View report page

171
Landlord." 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 next may become due, from time
to time, when the owner and not the occupier is liable by
law, or agreement with the Company, for the payment of the
rate, which is a charge on the dwelling-house in priority to
all other charges affecting the premises. Obviously this
power cannot be made to apply in regard to houses the water
rate of which is payable by the occupier. But, as I suggested
in 1882, " the Company should be left to their remedy for
the recovery of a debt like other traders," in such cases, and
should not be allowed to cut off the supply, for the reason
that water, being " a prime necessary of life, the absence of
a proper supply in an inhabited house constitutes a serious
nuisance," dangerous to health, and should not be allowed.
With this branch of the question the Clerkenwell Vestry
did not deal, and in their circular letter they simply made
the modest proposal that the Companies should not be allowed
to cut off " in consequence of waste." The Companies have
powers beyond what are implied in the proposal, for they
may cut off, where constant supply is given, in case of the
" absence of the prescribed fittings;" and also when, by
reason of defective fittings, there is waste, misuse, undue consumption,
or contamination of water. But the Companies
very rarely, in my experience, cut off on these accounts.
I say this confidently in respect of their powers under
the Water Act of 1871, with regard to " prescribed fittings,"
because in such case they are required by the said Act to
give notice to the Nuisance Authority, and not more than a
dozen such notices have been made to your Vestry in as
many years.
The Companies are under no obligation to give notice to the
Nuisance Authority when the cutting-off is for non-payment
M 2