View report page

34
that in the interests of good housing management the rebuilding
was necessary. The Judge held that the requirements as to the
provision of the water supply were properly included in the Council's
notice and confirmed this and all the other items on the notice, but,
being satisfied of the need for rebuilding the rear wall, extended the
time in which the work was to be executed to nine weeks, and
awarded one-third costs against the Council.
In the second case the appellant claimed that he should not be
compelled to carry out every item on the notice, although he did
not specify those items in dispute; that nine weeks and not seven
weeks were necessary to do the work; and that the Council had
commenced proceedings at North London Magistrates Court by
virtue of a Public Health notice, and that this notice had been
complied with. On the Council's side it was argued that the
Housing Act notice was served 9 months after the nuisance order
was obtained and included only two items which figured in the
nuisance order, the work done to remedy these defects having
proved to be ineffective. The Judge confirmed the notice save for
two items which related to a catch on a lavatory closet and locks
on the front and rear entrance doors, but extended the time in which
the work was to be executed from six weeks to nine weeks. In
granting this extension the Judge said he was satisfied that at the
time the notice was served, in the summer, the time allowed was
sufficient, but as it was now November he had to take into consideration
the present seasonal dark and difficult days for working. In
this case costs were awarded to the Council.
Although in one instance costs were awarded against the Council,
a satisfying aspect of these appeals was that in neither case did the
Judge exercise his discretion of quashing the notices, and it may
therefore be assumed that with the exception of the two items
mentioned above he was satisfied that the works asked for were
necessary and that the Council had been justified in serving the
notices.
Unfortunately, this owner caused the Council further difficulty
in respect of the premises to which the second appeal related by
carrying out the work piecemeal, and it was eventually necessary
to obtain quotations from three builders with a view to the
remaining work being carried out by the Council in default. The
usual notice of intention to enter and execute work was served, but
when the contractor's builders arrived at the premises the owner's
builders were in possession and a scaffold had been erected. The
presence of this scaffold prevented the contractor carrying out
certain of the work included in the schedule and accordingly a
summons for obstruction was taken out against the owner. The
summons was heard on the 4th May, 1951, when the owner was
fined £20 0s. Od. (the maximum penalty) and ordered to pay