Control order — Council officer sought authority of two councillors — Councillors not members of relevant committee — Committee purporting to ratify control order — Whether ratification effective — Whether order valid — Whether respondent suffered substantial prejudice — Council’s appeal dismissed
The respondent is the owner of two houses, 54 Foxhall Road, and 210 Felixstowe Road, Ipswich. During 1987 he let each in multiple occupation to persons who do not form a single household. In May 1986 the appellant council set up a “housing renewal subcommittee” to whom were delegated powers in accordance with section 101 of the Local Government Act 1972, in particular “determining all matters relating to … (b) houses which are occupied by persons who do not form a single household …”.
The respondent applied to register his houses under the Housing Act 1985 as houses in multiple occupation. Registration was accepted in June 1987 subject to conditions that certain works were carried out within three months. Meanwhile, in August 1987, the respondent served notices to quit on the majority of his tenants and cut off the electricity and hot water at one of the properties; he did not comply with the conditions. Civil proceedings by some of the tenants resulted in the respondent being sentenced to prison for breach of court orders. With the approval of two councillors, who were not members of the housing renewal subcommittee, a control order was served in respect of each of the premises under section 379 of the Housing Act 1985. That action was ratified by the subcommittee on September 8 1987. The respondent’s challenge to the control orders was allowed by His Honour Judge Sheerin in the Ipswich County Court (August 11 1988); the orders were revoked on the grounds that they were invalid and that the respondent was substantially prejudiced. The council appealed.
Held The appeal was dismissed. The conditions precedent to constitute a valid ratification were described in Firth v Staines [1897] 2 QB 70 at p 75: “… first the agent whose act is sought to be ratified must have purported to act for the principal; secondly, at the time the act was done the agent must have had a competent principal; and thirdly, at the time of the ratification the principal must be legally capable of doing the act himself”.
The council officer who initiated the control orders, and sought the approval and authority of the two councillors, was not acting as an agent of his subcommittee; he regarded the councillors as giving him authority. Therefore the subcommittee could not ratify a decision of the officer, its agent, as that officer had not purported to have been acting as the agent of the subcommittee. In any event, ratification cannot apply where a person’s existing rights are affected; a control order takes away rights and the court should be strict where the issue is one of substance as opposed to formality. The two orders were therefore invalid.
Section 384(4) of the Housing Act 1985 provides that a court, in dealing with an appeal that a control order is invalid, “shall confirm the order unless satisfied that the interests of the appellant have been substantially prejudiced by the facts relied on by him”. The county court judge was entitled to find evidence of substantial prejudice; the respondent was put out of possession, rents were recovered by the council, proceedings were commenced by one mortgage and the respondent had a claim as a homeless person.
Warwick Rural District Council v Miller-Mead
[1962] Ch 441 distinguished.
John Holt (instructed by the solicitor to the Ipswich Borough Council) appeared for the appellants; and Andrew Marsden (instructed by Eric L Blakey, of Ipswich) appeared for the respondent.
