View report page

91
In connection with the recovery of the cost of repairs to
insanitary houses carried out by the Council in default of compliance
by the owners with Section 28 notices served upon them,
the case of the Council v. Haines and others is of such considerable
interest and importance that I have set out the full
report of the case for future reference. (Vide Appendix,
Page 119).
The facts in this case, briefly stated, are as follows:—
The Council had served a notice on the owner of No. 28
Arden Street, under Section 28 of the Housing and Town
Planning, etc., Act, 1919, requiring him to execute necessary
repairs, and the notice not having been complied with within
the required time, the work was carried out by the Council's own
Works Department at a cost of £200 3s. A demand was made
upon the owner for payment, and as it was not met, summary
proceedings were taken in the South Western Police Court, and
an order was made by the Magistrate for payment. The owner
having failed to comply with the order, the Council asked the
County Court for a declaration that they were entitled
under Section 28 to a charge on the premises for the abovementioned
sum, together with interest thereon, and that the
charge was entitled to priority over any mortgage or other
encumbrance on the premises. They also asked the Court for
an order for sale and such other relief as might be necessary.
The defendants were all those who had any interest in the
property, and included the freeholders, leaseholders and
mortgagees. Counsel for the freeholders contended that the
order could not be made against them on the ground that no
notice had been given them that the work was to be done and
that they had no opportunity of doing the work. For the
mortgagee a similar argument was advanced.
The Judge, however, did not uphold their contention, and
stated that Section 28 does not require any persons having an
interest in the premises other than the owner to be served with
notices, and that the charge must affect the interests of the
freeholders, mortgagees and leaseholders, as well as the person
who is the owner within the meaning of the Section.
It was decided that the Council were entitled to the relief
for which they asked, and their charges, together with interest
thereon, should be entitled to priority.
An order was made that all the documents and deeds should
be handed over to the Council, but the Judge indicated that it
was open to any of the defending parties to pay off the charge.
The result of this case, although it is only a County Court
decision, is of great importance, and appears to have cleared
up some of the difficulties as to the meaning and effect of the
Section. At any rate, it has not been appealed against, and