Birmingham City Council v. Oakley

LORD SLYNN OF HADLEY

My Lords,

Section 79 in Part III of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 provides:-

"Statutory nuisances and inspections therefor"

(1) the following matters constitute "statutory nuisances" for the purposes of this Part, that is to say—

(a) any premises in such a state as to be prejudicial to health or a nuisance;

....

(7) "prejudicial to health" means injurious, or likely to cause injury, to health;"

The Act requires a local authority to investigate complaints of a statutory nuisance and itself to inspect premises in its area; it is empowered to serve an abatement notice, a failure to comply with which is an offence. In addition, by Section 82, a person who is aggrieved by the existence of a statutory nuisance may bring a complaint before a magistrates' court which, if the nuisance exists, is to make an order requiring the defendants to abate the nuisance and "to execute any works necessary for that purpose"; it may further or alternatively prohibit a recurrence of the nuisance and require the carrying out of any works to prevent the recurrence. To make the order is obligatory though what is ordered to be done is discretionary.

On 18 May 1996 Mr Oakley preferred an information that the appellant had failed to abate a statutory nuisance at 40 Hunslett Road, Quinton, Birmingham which is owned by the appellant and of which he was a tenant.

The magistrates heard the case on five different days. They found that the appellant and his wife with three children aged 18, 9 and 4 years respectively and a grandson of 17 months had lived in the premises for 3 years, though it seems that they no longer do so. The ground floor of the house included a bathroom with a washbasin next to a kitchen which had a sink. On the side of the kitchen opposite the bathroom was a door which led into a lavatory. There was no washbasin in the lavatory and no room to put one. Anyone using the lavatory who wanted to wash his hands would have to do so in the kitchen sink or he would have to go through the kitchen to the bathroom.

The magistrates were of the opinion that

"7(b) It is important to practice good hygiene practices especially with regard to the younger members of the household.

(d) It is unacceptable in the interest of hygiene having used the WC to expect persons to either:

(a) wash hands in kitchen sink or

(b) cross kitchen to bathroom

as both of these involve the risk of cross infection within the kitchen area. There is nothing the respondent can do to make it safe."

The magistrates ordered that…