View report page

58
take the matter further. In other cases, where there
had been no appeal to the Ministry either against the
notice to repair or the demand for expenses, the
defendants challenged in the Police-court the requirements
in the notice as well as the amount of the
expenses. Objection to this was taken by the Council's
Solicitor on the ground that the defendants, having
neglected to appeal to the Minister of Health, were
stopped from raising these questions before the
Magistrate. The Magistrate over-ruled the objection
of the Council's Solicitor, and in one case deducted
almost two-thirds of the Council's claim. The Council
did not appeal, as the sum involved was not a large
amount, but a letter upon the subject was addressed
to the Ministry of Health. I append a copy of this
letter.
From these remarks, however, it will be seen that
the owner would appear to have the right to appeal to
two tribunals, in both of which the Council must be
successful in order to recoup themselves for the ratepayers'
money which they have laid out on these
housing repairs. This is a most unsatisfactory state
of affairs, and, as a result partly of this and partly
of the initial difficulty of carrying out the work, the
Borough Council has decided only to use Section 28
in most exceptional cases and as a general rule to deal
with all housing repairs under the Public Health
Act.
The Police-court summonses for the recovery of
costs, with the results thereof, will be found among the
summonses on pages 51, 52 and 53.
While this report was in the press the result of the
appeal in the case of Ryall (Bermondsey Borough
Council) v. Hart, was decided.
In this case the magistrate held that the question
of the unreasonableness of the time specified in the
notice was a matter for his jurisdiction. He found
that the respondent could not by any reasonable
effort or diligence have complied with the notice,
and that the period of 21 days specified in the notice