View report page

34
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
(Under the Public Health and Housing Acts and Byelaws)
Legal proceedings were instituted in 230 cases, including 29 summonses in
respect of dwellings in one block of flats, an increase of 46 on the previous
year. In the cases of 21 properties, Nuisance Orders were obtained to enable
the Council to carry out work on owners' behalf.
In common with other Metropolitan Borough Councils, Hackney experienced
difficulty in securing the abatement of nuisances existing in some premises
where ownership was difficult to establish. In these cases the difficulty
was met by serving notices addressed to "the owner and then obtaining Nuisance
Orders and carrying out the work in default, the expenses incurred in so doing
becoming a charge on the premises in accordance with the provisions of Section
8 of the London County Council (General Powers) Act, 1951.
In one case the department experienced considerable difficulties which
resulted in the lapse of 18 months between the service of a Statutory Notice
and the completion of the necessary work. In this case a Statutory Notice
was served on the 21st September, 1951, and a summons was issued which was
returnable on the 7th December, 1951. For various reasons this owner was
able to secure adjournment of the hearing of the summons from time to time,
and it was not until the 8th July, 1952, that a Nuisance Order requiring the
work to be completed in three months was obtained. Six days later and before
the Order had been served by the Court, the owner made an application to the
Magistrate for "a case to be stated. "This application was granted and so no
further action could be taken until the statutory three months in which the
case was required to be stated had expired. The position was further complicated
by the fact that because of the application for a case to be stated the
Nuisance Order was not served by the Police. On the 6th October the owner
informed the Court that he did not intend to proceed with his appeal and asked
for the Nuisance Order to be served. It will be seen that since a summons
for non-compliance with the Magistrate's Order could not be taken out until
three months after the date on which the Order was served, this owner gained a
three-months extension of the time within which the Magistrate had first
ordered him to complete the necessary works. After the Order had been served
the living conditions of the tenants of this house were further worsened by
the exposure to the weather of several rooms, and it was necessary to serve a
further notice upon the owner requiring him to protect these rooms. This
notice was not complied with and two further summonses were issued; one to
obtain a Nuisance Order, and the other for non-compliance with the second
Statutory Notice. In respect of the first summons an Order was made requiring
the abatement of the nuisance within two days and for the payment of 5 guineas
costs. On the second summons, a penalty of £5 0s. 0d. was inflicted but no
costs were awarded.
The facts of this particular case are given in some detail to illustrate
how difficult an unco-operative owner of property can make the work of the
Public Health Department. In such circumstances as these it is not easy to
satisfy the occupier of a house in need of repair that the local authority is
carrying out its statutory duties. One, however, is glad to record that
owners of this type form a very small minority so far as Hackney is concerned.
Details of the results of the 230 summonses heard were:
Judgments obtained 185
Withdrawn 41
Summons not served 3
Non-appearance of Defendant 1
230
In 28 of the 41 cases withdrawn the Council's costs were paid.