View report page

7
There is also the serious possibility that as the more experienced
inspectors remaining with the Council retire upon reaching pensionable
age, no adequate replacements will be available so that, unless
the position soon improves, the time must inevitably come when
Hackney will lack a sufficient number of experienced sanitary
inspectors to enable the Council to carry out their statutory
obligations. Unfortunately, it appears that the loss of inspectors
to other authorities will continue so long as the Council refuse to
accept the fact that if they wish to retain the services of experienced
inspectors they must pay salaries at least equal to those offered by
other authorities.
Legal Proceedings.
It is pleasing to report that there was again a reduction, as
compared with the previous year, in the number of instances in
which legal proceedings were necessary to enforce sanitary notices.
During the past year there was, generally speaking, a marked
improvement in the attitude of owners of property in the borough,
and more owners have shown a willingness to comply with sanitary
notices. In view of the prevailing high cost of building material's
and labour and the fact that rents remain controlled at pre-war
level, this co-operation on the part of the owners which, unfortunately,
had been lacking in many cases since the war, is a matter
for great satisfaction.
Ten of the 277 formal notices served under Section 9 of the
Housing Act, 1936, since the 5th September, 1949, were the subject
of appeal to the County Court but in eight instances the appeals
were withdrawn and the Council's costs paid. The other two cases
are mentioned in detail on page 33 of this report. The Council's
notice was confirmed in both cases.
In a few instances, where the owners proved extremely difficult,
a departure was made from the usual practice in that, in addition
to applying for nuisance orders, application to the court was made
for a penalty for failing to comply with the statutory notices;
details of these cases are given on pages 74-85. It has been our
experience that Magistrates are very loath to impose a penalty in
such cases—indeed, in the majority of cases where delay occurs,
owners have difficulty themselves in complying with notices.
With regard to legal proceedings under the Food and Drugs
Act, 1938, two cases which are of interest as being the first of
their kind for some years are worthy of mention. In one case the
occupier of a food store was summoned for failing to take all steps
reasonably necessary to prevent the risk of contamination of food
and was fined £10 0s. 0d. and ordered to pay 4 guineas costs,
whilst in the other case a summons for unlawfully using unregistered
premises for the manufacture of ice-cream resulted in the
defendant being fined £5 0s. 0d. with 2 guineas costs.