.
Deduction of £19 10s. 5d. from claim:—
| £ | s. | d. | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Works not comprised in notices | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| Works executed by Council after being carried out by owner | 8 | 4 | 0 |
| Establishment charges | 7 | 2 | 5 |
| £19 | 10 | 5 |
Copy of letter sent to the Ministry of Health re Section 28 of the
Housing, Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919.
Sir,
Recovery of Expenses under Section 28 of the Housing,
etc., Act, 1919.
I am directed by the Borough Council to inform you that
they have experienced considerable difficulty in recovering through
the Local Police-court expenses incurred in default of compliance
by the owners with Notices served under Section 28 of the Housing,
Town Planning, etc., Act, 1919.
In a recent case the expenses amounted to £29 10s. 3d., but only
£10 was awarded by the Magistrate. At the hearing of the summons
the Defendant challenged several of the requirements of the Notice,
and he also challenged the demand for expenses on the ground that
they were excessive. The Council's Solicitor took objection to any
enquiry being made by the Magistrate either as to the requirements
of the Notice or as to the expenses, the view of the Council being
that, had the Defendant felt aggrieved either by the Notice or the
demand, his proper procedure was to appeal to the Minister of Health,
and that, having failed to do so, he could not complain before the
Magistrate of the Notice or the Demand. In support of this contention
the Solicitor pointed out how inconvenient the procedure
would be, because, apart altogether from the unsuitability of a
Court of Summary Jurisdiction for cases of this kind, unless an
appeal was made it would not be possible to ascertain whether the
requirements of the Notice or the expenses were in order until the
hearing before the Magistrate, and if the Magistrate then decided
that the requirements and expenses were ultra vires or excessive,
by the hypothesis the Council would have done all the work, incurred
all the expense, and would not be able to recover, whereas, if
proceedings could be taken earlier to test the validity of the requirements
and the expenses, these matters could be put right and the
burden placed upon the proper shoulders. As a matter of fact, in