House in multiple occupation — Safety and hygiene — Notice of works required to be completed — Offence — Failure to comply with notice — Prosecution — Magistrates holding that information laid outside time-limit — No jurisdiction to hear case — High Court allowing appeal — Offence of failure to comply was continuing while work remained undone — Information could be laid during that period
On August 17 1993 the council served a notice on the defendant under section 352 of the Housing Act 1985 as a person in control of a house in multiple occupation at 30 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1. Under that section a local authority had power to serve on the person controlling or managing the house in multiple occupation a notice specifying the work which in their opinion was necessary to meet the requirements of subsection 1A of the section concerning the safety and hygienic conditions of houses under multiple occupation. Such a notice required the persons on whom it was served to begin those works not later than the date specified and to complete them within such reasonable period as was specified. In this case the works were to be begun not later than October 16 1993 and to be completed within the period of 70 days from that date (by December 25 1993). The council subsequently prosecuted the defendant for wilful failure to comply with a section 352 notice under section 376. The defendant took a preliminary point that the information against him had not been laid within six months of the time when the offence was committed because the offence was completed on December 26 1993, but the information for the offence was laid on June 19 1995. The summons in question alleged a non-compliance on March 6 1995 so on the face of it was good. The magistrates took the view that the information was laid out of time and that they had no jurisdiction to hear it. The council appealed.
Held The appeal was allowed.
1. The first and substantial obligation under section 352 was to do the works; the second was to begin them within time; and the third was to complete them within the time specified. Breach of any one of those three requirements would constitute a non-compliance.
2. In this case, on the face of it, all three were breached. One of those obligations, namely to execute the works, was specifically made a continuous obligation by section 376(2). Therefore while the requirement to begin the works by October 16 1993 was irreparably breached when the works were not started on that day and the obligation to complete the works by December 25 1993 was irreparably breached by Boxing Day of that year, by virtue of the first part of section 376(2) by which the obligation to execute the works continued. That obligation continued notwithstanding the expiry of those periods. In those circumstances the works had not been done by March 6 1995 and the defendant was in breach on that day of that continuous obligation. He had not complied with the notice and as he had not been prosecuted for that breach before, the proceedings were properly laid.
3. Section 376(1) created an offence which continued to be committed for so long as the works specified in the notice remained undone (notwithstanding the expiry of the time for commencement or completion of the work).
A John Williams (instructed by the solicitor to Camden London Borough Council) appeared for the council; Julian Knowles (instructed by Radcliffe Crossman Block) appeared for the defendant.
