Previous Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page


The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 69 and 70:


Page 9, line 11, leave out subsections (3) to (6) and insert--
("(2A) An expense mentioned in section 1(3)(b) shall be defrayed as there mentioned.
(2B) Where work is carried out in exercise of the right mentioned in section 2(2)(a), and the work is necessary on account of defect or want of repair of the structure or wall concerned, the expenses shall be defrayed by the building owner and the adjoining owner in such proportion as has regard to--
(a) the use which the owners respectively make or may make of the structure or wall concerned; and
(b) responsibility for the defect or want of repair concerned, if more than one owner makes use of the structure or wall concerned.
(2C) Where work is carried out in exercise of the right mentioned in section 2(2)(ab) the expenses shall be defrayed by the building owner and the adjoining owner in such proportion as has regard to--
(a) the use which the owners respectively make or may make of the structure or wall concerned; and
(b) responsibility for the defect or want of repair concerned, if more than one owner makes use of the structure or wall concerned.
(2D) Where the adjoining premises are laid open in exercise of the right mentioned in section 2(2)(e) a fair allowance in respect of disturbance and inconvenience shall be paid by the building owner to the adjoining owner or occupier.").
Page 9, line 25, leave out ("2(1)(l)") and insert ("2(2)(l)").

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 71:


Page 9, line 32, at end insert--
("(7A) Where the building owner is required to make good damage under this Act the adjoining owner has a right to require that the expenses of such making good be determined in accordance with section 10 and paid to him in lieu of the carrying out of work to make the damage good.
(7B) Where--
(a) works are carried out, and
(b) some of the works are carried out at the request of the adjoining owner or in pursuance of a requirement made by him,
he shall defray the expenses of carrying out the works requested or required by him.").

The noble Earl said: The above is a technical amendment which provides greater clarity on the matter of making good and, in particular, provides for a cash settlement if that is requested as an alternative. The amendment is set out in two parts. New subsection (7A) is in fact established practice under the London building Acts but is not specifically provided for. It is a matter of practice which has grown up over the years. This part of the amendment would make that explicit and put it on the face of the Bill.

New subsection (7B) makes it clear that an adjoining owner may be liable to pay the costs of carrying out the works that he requires the building owner to undertake

22 May 1996 : Column 945

on his behalf. That is already provided for under the London building Acts. The amendment merely alters the wording of the Bill without altering the effect.

I should like to make it clear that we are talking about works which an adjoining owner wishes the building owner to carry out and which are over and above and additional to the works which are necessary as part and parcel of the building owner's work. That is why there is a provision for the liability to pay the costs. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

9 p.m.

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 72 to 74:


Page 9, line 40, leave out ("vouchers within two months") and insert ("invoices and other supporting documents within the period of two months beginning with the day").
Page 9, line 43, leave out ("additional").
Page 10, line 1, leave out from ("out") to ("at") in line 2 and insert ("that work; and for this purpose he shall be taken to have incurred expenses calculated by reference to what the cost of the work would be if it were carried out").

The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 72 is a minor drafting amendment to which I have already spoken with Amendment No. 3. Amendment No. 73 simply removes a word which is superfluous. Amendment No. 74 clarifies what was intended originally in the Bill.

The Bill as printed did not clearly set out how the future use of party wall works by one party which had been solely paid for by another was to be treated. I should stress that it is always optional, at the time of doing works, for the adjoining owner to join in the cost if he wishes so to do and to benefit fully from the facility provided thereafter without any extra cost. But he cannot at a later date have a free ride at someone else's expense, that other person having paid all the costs of the wall. The amendment simply makes that clear and is in conformity with the London Building Acts as they apply to inner London. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 12 [Security for expenses]:

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 75 to 78:


Page 10, line 3, leave out ("by notice in writing require") and insert ("serve a notice requiring").
Page 10, line 6, leave out ("the provisions of").
Page 10, line 8, leave out from beginning to ("building") in line 10 and insert--
("Where--
(a) in the exercise of the rights conferred by this Act an adjoining owner requires the").
Page 10, line 13, at beginning insert ("an adjoining owner").

The noble Earl said: I spoke to Amendments Nos. 75 to 78 with Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 17. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 79 to 82:


Page 10, line 15, leave out ("in writing").

22 May 1996 : Column 946


Page 10, line 17, leave out ("the provisions of").
Page 10, line 18, leave out from ("within") to ("or") in line 19 and insert ("the period of one month beginning with--
(a) the day on which a notice is served under subsection (2)").
Page 10, line 20, at end insert ("surveyor or").

The noble Earl said: I have spoken to all of these amendments with Amendments Nos. 1, 3 and 14. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 [Account for work carried out]:

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 87:


Page 10, line 25, leave out ("two months") and insert ("the period of two months beginning with the day").
Page 10, line 28, leave out ("deliver to") and insert ("serve on").
Page 10, line 36, leave out ("one month of delivery") and insert ("the period of one month beginning with the day of service").
Page 10, line 37, leave out ("give notice in writing to the building owner") and insert ("serve on the building owner a notice").
Page 10, line 40, leave out ("the said month the adjoining owner does not give") and insert ("that period of one month the adjoining owner does not serve").

The noble Earl said: These amendments were spoken to in the context of Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.

On Question, amendments agreed to.

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 14 [Settlement of account]:

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 88:


Page 10, line 43, leave out ("delivered") and insert ("served").

The noble Earl said: I dealt with this amendment in conjunction with Amendment No. 3. I beg to move.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

The Earl of Lytton moved Amendment No. 89:


Page 10, line 44, leave out ("and in default may be recovered as a debt").

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 89 I speak also to Amendments Nos. 91 and 92. Together they constitute a relatively significant change to the Bill, the purpose being to replicate so far as possible the available sanctions under the London Building Acts. I am obliged to parliamentary counsel for the extremely neat way in which his drafting has sidestepped a potential problem area in terms of procuring efficient and effective means of enforcement.

Amendment No. 89 appears at first to be a substantive amendment. In fact the last phrase of Clause 14(1), which the amendment deletes, is consolidated in the new clause after Clause 16 with which I shall deal under Amendment No. 92.

Amendment No. 91 substitutes a new clause for Clause 16 and Schedule 1. In so doing, it removes the facility of criminal proceedings for recovery of debt arising under the various payment provisions of the Bill. The wording is also altered and consolidated and incorporates the second and third of the three offences referred to under the first schedule. Those now appear in the subsections (1) and (2) proposed by the amendment.

22 May 1996 : Column 947

The criminal sanction under the London Building Acts is a rarely used provision. However, on occasions in extreme instances, it has been found that some provision of the kind is necessary. The drafting picks this up in the civil rather than the criminal context.

Amendment No. 92 picks up the deletion in Amendment No. 89 of the civil sanction originally set out in Clause 15 and the deletion of the criminal sanction by Amendment No. 91. It consolidates both in the revised facility of a civil remedy by summary procedure for recovery as a debt. That streamlines, consolidates, and makes uniform the provisions in that respect. I believe that this is as near as one can get to the original intention of the Bill and the operation of the London Building Acts without a criminal sanction. I am advised that it would be inappropriate in an essentially civil matter to have the criminal sanction. It is a matter of private debt. The promoters of the Bill accept the solution as a very close match to the original provisions of the London Building Acts. I beg to move.


Next Section Back to Table of Contents Lords Hansard Home Page