View report page

57
outside contractor has tendered for this work there
may naturally be difficulties when he is suddenly
deprived of the job at the last moment, after all his
trouble of tendering and preparing for the work. In
Fulham, during 1922, work was carried out by the
direct labour of the Council's own employees, and
therefore this difficulty did not arise except that it
made considerable unnecessary work in the Surveyor's
Department. Where an outside contractor, however,
is employed, I am of opinion that he might have good
cause to claim compensation from the Council for the
loss of the job.
Another point which arose at one of the Inquiries
had reference to the time taken by the Council to
complete the repairs. An owner was served with
notice to complete certain repairs within 21 days.
Eventually, in default of the owner, the Council
entered the premises and carried out the work, but
the Council took considerably longer than 21 days to
do the work. The owner pleaded that this showed
that the time allowed him was unreasonable. This
contention, however, was not upheld, but it would
seem advisable that in such cases the Council should
endeavour to carry out the repairs in the time allowed
to the owner in order to avoid this criticism.
Recovery of Expenses.—After the work has been
completed, it is often a matter of difficulty to extract
the costs from the owner. The legal position does not
appear to be too clear. In the first place, the owner
has the right to appeal to the Ministry against the
charges and the Minister may direct an Inquiry to
be held at which the whole case is gone into in detail
and an award made. In one of the appeal cases at
Fulham it became necessary subsequently to proceed
in the Police-court for the recovery of the amount
due. At the Police-court the Stipendiary Magistrate
who heard the case held that he had the right to go
into the whole question de novo. The Council took
exception to this, but, as the ultimate decision of the
Magistrate was in their favour, there was no need to