England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) Decisions

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF JUDICATURE
COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE LUTON COUNTY COURT
(HIS HONOUR JUDGE HAMILTON)

		Royal Courts of Justice Strand London WC2 Monday, 14th May 2001

Monday, 14th May 2001

1. LORD JUSTICE SCHIEMANN: Before the court is an application for permission to appeal an order made by His Honour Judge Hamilton in the Luton County Court made on 5th October 1999. There has been a long procedural history since then, which I do not need to recite but which explains the delay.
2. His Honour Judge Hamilton struck out an appeal from an order made by District Judge Hewetson-Brown which gave judgment for the respondent water company, Three Valleys Plc, in these circumstances. There are two claims between the parties. There is a claim by the water company (JM 836 877) which relates to arrears of water rates amounting to £230.96, in relation to a property at which the applicant was, and I think still is, living, 32 Colindale Avenue. There is also a claim by the applicant (SI 900 997), who claimed refund of payments made in respect of water supplies at her previous property, which relates to a period between 1991 and 1995. Those conflicts are between Mrs Fradkina and the water company.
3. The basic unhappiness of the applicant, Mrs Fradkina, comes from two facts. She is a tenant. She claims that under two leases made between her and her landlord the landlord agreed to be responsible for the payment of water rates since she is entitled to social security benefit. Mrs Fradkina says that what happened is the landlord was put in funds to pay these water rates by the Social Security Department and has apparently not done so, which lead the water company to sue her; that is how it came about that she paid what she says were illegal and unjustified demands by the water company for water rates.
4. What happened procedurally was that District Judge Hewetson-Brown heard both matters on 21st September 1999 and gave judgment for the water company and struck out Mrs Fradkina's claim as disclosing no cause of action. His Honour Judge Hamilton considered those appeals and of his own motion dismissed the appeals on the basis that the notice of appeal did not disclose any valid grounds of appeal.
5. We are at this disadvantage that although the water company has been given notice of this hearing they have not chosen to come; and although Mrs Fradkina has been advised to seek legal representation from the Citizens Advice Bureau in this building she says that she tried but they refused to act for her. We have to do the best we can with the material available.
6. The crux of the present case is to bear in mind the difference between the water company and her landlord. She has complaints against the landlord, not merely as I have indicated, but also as to the state of her house, which she says is hopelessly in bad repair. The attitude which was adopted, as I understand it, by the district judge, was that this might or might not be so but, so far as the position of the water company was concerned their position was clear because of statute.
7. The relevant statutory provisions are concerned in section 142 and 144 of the Water Industry Act 1991. Section 142(1) provides that the power of every relevant undertaker (and that includes the water company such as at present) shall include the power to demand and recover charges fixed under the section from any person to whom the undertaker provides services or in relation to whom it carries out trade effluent functions. Section 144 says this:

"... except in so far as provision to the contrary is made by any agreement to which the undertaker"

- the water company in this case -

"is a party -

(a) supplies of water provided by a water undertaker shall be treated for the purpose of this Chapter as services provided to the occupiers for the time being of any premises supplied."

8. The result of those two sections is that Mrs Fradkina is treated by statute as being the person to whom the water has been supplied; so she is primarily liable to pay. And although she has apparently, if her story be correct, entered into an agreement with her landlord that the landlord should pay on her behalf, so far as I can see she has no defence to an action by the water company for the money. It may be that something has gone wrong here. It is difficult to tell, because Mrs Fradkina does not have English as a language in which she is particularly fluent, and she either cannot or will not employ somebody who is fluent. But doing the best that I can after having looked through the material which she has shown to us and which is included in her bundle and some further material which she handed up this morning, as it seems to me, she does not have a case against this water company or a defence against their claim and therefore if there were any remission to the judge, he would, on this material, come to the same conclusion as the one he came to before.
9. In those circumstances I would dismiss this application.
10. LORD JUSTICE ROBERT WALKER: I agree.
11. MR JUSTICE LLOYD: I also agree.
(Application dismissed; no order for costs).