View report page

34
SMOKE ABATEMENT.
The Borough contains but few factories or other workplaces where there is a considerable
fuel consumption and thus the problem of smoke abatement is not a very large one. Nevertheless,
in a Borough which is essentially residential in character, it is very desirable that the nuisance
from smoke should be reduced to a minimum, and during the year the Council's Sanitary Inspectors
made 427 special observations with a view to ascertaining whether there were any breaches of the
smoke provisions of the Public Health (London) Act, 1891. The only nuisances discovered were
in the south-western portion of the Borough, in which district it was necessary to serve four notices,
which were followed by abatement.
RAG FLOCK ACT, 1911.
Four samples of rag flock were analysed and reported on during the year. They contained
10, 12 5, 16*25 and 65 parts of chlorine per 100,000, the limit set by the Regulations being 30 parts.
The sample containing 65 parts of chlorine was described by the Public Analyst as " White Cotton
Flock " and, having regard to the excessive amount of chlorine, a communication was addressed
to the Ministry of Health asking whether the Council would be well advised to institute proceedings.
The Minister, however, replied that he was unable to advise the Council in this matter and no
further action was taken.
INCREASE OF RENT AND MORTGAGE INTEREST (RESTRICTIONS)
ACTS, 1920-23.
Under Section 2 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act of 1920 a tenant is
entitled at any time, not being less than three months after the date of an increase of rent permitted
by the Act, to apply to the County Court for an Order suspending such increase, on the
ground that the house is not in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation or is otherwise not
in a reasonable state of repair. Before he can succeed, the tenant must satisfy the Court by the
production of a certificate of the Council or otherwise that his application is well founded.
Section 5 of an amending Act passed on the 31st July, 1923, provides that where the tenant
has obtained from the Council a certificate that the house is not in a reasonable state of repair and
has served a copy of the certificate upon the landlord, production of such certificate shall be a good
defence to any claim against him for the payment of the 40 per cent, increase of rent permitted
under the 1920 Act.
Section 18 of the 1923 Act provides that for the purposes of the Act of 1920 the certificate of
the Council as to the condition of a dwelling-house shall specify what works require to be executed
in order to put the dwelling-house into a reasonable state of repair, and that on any application
being made to the Council for such a certificate or report, a fee of one shilling shall be payable.
Applications made to the Council in 1925 for certificates under the Acts totalled 14, and eight
certificates were granted.

This comparative failure by tenants to attempt to make use of the provisions of the Acts is
probably due to the fact that most houses in a defective state of repair come under the notice of
the Sanitary Inspectors, who put the Public Health Acts into operation.
FOULING OF FOOTPATHS BY DOGS.
Towards the end of 1921, the Council succeeded in obtaining the approval of the following
by-law for the good rule and government of the Royal Borough :—
" No person being in charge of a dog in any street or public place and having the dog on a
lead shall allow or permit such dog to deposit its excrement upon the public footway.
"Any person offending against this by-law shall be liable to a penalty not exceeding 40s.
" This by-law shall cease to be in force after 31st day of December, 1923, unless a by-law
confirming and continuing its provisions has been duly made and come into force
before that date."
This by-law was made in pursuance of Section 23 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1882,
Section 16 of the Local Government Act, 1888, and Section 5 of the London Government Act,
1889.