View report page

41
In another case of the illegal occupation of an underground room
found during the 1948 survey, the room was found to be occupied
by a sub-tenant of the main tenant. The matter was taken up with both
persons at the time, and it transpired that the main tenant was unaware
of the existence of the Closing Order. As the room was immediately
vacated by the sub-tenant, the matter was not pursued any further.
Early in 1949, however, it was reported that the main tenant
was himself using this room as a living room. The Housing Com-
mittee authorised proceedings to be taken, and a fine of £ 1 was imposed,
and £1 1s. costs were awarded against the defendant.
Demolition Orders.
During 1949 no houses were demolished under Section 11 of
the Housing Act, 1936. One Demolition Order under this Section
was mede by the Council in respect of a dwelling house, as it was
considered that repairs could not be carried out at a reasonable cost,
but the time allowed for compliance had not expired at the end of
Houses Let in Lodgings.
No special action was taken in respect of such houses.
Overcrowding.
459 cases of overcrowding were discovered during teh year, 337
in consequence of applications for housing accommodation made to
this Council, and 122 to the London County Council. In some of
these cases it appeared that the circumstances were such as to give
rise to an affence against the relevant provisions of the Housing Act,
1936, and in two cases legal action was taken. In the first case,
proceedings were taken under Section 59 (1) of the Act, and, after
the Magistrate had adjourned the case three times, he fined the defendant 10s. and ordered him to pay 10s. costs. The overcrowding was
not abated, and the the Housing Committee gave instructions that the
case should be deferred for six months. This period had not expired
at the end of the year.
In the second case, proceedings for possession were taken under
Section 66 of the Housing Act. Prior to the case being heard, however, the defendant gave an undertaking that two members of his
family would sleep elsewhere, thus reducing, though not abating, the
overcrowding. In view of this undertaking, the Magistrate agreed
to the Council's request that he adjourn sine die the application for
possession of the accommodation. The defendant was warned that
if the position was worsened in any way, by the return of the two
members of the family or otherwise, the Council would consider
reviving the application for possession.
Seventy-six overcrowded families were rehoused during the year,
45 by this Council and 31 by the London County Council.