View report page

106
delay which is not at all their fault, and for recurrence of nuisances, as when
a roof is badly patched, to carry over Police Court proceedings.
Action under the Housing Act, 1925, when the Local Authority may find it
necessary to execute the work in default of the owner, would remove the difficulty
as to recurring nuisances, but in dealing with old property, for obvious
reasons the work would have to be very comprehensive as compared with the
work executed by an owner under the Public Health (London) Act; and as
regards the service of notices, Section 3 of the Housing Act, 1925, states that a
reasonable time, not less than 21 days, must be allowed an owner in which to carry
out the work. I am attaching a schedule of work required to 10 houses in Ada
Street owned by the Benabo firm, from which it will be seen that 21 days will
be inadequate, and probably 60 days would be necessary. Furthermore, within
21 days the owner can appeal to the Ministry of Health on the following
grounds:—
1. On the grounds that the notice is not reasonable. The Ministry can be
called upon to decide whether or not a notice is reasonable.
2. On the grounds that the work specified by the Local Authority amounts
to reconstruction of the premises. After appeal, nothing can be done to
the premises until a decision is reached by the Ministry. If the Ministry
uphold the owner's appeal, houses may be closed by the Local Authority,
or compulsorily acquired (Section 4). The Ministry will, of course,
require to obtain information and follow a formal line of procedure, as in
the case of 15, Theydon Road, which, the Committee will remember,
results necessarily in considerable delay.
There is also a further appeal to the Ministry as to the cost of the work;
time of workmen and wages paid are subject to appeal as being unreasonable, and
overhead charges must be reduced to a minimum.
There will obviously be a very considerable increase in the amount of work
of the Borough Council departments as regards the sanitary work, and also in
the recovery of cost. To be of any real value in Hackney, the work would
have to be on a larger scale than has apparently been attempted in any London
Borough, and must result in considerably more expense to the Borough than
results from action on present lines. It does not appear that any considerable
amount of reconstruction work has been carried out under this Act in London.
If notice is served under this Act (Section 3) as regards such premises as
those in Ada Street already mentioned, and closure results for the reasons
previously stated, the Council may take over the closed premises by authority
of an Order of the Ministry of Health under Section 4. Compensation must then
be granted to owners under the same scale as a Part 2 Scheme, that is, value
of the site clear of the buildings. Expenses incurred in reconstruction work
must be defrayed as part of the general expenses of the Council, and Local
Authorities may borrow money for this purpose (Section 84), so far as it relates
to the execution of repairs and works to unsatisfactory dwelling houses by Local
Authorities, and compensation payments for or in respect of obstructive buildings,
or as regards improvement and reconstruction schemes under Part 2 of the Act.
As regards Nos. 21 to 33 and 24 to 38, Ada Street, 36 Intimation Notices were
served this year and 17 Statutory Notices. A rough estimate of the cost of the
work on these premises, as set out in the schedule, is in the neighbourhood of
£2,000. The situation as regards this type of house is becoming rapidly worse,
and I would suggest that it is time that an attempt be made to deal with property
of this nature under the provisions of the Housing Act, 1925, even though this
is likely to result in the Council reconstructing these houses and compelling
owners to surrender their interests so that the houses can be sold to meet the