East Staffordshire Borough Council v Fairless
Council owning property – Tenant purporting to serve notice of intention to bring proceedings for statutory nuisance – Nuisance remedied prior to service of summons – Whether notice validly served – Whether tenant entitled to costs – Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 82(6) – Magistrates ordering council to pay tenant’s costs – Appeal dismissed
The respondent was the tenant of 103 Harper Avenue, Horninglow, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire, which was owned by the appellant council. On April 18 1997 the respondent wrote to the council informing them of a statutory nuisance contrary to section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. A surveyor’s report prepared by a housing consultant and surveyor was enclosed with the letter, which claimed that the property suffered from disrepair, dampness and mould growth and that its condition was prejudicial to health, amounting to a statutory nuisance under section 79(1)(a) of the Act. On May 30 1997 the respondent laid an information against the appellants that since at least the date of the surveyor’s report a statutory nuisance had arisen and continued to exist at the property and that the council had been informed of the existence of the nuisance by letter dated April 18 1997. A summons was issued on January 5 1998.
At the hearing of the information by the magistrates, it was agreed that the property had been a statutory nuisance at the date of the laying of the information and that the nuisance had been remedied by the date of the summons. The magistrates made an order under section 82(12) of the Act that the council were to pay the respondent’s costs, because the nuisance had existed at the date of the making of the complaint. The council appealed by way of case stated contending that the respondent’s letter of April 18 1997 with the attached report had not complied with section 82(6) (written notice of intention to bring proceedings) and, accordingly, the council should not be required to pay the respondent’s costs. It was contended that a warning notice under section 82(6) was comparable to a section 80(1) abatement notice and therefore it should comply with the requirements of an abatement notice and inform the recipient of the complaint that was made against him as either owner or as the person responsible for the nuisance, why he was in breach of the Act and what was needed to be done in order to abate the nuisance.
Council owning property – Tenant purporting to serve notice of intention to bring proceedings for statutory nuisance – Nuisance remedied prior to service of summons – Whether notice validly served – Whether tenant entitled to costs – Environmental Protection Act 1990, section 82(6) – Magistrates ordering council to pay tenant’s costs – Appeal dismissed The respondent was the tenant of 103 Harper Avenue, Horninglow, Burton-upon-Trent, Staffordshire, which was owned by the appellant council. On April 18 1997 the respondent wrote to the council informing them of a statutory nuisance contrary to section 82 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. A surveyor’s report prepared by a housing consultant and surveyor was enclosed with the letter, which claimed that the property suffered from disrepair, dampness and mould growth and that its condition was prejudicial to health, amounting to a statutory nuisance under section 79(1)(a) of the Act. On May 30 1997 the respondent laid an information against the appellants that since at least the date of the surveyor’s report a statutory nuisance had arisen and continued to exist at the property and that the council had been informed of the existence of the nuisance by letter dated April 18 1997. A summons was issued on January 5 1998.
At the hearing of the information by the magistrates, it was agreed that the property had been a statutory nuisance at the date of the laying of the information and that the nuisance had been remedied by the date of the summons. The magistrates made an order under section 82(12) of the Act that the council were to pay the respondent’s costs, because the nuisance had existed at the date of the making of the complaint. The council appealed by way of case stated contending that the respondent’s letter of April 18 1997 with the attached report had not complied with section 82(6) (written notice of intention to bring proceedings) and, accordingly, the council should not be required to pay the respondent’s costs. It was contended that a warning notice under section 82(6) was comparable to a section 80(1) abatement notice and therefore it should comply with the requirements of an abatement notice and inform the recipient of the complaint that was made against him as either owner or as the person responsible for the nuisance, why he was in breach of the Act and what was needed to be done in order to abate the nuisance.
Held The appeal was dismissed.
The recipient of a section 80(1) abatement notice needed either to appeal against it or comply with the notice and if he did not do so he could be fined. Accordingly, the required contents of such a notice were spelt out. However, the recipient of a section 82(6) notice did not need to do anything and could wait to see if a complaint was made and, if it was, he could then contest the making of an order. The 1990 Act set out a detailed statutory framework and stated what had to be specified in a section 82(6) notice, namely the matter complained of, and there was no reason to import additional requirements that were not set out in the statute. Therefore, the letter and attached report had constituted a valid notice under section 82(6) of intention to bring proceedings and, accordingly, the magistrates had been entitled to make the costs order under section 82(12): R v Liverpool Crown Court, ex parte Cooke [1997] 1 WLR 700, distinguished.
Elizabeth Norman (instructed by the solicitor to East Staffordshire Borough Council) appeared for the appellant council; Sylvester Carrott (instructed by Roskell, Davies & Co, of Birmingham) appeared for the respondent.
Thomas Elliott, barrister
