View report page

42
LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
(Under the Public Health and Housing Acts and By-laws)
Legal proceedings were taken in a total of 163 cases. Delay in complying
with notices is in some cases, found to be due to the inability of the
owner, on financial grounds, to carry out the necessary work; such cases are
reported to the Public Health Committee, and in the case of 16 properties
nuisance orders were obtained under the Public Health Act to enable the
Council to exercise their default powers and carry out work,
It has always been the practice in this department to include where
appropriate the cleansing of dirty walls and ceilings in nuisance notices
served on owners of property, but on four occasions during the year trouble
was experienced in the courts when the Magistrates refused to accept dirty
walls and ceilings as falling within the definition of "nuisance". Opinion
was expressed by the magistrate on these occasions to the effect that where
the need for decorative work resulted from structural defects it was the
owner's responsibility to carry out redecoration, but where the need for such
redecoration arose solely from wear and tear the responsibility rested with
the tenant. This matter was reported to the Public Health Committee and on
the instructions of the Committee the practice of asking for the cleansing of
dirty walls and ceilings in nuisance notices is being continued. This matter
was reported to the Metropolitan Boroughs' Standing Joint Committee and that
Committee replied to the effect that they could make no specific recommendation,
since the question as to what constitutes a nuisance falls properly and
entirely within the discretion of the Magistrate hearing the case.
Pour summonses under the Public Health Act were dismissed, but in only
one instance were costs awarded against the Council. This was a case where
the defendant's builder had washed down dirty walls and ceilings; the sanitary
inspector's evidence was to the effect that wallpaper was old, discoloured and
loose in places and distempered walls and whitewashed ceilings were flaking,
but the Magistrate was not convinced that the condition of the premises constituted
a nuisance. In another case the application for a nuisance order
was not granted because the notice referred to "rising" dampness and the
Magistrate accepted the defence put forward by the owner that the dampness was
not "rising". In the remaining two cases, which related to one house, the
summonses were for a nuisance order and for failure to comply with a statutory
notice; the owner however proved to the satisfaction of the magistrate that
the work had been completed before the hearing of the case and that he had
carried out more work than was required by the notice.
An owner appealed unsuccessfully to Quarter Sessions against a nuisance
order on the grounds that the house in question was unfit for human habitation
and incapable of being rendered so fit at a reasonable expense.
A case worthy of special mention, since it was the first of its kind in
which legal proceedings had been instituted in this borough for a number of
years, related to a rag and bone dealer committing an offence against the
relevant London County Council by-laws made under the Public Health (London)
Act, 1936, by giving toys in exchange for rags. The proceedings were successful
and the defendant was fined £2 and ordered to pay one guinea costs.