About this blog

Ramblings, thoughts, facts and opinions about political things - starting point council tenant participation with my land-lord Camden council and council tenant reps plus other housing issues, and whatever.


NOTE: I believe this account has been illegally hacked. Little clues have been left for me. They like playing games.
Showing posts with label LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Show all posts
Showing posts with label LOCAL GOVERNMENT. Show all posts

Sunday 5 June 2022

Municipal Corporations - Local Governance

WORK IN PROGRESS


[notes: I can't find this great reform act of 1832 or the below mentioned 1835 Act - on the website legislation.gov.uk, not even under the year 1832 HEREI've also checked the years 1831 - 1839, just in case and I still can't find such acts even ones that have been noted as repealed.

I can though find 2 Municipal Corporations Acts of 1882 and 1883 which I will link to below]


http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/politics/municip.htm

" The 1835 Municipal Corporations Act 

After the passing of the 1832 Reform Act the next logical step in the reform of the constitution was that of the Municipal Corporations

There were about 250 of these towns, each of which had received a Royal Charter at some time in the past to have its own council or corporation. There were great variations in how the corporations were chosen and how they functioned but in over 180 of them, only the members of the Corporation were allowed to vote. Normally they re-elected themselves or brought friends and relatives onto the council. The Commission found generally that power was held by a small number of people because so few townsfolk could vote. 

They also found evidence of corruption with the council members becoming rich at the expense of the town's inhabitants.

Corporation funds are frequently expended in feasting and in paying the salaries of unimportant officers. In some cases, in which the funds are expended on public works, an expense has been incurred beyond what would be necessary if due care had been taken. These abuses often originate in negligence ... in the opportunity afforded of obliging members of their own body, or the friends and relations of such members.

Parliamentary Papers (1835) XXIII. Royal Commission on Municipal Corporations

The corporations fixed the local bye-laws and taxes and it was impossible for the majority of rate-payers to remove unpopular councils because they could not be voted out. Most of the corporations used their privileges for personal and party advantage: the majority were Tory. Councils ignored matters like water supplies, drainage and street cleansing which they were supposed to oversee.

Even worse than this, most of the new industrial towns had not been recognised as boroughs and had no corporation at all. In these towns, living conditions deteriorated and the overcrowded slums were a threat to public health. In October 1831 the first cholera epidemic broke out in Sunderland and spread rapidly throughout the country. By January 1832 cholera had broken out both in Edinburgh and London.

Following the same procedures that had been adopted for the investigation of the Poor Laws, in July 1833 the Whig government set up a Royal Commission was to investigate the working of local councils. The Commission's secretary was Joseph Parkes, a radical lawyer. 285 towns were investigated, most of which were found to be unsatisfactory. As a result of the Commission's findings, a Bill was drawn up and brought to the House of Commons by Lord John Russell in June 1835.

The Bill went through the House of Commons without too much difficulty but the House of Lords proved more difficult. 

Most of the closed corporations were controlled by Tories and the Tory peers claimed that the Bill was an attack on privileges and property. They had used the same reasons to oppose the abolition of rotten boroughs during the 1832 Reform Act campaign. The Lords made some amendments to the Bill but, thanks to the efforts of the Duke of Wellington and Sir Robert Peel, the Tory Lords were restrained from throwing out the Bill altogether. The legislation went onto the Statute Book in September 1835.

Terms of the Act

  • All closed corporations were abolished
  • Borough councils were to be elected by all male ratepayers who had lived in the town for three years
  • Councillors were elected for three years at a time and one-third of the council was to be elected annually
  • Councillors would choose the mayor, who would hold office for one year
  • Councillors would choose a group of Aldermen who would hold office for six years
  • Each borough was to have a paid town clerk and treasurer. Accounts were to be properly audited
  • Councils were required to form a police force
  • Councils, if they so wished, could take over social improvements such as proper drainage and street cleaning
  • Towns and cities that had no council could apply for incorporation if they so wished

Comment

The Act provided a vast improvement over the previous system, which was haphazard and disorganised. It also established the principal of elected town councils. Progress was very slow but the Act at least established the machinery that would enable future reforms to be carried out in the towns. However, the legislation did have several failings:

  • The Act did not compel the new councils to make social improvements. Consequently, by 1848 only twenty-nine boroughs had taken any action in terms of public health
  • Many towns failed to apply for incorporation because the procedure was complicated and expensive. In 1848 there were still sixty-two large towns without councils.
  • The Act mainly benefited the middle classes. Very few working men were wealthy enough to be ratepayers."  Source  http://www.historyhome.co.uk/peel/politics/municip.htm


Municipal Corporations Act 1882 HERE   

Municipal Corporations Act 1883  HERE

Sunday 2 August 2020

Legal Issues/Cases of Interest

Work in progress

The below 2 posts are joined
  1. Friday 10  June 2016 posting I did on this blog: London Council  Overcharged Tenants for Water HERE 
  2. Thursday 15 June 2017 posting I did on this blog : Legal Action Threat for Water Charge Arrears HERE 


Below cases are joined starting in descending order with:
  • 21 November 2019 costs review HERE of summary costs awarded against A Kuznetsov, assessed to the sum of £11,614.20.
  • 1st May 2019 Alexander Kuznetsov  V   The London Borough of Camden HERE - application dismissed, for reasons given. Application for a Judicial Review [JR] of decision of London Borough of Camden - that he is not qualified for allocation of housing under part 6 of the Housing Act 1996   
  • There's also THIS from early 2016 to do with Leaseholder Services Charges 

Unsuitable housing 

this one to do with housing officers illegally evicting and disposing of possessions

this one is to do with the water over charging 

To do with a fire [3 July 2009] in a block of council flats which killed 6 people and harmed many others 

legal and costs build-up 

contempt of court - housing department

House of Lords/ now known as UK Supreme Court
London Borough of Southwark and Another v. Mills and Others Baxter v. Mayor etc of the London Borough of Camden [1999] UKHL 40; [1999] 4 All ER 449; [1999] 3 WLR 939 (21st October, 1999) (bailii.org)  cited grounds Quiet Enjoyment and Nuisance failed - no sound-proofing within dwellings - landlord not liable. 'Buyer Beware'          




Subsidence of house due to deep trench dug outside house/broke water pipes by council - house unsafe to live in was left empty and squatters got in and did damage - bill sent to Camden Council - council admitted nuisance liability    "The damages were left to an official referee"

House of Lords [ UK Supreme Court] 


"The proceedings in respect of AC were issued in 2020 as an application for an order that she be moved from her home, where she was living with GC, to a respite placement to allow for issues of hoarding and cleanliness of the property to be addressed and the property made safe." 












Protection from Eviction Act 1977 HERE 


                             llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll

The below is a Warrant to Enter Premises under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 

 
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
 
 
CRAIG HILL AGAINST ANGUS COUNCIL [2023] SC FOR 6 (03 February 2023)
http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotSC/2023/2023_SC_FOR_6.html   [28 April 2022] 
Tenant claims to have had an accident due to lighting in communal area of block he lived in being faulty 
APPEAL BY CRAIG HILL v ANGUS COUNCIL [2023] Scot SAC Civ 15 (12/01/2023)
12 Jan 2023 
 
 
 
  Mohammed, R (on the application of) v Local Safeguarding Children's Board For Islington & Anor [2014] EWHC 3966 (Admin) (27 November 2014) http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2014/3966.html
A housing related case and the tragic death of 7 y/o child who had autism 

Mitchell v. Glasgow City Council [2005] ScotCS CSOH_84 (30 June 2005)  
  Mitchell & Anor (APS) v Glasgow City Council [2008] ScotCS CSIH_19 (29 February 2008)  http://www.bailii.org/scot/cases/ScotCS/2008/CSIH_19.html
 

UO v London Borough of Redbridge [2023] 



UK Supreme Court 
London Borough of Merton Council v Nuffield Health [2023] UKSC 18 (07 June 2023)
Rates relief [or not] for registered charity/private business  re gym membership prices excluded those of modest means 


"Whether Part 4 of the Policing and Crime Act 2009 is incompatible with Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights."  

civil or criminal standard of proof for injunctions


                                     /////////////////////////////


Legal Status of Written Guidance by a Government Secretary-of State/Cabinet Member [Guidance that isn't an Order, or Secondary Legislation such as Regulations. 






The declaration which I will make is as follows: "The Defendant does have a discretion to backdate the registration date of an applicant's application under the Housing Allocation Scheme for the reasons given in the judgment at paragraphs 67-72. The Defendant acted unlawfully by failing to consider exercising their discretion in response to the Claimant's request."




Housing - noise and smell