House subject to residential tenancies — Repair and improvement notices under housing legislation — Repair grant — Repair work did not proceed with reasonable diligence — Tenants vacating — Compulsory purchase order — Application to quash order — Whether order necessary
The applicant is the owner of a house in Burton Road, Brent, London. The house comprised three floors and was let to a number of tenants. Because of the state of repair of the house, and the facilities it afforded, the local housing authority, the second respondents, served repair and improvement notices on the applicant. She was also served with a notice limiting the number of occupiers. Planning permission was then given to the applicant to convert the house into self-contained flats and her application for an improvement grant was successful.
Partly because one of the tenants remained in occupation, the necessary building work did not proceed with reasonable diligence. The repair grant was withdrawn because of poor accounting and there was a history of non-compliance with the various statutory notices that had been served on the applicant. In December 1986 the local housing authority made a draft compulsory purchase order under section 17 of the Housing Act 1985. Following a public inquiry, the Secretary of State for the Environment confirmed the order on his inspector’s recommendation. Meanwhile the remaining tenant left in early 1987. The applicant applied to quash the order’s confirmation on the grounds that (1) the order was made for reasons other than those authorised by section 17 of the 1985 Act; (2) at the time of the inquiry over 60% of the building was completed; (3) the order had been made to protect the remaining tenant and to punish the applicant for failing to comply with the statutory notices; and (4) the local housing authority would be doing the very work that the applicant would have completed.
Held The application was dismissed. The inspector holding the public inquiry heard the evidence of the history of the management of the house and the breaches of the various statutory notices. His report contained certain findings of fact. He had found that the applicant was unreliable, that she might not manage the satisfactory completion of the work and that there was a shortage of housing in the area. Those were proper considerations in relation to an order made under section 17 of the 1985 Act and the inspector had not approached the issue on the basis of protecting the remaining tenant or punishing the applicant. There was therefore no ulterior motive in making the order.
Andresier v Minister of Housing and Local Government
[1965] EGD 197; (1965) 195 EG 121;
Varsani v Secretary of State for the Environment
(1980) 40 P & CR 354, 255 EG 457; and
de Rothschild v Secretary of State for Transport [1988] EGCS 109 considered.
Barry Payton (instructed by Barry Posner Pentol & Co, of Camden) appeared for the applicant; and Michael Kent (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent. The second respondent, Camden London Borough Council, did not appear and was not represented.
