View report page

117
In the Session of 1887, a measure was introduced in the House of Commons, intituled,
"Water Companies (Regulation of Powers)" described as "A Bill to limit the powers of the
Water Companies to cut off the Tenant's Water Supply where the rate is paid by the Landlord."
The Vestry petitioned in favour of the Bill, which became law. The Act,* in the cases to which
it applies, makes provision for treating the water rate as a debt to be recovered—primarily, after
notice to pay—from the occupier, who is entitled to deduct the amount paid to the Company out of
the rent then due, or that may next become due, from him, when the owner, and not the occupier, is
liable, by law, or agreement with the Company, to the payment of the rate, which is a charge on
the dwelling house in priority to all other charges affecting the premises. The penalty for cutting
off the supply, in contravention of the Act, is a sum " not exceeding five pounds for each day during
which the water shall remain cut off"; the penalty to be "recovered summarily from the company
by, and paid to, the person aggrieved." The Act does not apply to houses the water rate of which
is payable by the occupier: its practical effect has been to reduce largely the number of cases in
which the supply is cut off on account of non-payment of the rate.
The Companies had powers, under the Metropolis Water Act, 1871, to cut off, where constant
supply was given, in case of the "absence of the prescribed fittings"; and also when, by reason of
defective fittings, there was waste, misuse, undue consumption, or contamination of water. But, as
stated in the annual report for 1887 (page 171), "the Companies rarely. . . . . . cut off on these accounts."
This I said "confidently, in respect of their powers with regard to prescribed fittings," because, in
such cases, they were required to give notice to the Nuisance Authority; and not more than a
dozen such notices had been given to (the) Vestry in as many years. The Companies were (then)
under no obligation to give notice when the cutting off was for non-payment of the rate; but all
this was put right by the Public Health (London) Act, 1891; the 49th section of which requires the
Company to give notice to the Sanitary Authority of the water supply being cut off. It reads as
follows:—
" Where a water company may lawfully cut off the water supply to any inhabited dwellinghouse.
and cease to supply such dwelling house with water, for non-payment of the water rate, or
other cause, the company shall, in every case, within twenty-four hours after exercising the said
right, give notice thereof in writing to the sanitary authority of the district in which the house
is situated."
The penalty for default is a fine not exceeding ten pounds; and it is "the duty of the
Sanitary Authority to take proceedings against the (then) Company, (now the Metropolitan Water
Board) in default. It has never been necessary to take such proceedings in the Royal Borough.
In all respects the state of matters has been greatly improved; nevertheless, it was satisfactory
that the action the Islington Borough Council invited the other Borough Councils to
adopt, was generally taken; not only for the reasons above set out, but also because "an occupied
house without a proper and sufficient supply of water," is "a nuisance liable to be dealt with summarily
under" (Section48 of) the Public Health Act; and, "if it is a dwelling-house, shall be
deemed unfit for human habitation." In reporting on the matter (in the twelfth monthly report,
December 6th, 1906), I suggested that possibly a satisfactory solution might be arrived at on the
basis of the proposal of Lord Camperdown's Bill, of 1885, viz.: that the water supply should not be
cut off for the " non-payment of the rate, except in cases where an order is obtained, on a summons,
setting forth the reason for the power being put in force, and the date at which the water may be
cut off."
On the last day of the year the Water Board addressed a communication to the several
Borough Councils as follows :—
"Disconnecting supplies for the non-payment of Water Rate."
" With reference to the resolutions recently passed by the Islington Borough Council on the
subject of the disconnection of supplies by the Water Board as a means of recovery of outstanding
water rates, I am directed by the Finance Committee to inform you of the following facts:
"The subject was gone into very carefully by the Committee in February, 1905, when they
decided that it would not be in the interests of the Board, and, therefore, of the general body of
consumers, to entirely abandon the practice. Since that date, however, the power to cut off
supplies has been very sparingly used; the number of disconnections being reduced to a
minimum.
* Popularly known as "Forrest Fulton's Act."