View report page

25
District.
Bye-Laws
as to Houses Let
in Lodgings.
Owing to the receipt of a report from the
London County Council by its Medical
Officer of Health on the enforcement of
these Bye-laws in the Metropolis, we were requested to
report on the matter. Subjoined is our report.
TO THE SANITARY COMMITTEE.
BYE-LAWS AS TO HOUSES LET IN LODGINGS.
1.—By these Bye-laws two objects are intended to be gained,
—the prevention of over-crowding and the enforcement of cleanliness,—and
practically the whole series of these Bye-laws are
directed to these end?.
2.—As regards these conditions, they can be dealt with as
nuisances under the Public Health Act, and we have hitherto
never had any difficulty in so dealing with them. At the same
time procedure is more easy under the Bye-laws, as it is usually
easier to prove a breach of a bye-law than to prove a nuisance.
3.—The practice in this District has hitherto been to apply
the Bye-laws only in those instances where from the special
character of the inhabitants, or of the houses, there has seemed
some particular reason for doing so.
4.—It seems to us, however, that Section 94 of the Public
Health (London) Act and the Bye-laws as made by your Board
allow strictly of no such discretion, but that they apply ipso facto
to every house let in lodgings or occupied by more than one
family, and which does not come under the exemption clause (as
regards the amount of rent payable). It would follow therefore
that the London County Council might maiutain that the Board
had made default in carrying out their duties if the Bye-laws were
not enforced, and might proceed under Section 100.
5.—On the other hand the increase of inspectorial work
would be enormous, not only in getting the houses registered but
in the periodical visits that are rendered necessary; and it may be
doubted whether the results would be proportionate to the work
done, especially as it would inevitably lead to the comparative
neglect of similar property which would not come under the Bye-