View report page

98
Repair of Unfit Houses.
The systematic inspection of house property was actively
continued during 1922, and a large number of houses, found on
inspection to be more or less seriously defective or insanitary were
reported to the Housing and Health Committees for action under
the Housing and Town Planning, &c. Act, 1919, or the Public
Health (London) Act, 1891.
The policy of the Council with regard to action under the
Housing Act as carried out during the past 3 years, has been continued,
resulting in much valuable work being done in securing
the repair of seriously unfit houses. The number of seriously
insanitary houses dealt with during the year under review will be
found set out in the summary on page 102.
The number of insanitary houses reported for action under
Section 28 was considerably below that for the preceding two
years. This is due to two causes, (a) the relatively smaller number
of houses found on inspection to be so seriously defective as to require
action under the Housing Act, and (b) the considerable number
of houses dealt with either informally or under Sec. 28 notices in
1921, the works of repair in regard to which had not been completed
in that year. If the work carried out in securing the completion
of the repairs to these latter houses is taken into account, it will
be found that the volume of work in regard to action under Sec.
28 compares favourably with that carried out during the previous
years.
During 1922, it was found necessary for the Council to carry
out work in default in respect of only one house, the cost incurred
amounting to £84 10s. 2d.
Appeals were made by the owners concerned against Notices
under Sec. 28 of the Housing, Town Planning, &c., Act. 1919, requiring
execution of certain works to insanitary house properties in
Orville Road, Auckland Road, and Ingrave Street.
The first-mentioned case referred to 9 houses numbered 1 to 17
Orville Road, the grounds of appeal being:—
(i.) That the Notices had not been legally or regularly
served.
(ii.) That the provision of adequate light and ventilation
of the staircases contained in the Notice was unnecessary
and unreasonable.
(iii.) The Notices were bad in law because the notices required
the work to be carried out to the satisfaction of the
local sanitary authority.
Alternatively:—
(iv.) The Notices were bad in law by reason of the inclusion
of the work specified in (ii.).