Housing Act 1974, section 47–Council’s appeal against Crown Court’s decision quashing conviction–Landlord’s failure to notify local authority of service on tenant of notice to quit premises in housing action area–Invalidity of notice to quit no defence to prosecution for failure to notify–Landlord properly convicted by magistrates–Appeal allowed
This was an
appeal, by way of case stated by Newcastle upon Tyne Crown Court, by the City
Council of Newcastle upon Tyne against the Crown Court’s decision on February 3
1976 allowing an appeal by Albert Fawcett against his conviction by Newcastle
upon Tyne justices for failing, without reasonable excuse, to notify the local
authority that he had served a notice to quit on the tenant of premises in Harrison
Place Housing Action Area contrary to section 47(1) of the Housing Act 1974.
Robert Stewart
(instructed by T Brown, chief clerk) appeared for Newcastle City Council; the
respondent, Albert Fawcett, appeared in person.
Giving the
first judgment, WIEN J said that the respondent owned property in the Harrison
Place Housing Action Area in Newcastle upon Tyne and in May 1975 he served a
notice to quit upon a tenant. The notice was defective in that it did not give
the tenant the proper length of time, but was served in order that the tenant
could be rehoused. It was, however, irrelevant that the notice was given in
order to provide the tenant with a document to show he had to be rehoused.
Section 47(1)
of the Housing Act 1974 provided that:
Within the period
of seven days beginning with the day on which a notice to quit is served:
(a) in respect of land consisting of or
including housing accommodation in a housing action area, and
(b) on a tenant who occupies as a dwelling the
whole or any part of that land,
the landlord
by or on whose behalf the notice is served shall notify the local authority in
accordance with Schedule 4 to this Act, that the notice has been served.
By section
47(5)(b) of the Act:
A local
authority who receive a notification given in compliance with any provision of
subsections (1) to (3) about shall . . .
(b) within the period of four weeks beginning
with the day on which the notification was received, inform the person by whom
it was furnished what action, if any, they propose to take as a result of the
notification with respect to the land to which the notification relates.
The effect of
notification of the service of any notice purporting to be a notice to quit was
to impose on a local authority, within four weeks of receipt of the notice, a
duty to inform the person on whose behalf the notice was served what action, if
any, they proposed to take.
The short
point was what did the phrase ‘notice to quit’ mean when used in section
47(1)? Did it mean a valid notice to
quit or did it mean any notice purporting to be a notice to quit? The only purpose in informing a local
authority of the service of a notice to quit was to enable the local authority
to take action. The local authority could not possibly inquire into the
validity of a notice to quit. Provided the document purported to be a notice to
quit that was enough. There was nothing wrong with the original conviction and
no justification for the Crown Court’s decision. The appeal should be allowed.
LORD WIDGERY
and EVELEIGH J agreed.
The appeal
was allowed and the original conviction restored. No order was made as to
costs.
