View report page

99
The Ministry held a local inquiry, the result being given in
favour of the Council: the formal Order of the Minister upheld the
Notices, with the exception that the requirement (iii.) above should
be deleted.
Each party was directed to pay their own costs, and the
Appellant was ordered to pay the costs incurred by the Ministry.
In the next case the owner of the premises No. 22 Auckland
Road appealed against the Notice served upon him under Sec. 28
on the grounds, inter alia:—
(1) That the Notice had not been legally or regularly served.
(2) That certain specified works in the Notice and Schedule
were not necessary.
A local enquiry was held on the 21st July, 1922, and the formal
Order was subsequently issued by the Minister, subject to three
minor amendments. The appellant was directed to pay the costs
incurred by the Ministry.
13 Ingrave Street. Information was received on 4th August
from the Ministry of Health, that the owner of this house had
appealed against the notice re-served under Sec, 28 of the 1919 Act.
Having considered the correspondence, &c., and the Council's
observations, the Ministry decided in view of the circumstances of
the owner to make an informal inspection in lieu of the usual
local enquiry.
Eventually the Ministry upheld the notice as served.
Occasional difficulties, it will be noted from these appeals and
in other directions as well, continue to arise in connection with
administrative procedure under Sec. 28 of the 1919 Act. So far,
the Council has been uniformly successful in all legal action in
enforcing their powers under the Act. Unfortunately, however,
while securing legal decisions in their favour for the recovery of
expenditure incurred in carrying out, in default of the owner,
the works of repair to render the houses concerned fit for habitation,
protracted litigation, and, in some few instances even loss has resulted
where the sale of the property has not yielded the cost of the works
executed and the legal expenses incurred in recovery. The number
of cases in which such difficulties arise is fortunately small, but may
be serious in regard to the financial risks involved.
While the Council's experience has been fortunate in regard
to the legal action, they have found it necessary to take to enforce
their claims for the reimbursement of expenditure incurred in
regard to repairs carried out to insanitary properties under Sec. 28
Notices, in default of the owner, other sanitary authorities have
not, in some recent instances, been equally fortunate. Legal decisions
in regard to right of appeal and procedure thereon, time
allowed on the notices served, recovery of costs incurred, &c., have
been given which appear to have been at variance with the administrative
interpretation of the section. This Section of the Act therefore
requires amendment, especially in regard to provision for
simplifying procedure in the recovery of expenditure incurred in
default of the responsible owner.