House in poor repair — Compulsory purchase order under Part V of the Housing Act 1957 — Order would not be implemented if house repaired — Whether order ultra vires — Whether order should have been made under Part II of the Housing Act 1957
The two plaintiffs are the owners of two houses in Queens Road, Haringey. Both houses are unoccupied and uninhabitable because they are in poor repair. In February 1984 a letter written on behalf of Haringey London Borough Council, the local housing authority, sought the plaintiffs’ intentions as to the rehabilitation of the houses and notice was given under section 16 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 seeking information about the ownership of the properties. In October 1984 the borough council resolved to make a compulsory purchase order under Part V of the Housing Act 1957; it was made in draft in May 1985 and confirmed by the Secretary of State for the Environment later the same year after a public inquiry had been held. The inspector, in his report, noted that there was a housing shortage but that the borough council did not intend implementing the order if the owners put the houses back into repair and habitable use. The plaintiffs appealed against a decision (Mr Graham Eyre QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge) to dismiss their application to question the validity of the order. It was their submission that the order should have been made under Part II of the Housing Act 1957.
Held The appeal was dismissed. Part V of the Housing Act 1957 (now Part II of the Housing Act 1985) gives powers to housing authorities to acquire land and buildings for housing purposes and to provide housing accommodation. Part II of the Housing Act 1957 (now Part VI of the Housing Act 1985) provides for the service of compulsory repair notices and the compulsory purchase of houses where repair notices are not complied with.
There was no obligation on the borough council to make the order under Part II of the 1957 Act rather than Part V. That left the question as to whether the CPO was intra vires. The borough council’s motive in making the order was not solely one of coercion to get the properties repaired; there may have been doubts had that been the case. The borough council’s intention not to implement the order had the work been done was an indulgence on their part that they were entitled to; it was not unlawful to undertake not to implement the order if the owners did the work within a reasonable time. It was proper to make the CPO notwithstanding that there were other means under the 1957 Act to compel the work to be done to the houses.
The first appellant in person; David Holgate (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) appeared for the first respondent; and Michael Harris (instructed by the solicitor to Haringey London Borough Council) appeared for the second respondent.
