Holm v Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | LORD JUSTICE SELLERS,LORD JUSTICE DAVIES,LORD JUSTICE EDMUND DAVIES |
| Judgment Date | 15 November 1966 |
| Judgment citation (vLex) | [1966] EWCA Civ J1115-3 |
| Court | Court of Appeal |
| Date | 15 November 1966 |
[1966] EWCA Civ J1115-3
In The Supreme Court of Judicature
Court of Appeal
(Civil Division)
(From: His Honour Judge Andrew-Marylebone County Court)
Lord Justice Sellers
Lord Justice Davies and
Lord Justice Edmund Davies
In the Matter of The Housing Act 1961
In the Matter of Notices served under the said Act in respect of premises at 69 Golborne Road, London, W.10:
Mr. RAYMOND SEARS (instructed by Mr. J. Waring Sainsbury, London, W. 8) appeared, on behalf of the Appellants (First Respondents).
Mr. GRAEME WILLIAMS (instructed by Messrs. Bulcraig & Davis) appeared on behalf of the Respondent (Applicant).
This is an appeal by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea from an order of His Honour Judge Andrew revoking two notices under the Housing Act, 1961, served by them on Mr. Henry Charles Holm, the owner of premises 69 Golborne Road, Kensington, W.10, which consisted of a ground floor shop (with which this appeal is not concerned) and first and second floors which were used for residential purposes.
The facts of the case were not expressly found by the learned judge as there was no conflict of testimony. At the time of the notices the whole living accommodation was let to Mr. Allen Senior, who with his wife lived on the first floor. On the upper floor, approached by a staircase from the first floor, lived Mr. and Mrs. Allen Junior and their two daughters aged 13 and 6 years.
Mr. and Mrs. Allen Senior had lived in the premises at least 30 years originally on the top floor, and Mrs. Allen's sister and her husband occupied the first floor. After the last war the sister and her husband left and Mr. and Mrs. Allen moved down to the first floor and Mrs. Allen's mother and sister it is said "took the top floor". Edward Allen Junior was living with his father and mother. Eventually Mrs. Allen's mother and later her sister left. About twelve years ago the son married and at some time went to live on the top floor, where he, his wife and children now are.
There is only one rent book for the whole of the residential premises. It is in the name of Allen Senior and is an inclusive rental. Allen Junior pays half the rent to his mother. The Aliens Senior live separately on the first floor and have their own cooking facilities. There is no door separating the lower from the upper accommodation. There is a cooker on the landing used by the Aliens Junior. Mr. Freestone, the landlord who was a predecessor of Mr. Holm, gave permission for the son to occupy the upper floor whenever it was that he went in - I think it was on his marriage.
That seems to be the extent of the evidence and it reveals no separate tenancy of the upper floor, no sub-tenancy. It was indeed a family arrangement.
The premises as a whole seem to have been defective in some of the matters set out in section 15 of the Housing Act, 1961, and lacked a satisfactory means of escape from fire, with which section 16 of that Act deals. As a consequence the local authority (the appellants to this Court) on the 24th November, 1965, served notices on the landlord requiring him to remedy the defects in the manner stated. In the schedule to the notice under section 15 reference is made to "Top floor letting" and "First floor letting" but in fact there was but one letting - the one of the whole premises to Allen Senior.
The total cost of the work was some £200 to £300 according to the manner in which it would have been carried out. The improvements seem so desirable and in respect of the fire precautions so essential that one might have hoped that the landlord would have undertaken the work and sought some financial assistance from the tenant as he was entitled to do. Instead of that he has challenged the Council's right to make the orders. Their powers lie, if at all, under the Housing Act, 1961.
Part II of that Act deals with "Houses in multiple occupation". Sections 12, 15 and 16 all apply the provisions to "a house which is let in lodgings or which is occupied by members of more than one family", and the landlord by his appeal to the County Court contended that the premises are not "a house which is let in lodgings or which is occupied by members of more than one family". It was not contended that any part was let in lodgings but the Council contended that on the facts of this case the house was occupied by members of more than one family.
The judgment concludes in this way, after reviewing some authorities: "Adopting that reasoning I think I am bound to give a broad general meaning to the word 'family' and applying that meaning I must hold that both Mr. and Mrs. Allen Senior and Junior are members of the one family. I think they are members of thesame family. If Parliament had meant to provide for this situation it should have done so otherwise than in the way in which it has".
In so far as it is a question of fact that conclusion would hind us, for clearly the family relationship is established by the evidence. But it has been submitted for the Council that the learned judge has wrongly construed the statutory words and misdirected himself in not enquiring whether two families are occupying the house. The stress, it was submitted, was on multiple occupations, and here it was said there are two families and not one. The argument recognized that there was the blood relationship, the father and mother on the first floor and the son and his wife and children on the second but it is said that they constituted two separate "households".
If "household" had been the word used, the argument might have been convincing, but the word "household" is used within the same section and can hardly have been used to replace "family". In so far as there is ambiguity there is a penalty of up to £100 for failure to comply with a notice (Housing Act, 1964, section 65) and I agree with the learned judge that the legislation should have made it clear if the provisions were to apply to such circumstances as exist here. There is no separate letting. It is a family arrangement. Families can share things in common with less objection and inconvenience than can strangers. Where strangers have rights and require facilities it is more justified for local authorities to intervene than perhaps it is for them to intrude when only members of a family are concerned, although this is an argument which hardly lies with the landlord who has let premises so ill-equipped for user by anyone.
The expression "a house which is occupied by members of more than one family" is to be found as far back as the Public Health Act, 1875, and apparently this is the first occasion when it has been sought to be relied on in circumstances such as these. Learned counsel for the Council contended that Allen Junior was occupying a separate unit in the premises. The son had noagreement which prescribed the unit and the family may well have moved freely between one floor's accommodation and the other, but assuming a separate unit the occupiers were not strangers but were members of a family.
The learned judge relied on Brock v. Wollams (1949 2 King's Bench 395) and Standing ford v. Probert (1949 2 All England Reports 861), and the appellant Council submit that they have no application since they are decisions under the Rent Restrictions Acts and refer to tenants' rights and protection. They are perhaps not very helpful but no other authority cited to us provided any guide. The relationship is clear. They are all members of one family living within the one house and there were no persons living in the house who were strangers or outside that family. I find it difficult to see that there was a defined unit or area of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Simmons v Pizzey
...58(1) of the Housing Act 1969 and the information charged her with committing an offence under subsection (10). 12In Holm v. Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea [1968] 1 Q.B. 646 a landlord appealed to the county court against notices served on him under sections 15 and 16 of the Act o......
-
Des Vignes v the Medical Board of Trinidad
...(see Statutory Interpretation by Benion 1984 edition paragraph 129 page 302 and 303 and see Holm v. Royal Borough of Kensington [1967] 1 All E.R. 289). 22 In this case the relevant sections are equally capable of being construed in favour of and against the mandating of registration of spec......