Mansion and stable block converted to provide conference centre – Local authority serving notice under Housing Act 1985 section 352 – Whether Part XI of Housing Act applying to “houses in multiple occupation” – Whether centre a “house” within meaning of section 345
A former mansion house, Living Waters, and its former stable block, the Chimes, Dolwen, Abergele, were converted to provide a conference centre and retreat owned and run by the plaintiff company (the company). Living Waters comprised sleeping accommodation for up to 90 people on three floors, three dining-rooms, lounges, a creche, coffee shop and gift shop, and the Chimes could sleep 46 people, had a dining-room, recreation room, meeting room, gym and two chapels. The two premises were run together and their facilities were used by christian groups for retreats. On August 15 1996 Conwy County Borough Council, the respondents, served notices under section 353 of the Housing Act 1985 requiring the company to carry out certain works at both Living Waters and the Chimes, the premises being in the company’s control and allegedly in multiple occupation. Section 352(1) of the Act empowered the respondents, as the local housing authority, to serve a notice where the condition of a house in multiple occupation was, in the opinion of the authority, so far defective with respect to the matters specified in section 352(1), having regard to the number of individuals or households or both accommodated for the time being on the premises, as not to be suitable for occupation by those individuals or households. Section 345 of the Act provided that “‘house in multiple occupation’ means a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household”. The works specified in the notices related to fire precautions.
The company appealed and a preliminary issue was directed to determine whether Living Waters and the Chimes, were each a house in multiple occupation within the meaning and intent of the 1985 Act. It was agreed that the persons who stayed at the premises did not form a single household. The judge found that in order to qualify as a house in multiple occupation the premises concerned had to satisfy three requirements: (1) they were a house; (2) they were occupied by persons; and (3) those persons did not form a single household. He stated that the issue was whether such persons could be said to occupy the premises, and concluded that, although it was to be presumed that the people who stayed at the centre had regular homes elsewhere, they did in fact occupy the premises while they were there in the sense of living in, or residing in, or being accommodated there. He therefore dismissed the company’s appeals against the notices. The company appealed, and applied for leave to amend the notice of appeal to substitute the word “building” for “house”. It was contended, inter alia, that: (1) a building only fell within the phrase “a house which is occupied by persons who do not form a single household” if it was (a) used for providing accommodation to persons who at that time had no other accommodation or (b) was a hostel; and (2) neither building was a “house” in the ordinary meaning of the word.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
1. The legislative purpose and intent of the Housing Act 1985 was to prevent overcrowding and unhealthy and unsafe premises. The Act applied to premises which were “houses” on a wide interpretation of that word (see Reed v Hastings Corporation (1964) 62 LGR 588 and Okereke v Brent London Borough Council [1967] 1 QB 42), and the fact that services were provided or that the premises were run by a non-profit-making organisation, did not take it outside the control of the Act. If the result was that country house hotels as well as bed and breakfast accommodation were included under the section, it was a question for parliament. There was no reason why temporary occupants should be exposed to cramped, unhealthy or dangerous living conditions, if that were the case.
2. The statutory provisions were not directed towards the use of a particular building, but to a building described in a particular way and having a particular attribute, namely occupation by persons of more than one household: R v Camden London Borough Council, ex parte Rowton (Camden Town) Ltd (1983) 1 HLR 28 explained.
Richard King (instructed by Kingsford Stacey, London agents for RGL Dale-Jones, of Stockport) appeared for the appellant; Robert Hornby (instructed by the solicitor to Conwy County Borough Council) appeared for the respondents.
