View report page

66
3, Robert's Yard, Drummond Street, Euston Road, was represented by the
Medical Officer of Health as unfit for human habitation on the 28th April,
1891, was considered by the Yestry on the 6th May, 1891, when it was
resolved that Notice be given to render the premises fit for human habitation,
and in default that legal proceedings be taken. Notice was served on the
28th May and not complied with. On the 22nd June a Summons was issued,
and the case was heard on the 29th June at Clerkenwell Police Court. It
was adjourned for the Magistrate to view the premises, and on the 13th July,
1891, the Magistrate refused to make a Closing Order. The Owner
voluntarily closed the premises a few weeks afterwards and they have not
since been occupied as a dwelling.
Nos,. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11, Weir's Passage were represented by
the Medical Officer of Health as unfit for human habitation on the 8th
August, 1895, were considered by the Vestry on the 4th September, when it
was resolved that Notice be given to render the premises fit for human
habitation, and in default that legal proceedings be taken. Notices were
served on the 7th September and not complied with, and on the 14th
November Summonses were issued and heard at the Clerkenwell Police Court,
in respect of the even numbers on the 22nd, and of the odd numbers on the
23rd November, 1895. The case of No. 5, Weir's Passage was adjourned
one week until the 30th November, on which date a Closing Order was made
in reference to the premises. The cases of No. I, 2, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11,
Weir's Passage were adjourned one month until the 20th December, 1895.
In the meantime these premises were inspected by the Magistrate on the 9th
December, when he found some of them very recently touched up and
repaired temporarily by decoration and whitewashing, which had been done
immediately before his visit of inspection, and he stated that the manner in
which such repairs had been made would be taken into consideration on the
question of costs, and he specified what further ought to be done by the
Owners in order to put the houses into such a condition as to ultimately avoid
Closing Orders. On the 20th December the Summonses were further
adjourned until the 20th March, on which date the MagistraCe refused to
make Closing Orders, and made no Orders as to costs. (The letters from the
Solicitors in reference to these houses appeared in the Minutes of the Yestry of
St. Pancras of the 22nd January, 1896, and 15th April, 1896.)
The question has also been asked why Closing Orders have been sought
under the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890, rather than under the
Public Health (London) Act, 1891, since the procedure is similar in the two
Acts, the only material difference being that under the former Act the
Sanitary Authority may, after obtaining a Closing Order, proceed to pass a
Resolution to demolish, and under the latter Act they cannot, the inference
being that unless it were intended to demolish the buildings action would be
taken under the Public Health Act. Under the latter Act the owner of a less
term than 21 years is entitled to be heard upon the application for a Closing
Order, whereas under the former he is not. There is also a difference
between the Owner of a house to be demolished after haviag been closed by a
Closing Order under Part II. of the Housing of the Working Classes Act, 1890,
and the Owner of a house forming one of a group of houses that the Local
Authority have decided to demolish for the purpose of carrying out a small