Vol. 218 No. 10
I move amendment No. 77:
In page 45, subsection (9) (a), lines 12 and 13, to delete "an appropriate closing order" and insert "a closing order under subsection (6) of this section".
This amendment is of a drafting nature and makes clear that what was done under subsection 66 (9) will be done under subsection 66 (6).
I move amendment No. 78:
In page 45, subsection (9) (c), line 23, to insert ", notwithstanding subsection (10) of this section," before "forthwith".
This amendment is to eliminate a minor contradiction between subsection 66 (9) and subsection 66 (10).
I welcome this section because it represents a great improvement in the method of dealing with unfit houses. I have seen several instances of unfit houses being demolished and these were houses that could have been made use of in another way than for human habitation. This section makes provision for the carrying out of limited repairs so that a house can be occupied for a limited period of time or turned into a store or shed, if not required for living purposes. It may be possible to turn half of the building into limited accommodation.
We have been dealing with this matter in a more humane way in County Meath where every opportunity is given to a person who has received a demolition order to sign a document to the effect that he will use the building only as a store or a shed. My objection to the present system is that elderly people who are not well acquainted with the law and receive a notice of demolition from the local authority do not understand that they are being asked to make a case as to why the demolition order should not be carried out. They assume that it is a demolition order and that they can do nothing about it.
There are also cases which frequently arise throughout the country in which single people or an elderly man and woman would be able to live in houses which are unfit for habitation by a family. There are single people who would not normally qualify for housing and it should be possible to accommodate them in premises which would be unfit for habitation by a family but which can be made suitable for limited accommodation. If that could be arranged, it would be a more humane approach to the whole matter. I know of cases where this has happened but the local authority has either had to close their eyes to the breach of the regulations or the person who has taken up the accommodation has made himself liable to a heavy fine.
I feel that within the terms of the section the sort of variation mentioned by Deputy Tully is capable of being done and that limited repairs to a house could be initiated and carried out, if necessary, up to a particular given standard. There are cases where the house might be really unfit but where that condition would be more related to its being overcrowded and such cases would be best related to the overcrowding provision rather than to the unfit provision. It would seem to be dealt with in the earlier section.
That is only portion of the problem. There is also the problem of the house that can be put into habitable condition in some way. There may be the house that could be made habitable for a single person or for two people. That would mean locking up the remaining portion of the house and I have not found anything in the section that would cover such a position. If a house can be made habitable for limited accommodation by not more than two persons, it should be possible for some provision to be made to enable this to be done.
There is also the question of a house which has been condemned and which has been repaired by somebody who has bought it from a slick auctioneer. Something ought to be done to prevent such a house being demolished. I know a case of where a substantial sum of money was spent in repairing such a house and the local authority came along and took the roof off, even though the house was then in a fit state of repair, simply because the demolition order was there.
Deputy Tully has referred to a matter of real consequence where demolition orders or notices are served on elderly people who become confused and do not know their true position and their rights of appeal and rights of review. I do not know if this falls within the functions of the Minister, but I suggest that it would not be an unreasonable burden to place on local authorities that one of their officers should call on the persons to be dispossessed and inform them of their rights. We overcame this difficulty in the Department of Agriculture in dealing with the land reclamation project by so formulating the application form as to ensure that an officer of the Department would call on the applicant and explain his position to him.
We felt it was impossible for ordinary people to meet the requirements of bureaucracy and we found it a successful procedure to formulate the application form in such a way that the officer of the Department called on the people concerned. In this case it is more reasonable to ask the local authority to call on the ratepayer than to inform the elderly rate-payers that they may call on the local authority. The ratepayer is the master of the local authority and we are getting too much into the habit of asking him to call on the local authority instead of the local authority calling on him.
There is a great deal to be said for what Deputy Dillon has said. He speaks from experience of rural Ireland and what he has said can be equally relevant as far as urban Ireland is concerned. The fact that they have not to travel long distances does not overcome the lack of understanding of elderly people affected by the edicts of local authorities. I am certain from my knowledge both as a public representative and in my professional activities that many hundreds of people were evicted from unfit houses in this city within the past few years who could have obtained compensation in the courts or elsewhere, if they had known their rights, but the local authority was concerned only with wielding whatever legislative powers it had, or believed it had, and in consequence, the rights of the people were trampled upon. Now many people are really destitute and without adequate shelter because we failed to allow the public authority to communicate to the people the rights which they had.
The glib answer of course is that every person should consult his or her lawyer when in difficulty, but people have as much reluctance about going to a lawyer as they have about going to a dentist or a doctor. Even if they did, they might find that the processes of law open to them were costly and long and not one an impecunious person could undertake. If we are ...giving powers to local authorities to evict people from property, or to oblige people to do so, we have an equal right to concern ourselves with the rights of individual tenants.
I notice that subsection (17) says that notwithstanding safeguards which Oireachtas Éireann has given to the small people of this country under the Landlord and Tenants Acts, 1931 and 1958, and the Rent Restrictions Act, 1960, those safeguards will have no application where local authorities seek to enforce section 66 of this Bill. I suppose the answer I will get is that this does not deny to a person the remedies for compensation or otherwise which may be available in those Acts. I say that that does not go far enough. I speak with some little experience. I am convinced that the effect of this will be that we will force many people to suffer hardship which at the moment the remainder of our law prevents them from suffering. I am also convinced that the effect of this section and of this subsection will be that many property owners will deliberately allow their property to run down and become unfit because by so doing they can hope to avoid obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Acts and the Rent Restrictions Acts. In future, if you are anxious to get hold of your own property without danger, the thing to do will be to remove the roof, or part of the roof, and it will then become unfit. No simpler remedy could be made available to unscrupulous landlords under this section and under the Second Schedule.
On that account, I would plead with the Minister to try to tighten up this section. There are between 1,700 and 2,000 words in this section alone. I shudder to think how long it would take our superior courts to interpret this section but I do not think it would take any unscrupulous property owner very long to realise that the section gives him freedom to take advantage of an unfortunate tenant by allowing the property to run down so that it will become unfit and a demolition order will be made. The result of all this will be that our second stage will be very much worse than the first. Section 66 requires that a housing authority shall declare properties to be unfit if they so find them. I am not certain whether the same obligation exists in present legislation, but I am satisfied that there are unfit dwellings in this city at present which are not being so declared because the authority do not wish to have more people on the public conscience than they already have.
For years we avoided the problem created by dangerous buildings by deliberately not condemning the buildings as dangerous. The result was the appalling calamities we had and the appalling situation which we have suffered from for some years past. We are going to create a similar position in regard to unfit dwellings. Unless we resume the lead we previously had and maintain the same rigid standards, we will not know how many we need to replace. On that account, while I am saying it is necessary to deal with the problem of unfit dwellings, to declare them unfit when you find them, and to deal with them, we should, while trying to achieve that particular goal, not give an instrument to unscrupulous property owners to take advantage of legislation to eject from their premises tenants who under other legislation would have a right to remain there.
In regard to the suggestion which Deputy Ryan has made, I would say that in so far as it is possible for the local authority officials to convey the sort of information which the Deputy seems to feel is needed for occupiers affected by a closing order or a demolition order, I can see no objection whatever to the Minister for Local Government recommending and/or ordering the local authority to have their officials, where possible, give this information in whatever way it can be put across, to benefit the people concerned. It will clarify what they might have to do, or what assistance they may hope to get, and in the case of demolition orders, what rights they have. I have no objection to doing that by way of recommendation or request to the local authorities.
In regard to Deputy Ryan's further point, I should like to take him up on the suggestion that section 66 will facilitate unscrupulous property owners to come in and take the roof off a house in order that its condition would become such that either the people would leave it or, under application to the local authority, it would be condemned. I cannot imagine taking a roof off an otherwise sound house, particularly in the city, as being a sensible operation. If such did happen for any selfish motive, then clearly the local authority would come along and say: "You must put that roof on that structurally sound house and make it fit for human habitation again." I do not think the exercise would be profitable in that event to the property owner.
On the other hand, if the reason is such that in fact it is right that it should be taken down, whatever may be the motives of the property owner in taking the roof off, it may be that he is doing the residents of the house a good turn, if, for instance, it is dangerous and likely to cause damage in the future. I should say to Deputy Ryan and others that if the local authority are not operating various other sections of this Bill, there is little use in our providing power for them to do this or that. If they failed to avail of their powers up to now, not a great deal could be done by the central Government to change the position but under this section Deputies will find we can protect tenants.
The Minister for Local Government may in future, if he finds there is reason to do so, go into a local authority area and do any of these jobs he feels they are neglecting and that require to be done in the interests of the community. This section could deal with the odd case where a local authority might not be performing their duties to the community but it is unlikely to be required because I do not think any of us would want to give these various powers to local authorities if we were not convinced that the local authorities will not only operate them but actually want them in order to do certain things they may not so readily do at the moment. If the necessity arises, this section can answer the call, if something is being neglected by a local authority. After due notice and warning have been given by the Minister, he may move in and do the job apportioning the cost between the local authority and the State as the job would fall to be paid for if the local authority had done it. Generally, we can rely on local authorities to carry out the law in the terms we provide here.
I appreciate the Minister's anxiety and earnest desire to deal with unscrupulous people but it seems that what come to light here are obligation and entitlement. Certainly, some landlords have been found who do not face up to their obligations and do not realise them, and the tenant is often quite ignorant of his entitlement. As regards taking the roof off a house, three cases come to my mind where the landlord did not do a good turn to the occupants. He persisted in gradually removing the roof with a view to getting the people to leave. When he did not succeed, he took the roof off.
In one case a couple of young children were in the room off which the roof was taken. That family did not get accommodation because it transpired that the person whom the tenants knew as the landlord had sold the property some 18 months earlier and the new landlord did not make it known that he had come in. When the tenants were put out, Dublin Corporation refused them accommodation, having particular regard to the shortage of accommodation. I should like the Minister to assure the House that the section we are now dealing with will make it possible to deal with such landlords, bearing in mind that a local authority may be as earnest as possible in trying to ensure that the law is carried out but they are only a small band of men. If the penalties were stronger, we might get some place.
We should do something positive about what are described as illegal tenants in unsafe houses. A considerable number of people in desperate need of accommodation are taking small rooms, unaware that the house in which the room exists has been previously condemned. In some cases they have been found in occupation for 18 months or two years and when it comes to the time to declare the building dangerous, it is discovered they should never have been there, but nobody has told them. This has happened in a number of cases and in some cases rents have been collected from them. Is the Minister satisfied that under this section that type of case can be dealt with, so that we shall not have unscrupulous landlords encouraging people to reside in such houses in the full knowledge that they are doing wrong? I am aware that the landlord can be prosecuted but the fine is only nominal and he can continue doing it. My colleague, Deputy Cluskey, did a good deal to unmask a certain type of operator known as the Rachman of Dublin in this city but he is still operating. I trust this section will put him out of business.
What worries me is that if, at the moment, a landlord's property has got into a bad state, he may need vacant possession in order to put it right. He may do that of his own volition or perhaps the tenant will issue proceedings against the landlord who is responsible for exterior repairs and for making the property wind and watertight. The landlord may say in court: "I will do these repairs as they are my obligation." In either case, the interests of the tenant will be protected, and although the tenant will be required to vacate the premises during the period of the work, his right to return after that will be reserved. Alternatively, if the landlord wants to get permanant vacant possession of the property, he must compensate the tenant. Under this section a landlord may sit back and do nothing until the local authority steps in. Once that happens, the remedies of a right to return to occupation or a right to compensation are automatically closed by this subsection (17). That is what worries me.
The Minister may say that the right to compensation is not automatically removed by this subsection but one can reasonably foresee people instituting claims for compensation in respect of disturbance under the Landlord and Tenant Act or the Rent Restrictions Act and the defence will recite in their defence that subsection (17) is a complete answer to the claim for compensation or the claim for occupation. There is nothing in the Bill, as far as I can see, which would prevent that being a valid defence. I should like the Minister to look at it to ensure that this section will not be used to remove the kind of protection that we here should be providing for the people.
In reply to the Deputy's observations, sections 67 and 68 give an amount of protection against what the Deputy says he fears. Under section 67 the local authorities are being empowered to affix notices to property already condemned and other property on which they have served notice. Section 68 makes it an offence for the landlord to allow the re-use or habitation of a dwelling already cleared under any of the operations under previous sections.
Further, in section 110 there is an obligation on the landlord letting rooms and such lesser accommodation at a fairly low rent—a rent not exceeding £130 per year is mentioned—to have the property at the time of the letting in a fair state of repair, and that obligation will remain on the landlord to keep it in a fair condition in the future. When we come to those sections, there may be some changes we would wish to make. I merely refer to them to allay the fears expressed by Deputies.
I will go with the Minister this far. Section 110 deals with tenancies which may commence after the Act comes into operation, but it does not deal with the hundreds of existing tenancies in controlled dwellings. I think the number of controlled tenancies which will arise in the future will be very few indeed compared with all those now existing. If property owners can get possession of their property now, they will see to it the premises are not controlled. They will put in a few sticks of furniture and convert them into uncontrolled tenancies.
I do not want to intervene but I think I was unfair in introducing these future sections. However, I thought it necessary to allay the fears of Deputies. If we find reason for changing some of these sections, I think we should wait until we come to them and deal with them comprehensively.
I certainly do not wish to have a double debate on it. I think the correct thing would be to have an amendment to section 66 on Report Stage.
This section deals with the question of notice. I wonder if in certain cases this might not be a very harsh way of serving a notice that might have to be observed within a short time. There are many houses in remote parts of the country on which a notice could be affixed for a long time and the owner might not see it and it might not be fair to expect him to see it. He might have gone to England or elsewhere for employment. It would not be fair that he should find himself involved in the payment of expenses for demolition he knew nothing about.
I was glad to hear the Minister say on the previous section, in relation to the serving of these notices, that he would be prepared to recommend to local authorities that, as far as possible, they would get somebody from the local authority to call on the people concerned rather than send a notice to them in this vague way and, in many cases, frighten the life out of them. In County Dublin, it has been the practice for a long time to serve a demolition order on a family where the intention was to house them, but say nothing to them about the latter. Perhaps a housing scheme was practically ready for allocation, but they just saw the demolition order and nothing else. Unless they had a local representative to whom they could turn, they feared they were going to be put out on the road. This has caused much distress and concern because people did not understand what was involved. I hope the Minister will not neglect to advise local authorities —and I hope it will be compelling advice—to be more considerate in the manner in which they tackle this problem.
I think if an official goes out and explains the matter, it will solve much of the problem. The section, as it stands, is fairly loosely worded. A notice might be on a dwelling for some time and might not be discovered, or else might be taken down. If that is the only way of passing along the information, I think it is rather slipshod. There are a lot of roofless houses and the wrong one might come under the hammer. The Minister has agreed to advise local authorities to send somebody out, but I assume the present system of sending notices by registered post will be continued.
Undoubtedly, the present procedures will have to go on, but in conjunction with them, we would recommend to local authorities to have some of their officers go to the people concerned, tell them the real effect of the order, what they can do about it and, if it is a matter of repair, what help they can get.
In regard to section 67 Deputy Clinton talked about a notice up on a building which might not be seen for a long time by the owner. The Deputy has taken me up incorrectly. This section does not deal with the actual power to give notice. This is a case where a notice has already been served on the owner in relation to demolition or unfitness in which further power is being taken to affix a notice to the property or premises to indicate the position to any unwary prospective tenant.
I misunderstood that.
This is a notice to the public proposed to be affixed to the property indicating that certain steps have been taken. The due processes of the law will already have been carried out as far as the owner is concerned and he will have been notified of the procedure.
It is a warning notice to others?
Yes. I agree with Deputy Tully when he says that the following day the notice could be taken down and, until the local authority realises it is gone, the prospective purchaser could be as ignorant as ever. Can anybody tell me a way to overcome this?
A notice in the local paper.
Unless people are immediately concerned, they just do not see it or read it. I do not know how else we can do it.
There is one matter to which I referred this morning on which I should like to have the Minister's observations. A notice is served by a local authority on a landlord because there is some defect in a building. It may be a minor defect, but the wording of the notice is such that the building must be either repaired or taken down. That is the dangerous building notice. If the landlord finds that it is more profitable to vacate the premises and demolish the building, subsequently selling the site, that could be a very lucrative exercise for him, if the site were a valuable industrial one.
Is the Deputy now talking about the terms and conditions that apply to dangerous buildings? We are not dealing with dangerous buildings under this at all.
The notice says "to repair or take down". If the landlord finds it is more profitable to detenant the house and demolish it, he will not comply with the notice. He will comply with the second part of it. The repair required might be a very minor one but the wording of the notice at present allows him to comply with the notice by demolishing the whole building.
The words that are really effective in the situation to which the Deputy refers are "to execute the following works which in the opinion" of some local authority or other "render the house unsuitable for human habitation". That is the form prescribed in the Schedule under which we operate at the moment. It does not give an out; even if it is more profitable for him to demolish rather than to repair, he may not do so.
Is there a distinction between human habitation and dangerous buildings?
Dangerous buildings come under a different Act.
It is not included in this?
No.
I move amendment No. 79:
In page 48, subsection (1), to insert after "allow," in line 5 the following:
"the following provisions shall apply:
(a) the owner of the house to which the notice or order relates shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding two hundred pounds, and
(b) "
Under this amendment a person who fails to comply with a demolition order, or a notice requiring him to execute works to make a house fit for human habitation, will be liable to a fine of up to £200. This is necessary because, in the absence of a penalty, it has been found by housing authorities, particularly Dublin Corporation, that the effectiveness of the demolition order or repairs notice was negative. There was no real effectiveness and, if the owner refused to comply with the notice, it might just as well never have been served. This amendment is put in to give some teeth to the section.
I am not quite clear about subsection (2).
Shall we dispose of the amendment first and then go on to the section?
The amendment is relative. It relates to what will happen to somebody affected by subsection (2).
Under the amendment, a person who fails to comply with a demolition order or a repairs notice requiring him to execute certain works to make the house fit for human habitation will be liable to a fine up to £200.
That is clear enough.
This section refers to the case—
Where a housing authority are about to enter a house for the purpose of doing any works under subsection (1) of this section, the authority may give notice of their intention to do so to the owner of the house and, at their discretion, to any other person having an interest in the house whether as mortgagee, tenant or otherwise, and if at any time after the expiration of seven days from the service upon him of such notice and whilst any workman or contractor employed by the authority is carrying out works in the house any person upon whom the notice was served or any workman employed by him, or by any contractor employed by him, is in the house for the purpose of carrying out any works, the person upon whom the notice was served shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding twenty-five pounds....
Does that mean that, whenever the local authority decide that they will carry out repairs, which the person who owns the house has failed to carry out, they can object to the person who is responsible for the repairs coming in and starting to do any work on the house? Is that what it means?
Yes.
It says the people who are to be notified. During the dangerous building scare here in Dublin, a good deal of uneasiness was caused to people in perfectly good houses by other people, who claimed to be officials of Dublin Corporation, coming in and taking a look around, without asking permission from anyone, and subsequently notifying the tenants that the building was in a dangerous condition. This section suggests something similar can be done in the case of houses occupied by certain people. This is something about which we should be careful. The responsibility for carrying out the repairs must be carried by the owner of the house and not by anybody else. The Minister would be well advised to have another look at these matters.
The first point is that of someone on behalf of the owner coming in while the council are actually undertaking certain works. This would only arise subsequent to due notice having been given and the owner failing to comply with the notice and carry out the repairs requested. Only that situation has got to be determined at some point and the council can then go in and do the repairs. The owner cannot have second thoughts, as it were.
Why not?
For the simple reason that he could just keep on messing around. He could go in and say his workman was there and the council's workmen could go. As soon as they disappeared from the scene, he could take his workman away. A week later the council workmen could return and the very same situation arise. We are trying to prevent that here. This can happen only after due process of notice and the owner has failed to comply with that notice and do the repairs requested. In no other circumstances will it arise.
Is it agreed that it is only the owner and not the subtenants who should be notified?
The Deputy is on another point?
Is it the intention that only those who are in ownership of the house or in occupation of the house should be notified, and no others in the house, because that did cause a lot of annoyance during the dangerous buildings scare in Dublin?
There is another point I should like to raise. Would it be possible for a housing authority to go in and do this type of reconstruction as may be necessary and then require an occupier to pay for it, if they could not conveniently find the owner?
That is the information I am trying to get.
The occupier would be required, possibly, in those circumstances to pay the rent to the local authority rather than to whatever source he had been paying it until they had recouped what was regarded as the due contribution of the owner who could not be found.
It would not be an increased rent, would it?
No.
Would it be the same rent as he had been paying?
I think it would be.
How would that be provided? Normally, you could not do that in law.
It is two sections later, section 70.
It would appear as if we should have started at the end and worked back.
I notice that the local authority may sell materials obtained in the course of demolition in order to discharge the cost of doing demolition but may not sell the property itself, not even the cleared site. Even though they may demolish a substantial structure and the value of the site may be commensurate with the actual cost incurred by local authorities, apparently they may not directly sell the site. There is a provision all right for the making of an order which may be charged on the property being registered either in the Registry of Deeds or in the Land Registry. May I take it that once the charge is registered there the local authority may apply to the court or must the local authority await the private sale of the property?
As far as I am advised on the legal side of it, the ordinary law of mortgage and of charge would apply in this case. I am afraid I would have to inquire if the Deputy wanted further elaboration.
There is another point on the legal side. I might get some legal advice. Subsection (8) provides that the local authority in calculating expenses may include costs in relation to proceedings in the district court. Supposing the amount of money they seek to recover is beyond the jurisdiction of the district court is there special provision enabling the local authority to go to the district court and get recovery in the district court even though the amount sought is in excess of the ordinary jurisdiction of the district court? That may be the case. I know it is the case in recovery of Small Dwellings Acquisition Act houses. In that case the local authority may go to the district court and get an order. But, it strikes me that difficulties could arise unless it is specifically provided for because a district court is not at present a court of record.
Is this the reference to the district court in subsection (2)?
It is mentioned in subsection (2) but I was referring to subsection (8).
In subsection (8), expenses and incidental costs are being provided for, but I take it the Deputy's point is that under subsection (2) this would be referable to the district court and that if the costs were of a certain amount, it might be outside the jurisdiction of the district court. I am afraid I cannot answer that question straight off. I could say that it is most unlikely, but it still does not answer the question.
It would not be unlikely, having regard to the existing jurisdiction of the district court. I do not know how high it might go. Costs could run into thousands.
That is something that we will have to clarify for the House. With the old level of the district court jurisdiction, it could happen but with changes in the jurisdiction, it may not happen in the foreseeable future. I do not think it is likely to arise but, if it could, we had better find out about it now.
There is one thing I should like to find out. Subclause (d) (i) says:
a notice under paragraph (b) of subsection (1) of section 70 of this Act, requiring the payment of a rent or a payment in lieu of rent to be made to a housing authority,
may, within the period ending twenty-one days after the date of the service of the notice, demand or copy of the order, or after the refusal, as the case may be, appeal to the Circuit Court;
Provided that—
(i) on an appeal in relation to a demand for the recovery of expenses incurred by a housing authority in doing anything required to be done by a repairs notice or a demolition order, no question shall be raised which might have been raised on an appeal against the notice or order, and
Subclause (ii) provides:
no appeal shall lie under paragraph (a) of this subsection in relation to a closing order at the instance of a person who is in occupation of the premises to which the order relates under a lease or agreement of which the unexpired term does not exceed three years.
This appears to be a little harsh, particularly the first part of the subsection, because it suggests that if somebody in error misses out a point when discussing with the legal official before the order is made or does not discuss the matter at all, if for one reason or another an order is made and it is not properly dealt with, it says here that the appeal can deal only with new evidence. I suggest that the appeal should allow somebody at a higher level to deal with existing evidence and find whether or not there was a proper decision given on it. For that reason I think the subsection would have to be amended.
One could have said four years and one could have said two years. No matter which number you said there would be a case to be made for moving it up or down, according to one's views. As the years contract, the interest in the lease becomes so small as to dictate that some sort of termination should be arrived at. I have suggested three years there, anything within three years. It could have been two, It could have been four. There is no hard and fast way in which it could be tied down.
Suppose this does not arise at all and a person had a lease and normally the lease is renewed. Is it not as big a hardship on somebody who has only a month or a year or two years as it is on a person who has ten years? There must be some justice in that.
Would the Minister comment on the first point I made, that is, about the right to appeal, that only new evidence can be used, no matter what the ground of appeal is? Does it not follow that if somebody gets a decision, which will in fact be a decision by a local authority, that a certain case they have made is not a valid one and if they feel that the evidence they have is strong enough to entitle them to have the case given in their favour, surely they should be entitled to use that evidence to appeal? I would suggest that this subsection makes the right of appeal absolutely useless, unless you can think up something new after the order has been made. I think the Minister should definitely have a look at that because I feel that what we want to avoid is repetition and to make people have an initial discussion or arrangement at the same time.
Notice taken that 20 Members were not present; House counted, and 20 Members being present,
This question Deputy Tully has raised is the restriction on appeal, or what may be contained in the appeal. The appeal would be against the costs or expenses in regard to the court proceedings.
No—everything Subsection (a) reads:
(a) a repairs notice, a closing order, a demolition order, or a refusal to determine a closing order,
—the whole thing. If it were a question of cost, it would be a different matter altogether.
Let us put it another way: that year has already gone by and the appeals procedure and whatever remedies were open to them in regard to this cannot be re-opened on this appeal. In other words, if they have not pursued the remedies open to them as to the service of notice or order, they cannot now raise it on an appeal arising under this subsection.
That is not what it says at all. I am not trying to be smart at the Minister's expense and I hope he does not think I am.
I do not, but it is amazing how often you and I see the opposite of what is there.
Section 71 says:
Any person aggrieved by a repairs notice, a closing order, a demolition order, or a refusal to determine a closing order——
and a number of other things——
may, within the period ending 21 days after the date of the service of the notice, demand or copy of the order, or after the refusal, as the case may be, appeal to the Circuit Court provided that on an appeal in relation to a demand for the recovery of expenses incurred by a housing authority in doing anything required to be done by a repairs notice or a demolition order, no question shall be raised which might have been raised on an appeal against the notice or order
and subsection (d) (ii) goes on to say:
(ii) no appeal shall lie under paragraph (a) of this subsection in relation to a closing order at the instance of a person who is in occupation of the premises to which the order relates under a lease or agreement of which the unexpired term does not exceed three years.
I suggest to the Minister that in fact what is being said is: "You can appeal to the Circuit Court but you cannot use the evidence you have already used, or which you could have used." The Minister says the exact opposite. He says only the evidence which has been used in the first case. I am merely repeating what the Minister said and that was that only the evidence which had been used, or could be used in the first place, could be used in the appeal.
Shall I tell the Deputy——
What the Minister meant?
Even allowing the Deputy to get away with that, yes. The council serves its repairs notice, closing order, demolition order or whatever it may be. At that particular point, as outlined in various sections here, there is a procedure laid down whereby the person aggrieved may make an appeal against the order, the justice of it and so on. If he fails to do that, then all I am saying is that, in regard to the part below which excludes those things, he may appeal only against subsection (c) really, in essence. Subsection (c) was not read by Deputy Tully to the House at all. This is what he then really appeals against. If he wants to appeal against that, he is not being allowed to bring in an appeal as to the justice or equity of the order so served by the local authority.
Has the Minister then in mind what sort of grounds he might go on or what sort of material he might use for bringing in this appeal?
He would go on the basis that the costs were too high, were unjustified and so on.
Could he not use the argument, when objecting, that he had intended to do something else with the house and therefore, the costs would not have arisen, had he been allowed carry out that which he wanted to do? Is that not valid?
Yes, but it does not do to come along after the event and dispute by way of appeal the costs and expenses incurred and go along right to the beginning of the event and start disputing, when he has his rights dictated clearly in law and did not avail of them. If he did not offer to appeal within that proper time, there is no reason why he should now come along to appeal, going right back to the beginning.
The Minister has raised an interesting point there. He says that the appeal which would lie would be on the question of cost. I saw the corporation take three months to demolish a house which a strong wind would have demolished overnight. It took an unbelievable length of time to demolish it. Attendant watchmen and attendant machinery were moved in and out. I have not yet succeeded in finding out the actual cost, but it cost as much to demolish it as it would have cost to rebuild the structure. If the owner of that property could show extravagance and unnecessary expense by the local authority in demolishing that structure, and if that person could show that a private contractor would cost one-fifth of the cost to the local authority, am I to understand that a successful appeal would lie and the local authority would recover only whatever the appellant could show it would have cost to get a reasonably efficient contractor to do the work?
I should imagine so, and I would certainly hope that in the circumstances the Deputy describes where any local authority workmen, or agents of a local authority, had been wasteful and, wilfully so or otherwise, spent an undue time and therefore an undue amount of money, the aggrieved party would succeed in court in his appeal against undue expenses incurred. If he could show by comparative quotations and the measurement of costs of a related job, whatever it might be, that the cost was exorbitant and brought about by waste or other factors within the control of the corporation or local authority, I would hope he would succeed under this section. Basically, that is why we have this section in the Bill.
While not agreeing with Deputy Ryan that corporation or local authority workmen would do things like that——
That is for the record. The Deputy does not believe it in his heart.
Supposing that at the original hearing the person makes the case which has just been made about a house costing so much money to take down, can that person give similar evidence at a hearing of his own case?
No. The section provides that any person aggrieved by "a repairs notice, a closing order, a demolition order, or a refusal to determine a closing order" may, after the service of the notice, appeal to the court. A person served with one notice may appeal. If he fails to make that appeal and the local authority move in, do a job and incur certain expenditure, and he is now aggrieved by the actual cost incurred, we are now saying: "You are unable to go to the court and base your case on the fact that the costs are unduly high", and we say at the same time that you cannot go in then and make your case on this appeal that should have been made earlier and which was never made by negligence, default or design.
Again, if I may mention the kind of possible clash under different pieces of legislation, this kind of problem seems to occur. We may have compulsory demolition. Based on a compulsory demolition order, the local authority may come in and demolish a structure, and the compensation paid to the owner will be the site value, less the cost of the demolition. I have experience of a particular case. As I understand it, the local authority is subject to appeal to the Minister and he is the sole arbiter of the cost of a demolition.
In the instance I have in mind, the person was offered £10 as the value of the site less the cost of demolition, and the person was able to show that he had intended to get the demolition done by a contractor, but he had been ill over the significant period, and omitted to have it done. If a private contractor had done the job, he would have received about £600 instead of the £10 offered by the corporation because the cost would have been considerably less, and he would also have been given credit for slates, windows, doors and other items of furniture which the corporation simply knocked into rubble and for which they gave him no credit. After an argument going on for a couple of years, I think it is true to say, the corporation ultimately agreed—mainly, I suspect for the purpose of getting rid of him—to the magnificent sum of £50 as against £600.
It would now appear that if that kind of thing were done, that person would have the right to get an independent assessment of the average cost of demolition in such cases. If that is the purpose of the section, I think it is a laudable one, and I think Deputy Tully in a way is confusing the issues. In relation to the charges and costs and the work done under this section, it would appear reasonable that only the question of costings should arise at this appeal stage, unless it could be shown that the person had obtained new evidence in new circumstances which had arisen after he failed to avail of the right of appeal against an earlier notice, and the local authority acted upon that notice not being appealed against, but it does seem reasonable that the local authority should be able to recover the fair costs they were entitled to do.
I think the Deputy has raised a matter which comes later in the Bill in the Fourth Schedule, Part I. I should imagine that would be more appropriate than this section, strange as it sounds, but having raised the question, it may have some association with the matter we are discussing on the section. I should say that one thing Deputy Ryan has omitted to refer to is the fact that the arbitrator is available in the case which he talked about. While it is true that in many cases no recourse is had to the arbitrator, nevertheless he is there and can finally determine how much it costs or should have cost to clear a building off land, or to clear a site. If the owner is not satisfied with the findings of the corporation, the arbitrator then comes into the picture. Having said that, I still think this matter could more appropriately be dealt with under the Fourth Schedule, Part I.
I feel the arbitrator might make the same sort of assumption as Deputy Tully made with his tongue in his cheek, to wit, that local authorities never act unreasonably.
I said local authority employees, which is different.
I move amendment No. 80:
Before section 75 to insert a new section as follows:
"(1) A housing authority may acquire by agreement any land situate within or without their functional area although the area or tract of land offered for sale by auction or by private treaty is in excess of the reasonable requirements of the authority for immediate and further need, and, having reserved sufficient land for immediate and further needs, the housing authority may dispose of any surplus land.
(2) A housing authority may acquire land which is not suitable or convenient for the purposes of this Act provided that the land is acquired with a view to an exchange of that land for suitable land.
(3) The power conferred on a housing authority under this section shall be in addition to their powers to acquire land under section 82 of the Local Government Act, 1946.
(4) This section shall come into operation on the passing of this Act."
The object of this amendment is to strengthen the hands of the local authorities. We believe the first part of the amendment is eminently suited to this section of the Bill because we find occasionally that local authorities may be acquiring land for building purposes. They may require 17 acres and there may be an area double that available which they can buy at a reasonable price.
