Stanley v Ealing London Borough Council

Council issuing abatement notice and notice requiring information relating to recipient’s property – Whether notices containing required information – Whether notices valid – Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 section 16(2) – Magistrates finding notices valid – Appeal allowed in part On 14 March 1997 the respondent council served an abatement notice on the appellant property owner under section 80(1) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. The notice required the appellant to remove and suitably dispose of refuse deposited in a compound, and to remove the fencing making up the compound. The notice also required the appellant, within 28 days, to provide suitable refuse storage, to ensure that refuse was stored appropriately and to make suitable arrangements for the collection of refuse. On 11 February 1998 the council served on the appellant a notice under the provisions of section 16(1) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. It required the appellant to provide information of his interest in the land, of the occupier of the land, of other persons with an interest in land, and of each person authorised to manage the land. The appellant failed to comply with the notices and informations were preferred against him that he had failed to comply with their requirements. The appellant subsequently provided the information requested in section 16(1) of the 1976 Act. The justices convicted the appellant of failing to comply with the requirements of notices issued under section 80(1) of the 1990 Act and section 16(1) of the 1976 Act. The appellant appealed by way of case stated contending that the notices were invalid because the section 80(1) notice did not sufficiently specify the works to be carried out and the section 16(1) notice did not specify the exact provisions under the 1976 Act that lead to the requirement to provide the information. Held: The appeal was allowed in part. 1. Although a notice issued under section 80(1) of the 1990 Act was required to state expressly or impliedly that a recurrence of the nuisance was prohibited, the particularity required of a notice requiring the carrying out of works depended on the particular case and was a question of fact not of law. There was no complexity as to what was required by the appellant and what would amount to suitable storage, and therefore the terms of the notice were reasonable and the notice was valid. 2. A notice issued under section 16(1) of the 1976 Act was not required to set out the sections under which the information was required as long as the statute was named. However, it was not enough simply to say that the information was required for appropriate action to be taken. It was to set out the particular functions conferred on the council by statute under which the notice was issued and the enactments that conferred the relevant functions on the council. It was also required to state why the council were curious of the matters inquired about. Accordingly, the notice issued under section16(1) of the 1976 Act was invalid. Peter Kent (instructed by Robert Muckle, of Newcastle upon Tyne) appeared for the appellant; Neelima Mehendale (instructed by the solicitor to Ealing London Borough Council) appeared for the respondents. Thomas Elliott, barrister