Notice — Powers of housing authorities where house in multiple occupation — Statutory rights of appeal — Whether statutory rights of appeal include ground that premises not in multiple occupation — Whether abuse of court to exercise statutory rights of appeal rather than judicial review — Appeal by local authority dismissed
In May and June 1988, and pursuant to their powers relating to houses in multiple occupation under sections 352, 358, 366 and 372 of the Housing Act 1985, the appellant local housing authority served notices on the respondent in respect of 30 Ash Road, Leeds. The notices variously described the premises as being a house occupied by persons who do not form a single household and as being “in multiple occupation”. The respondent appealed the notices and His Honour Judge Barr-Young, in the Leeds County Court (May 6 1989), decided on hearing a preliminary issue that the court had jurisdiction to determine whether a property is a house in multiple occupation within the meaning of the provisions of the 1985 Act under which the notices had been served.
The local authority appealed contending that the county court had no jurisdiction to determine the issue and that to raise the issue in the present proceedings, rather than make an application for judicial review under RSC Ord 53, was contrary to public policy and an abuse of process.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
Sections 353, 367, 371 and 373 of the Housing Act 1985 on their true construction do confer a right of appeal to the county court on the grounds that the premises in issue are not a house in multiple occupation. In respect of each of the notices served, it was a condition that the premises were in multiple occupation; if that was factually wrong, there would be an “error in connection with the notice” or a “material defect or error”. The legislation could not have intended that a person served with an ultra vires notice should be left without any recourse to the courts.
The exercise of the statutory rights of appeal to the county court on the grounds that the premises are not a house in multiple occupation would not be an abuse of the process of the court. A householder who has arguable points relating both to the power of the local authority to serve notices and the grounds on which they are served should not be compelled to forego his statutory right of appeal and to undertake the expense and inconvenience of separate judicial review proceedings to obtain a decision on the ultra vires point.
Andrew Arden and Linda Pearce (instructed by the solicitor to Leeds City Council) appeared for the appellants; and Charles Cross (instructed by Bury & Walkers, of Leeds) appeared for the respondent.
