View report page

The Council's major effort on the enforcement of the Act was accomplished in 1966 with the
completion of the first inspections of all registered premises. A full survey of the Borough, to disclose
the unregistered premises, was carried out in that year.
Certain of the specific provisions of the Act have never provided more than minor individual
problems. These are the provisions relating to the supply of drinking water, clothing accommodation
and seating and eating facilities.
The requirement regarding cleanliness of premises can be seen, over the nine years of operation
of the Act, to be largely a problem concerned with the common parts of multi-occupied premises,
i.e. water closet accommodation and stairways and passages.
Overcrowding, in its broadest sense, has not proved to be a problem. However, it is still
common to find an overcrowded and probably ill-ventilated telephonist/receptionist cubicle, formed
by partitioning off a part of an office.
Ventilation in office accommodation is generally satisfactory. Many of the recent office
developments in the Borough are provided with full or partial air conditioning. No problems have so
far come to notice from the use of these plants.
From time to time, the Department receives complaints about inadequate heating. These are
generally found to be a result of a breakdown or malfunction of heating plant and the complaints
arise most frequently from multi-occupied premises. One of the most common breaches of the
requirements of the Act is failure to provide a thermometer.
In 1965 a special report was made on the lighting in various premises. Certain parts of the
premises, notably staircases in multi-occupied blocks, warehouses, and the stockrooms of shops and
sanitary accommodation, were found to be poorly lighted. This is still the position and requirements
are made when poorly lighted parts of premises come to notice.
In the first Annual Report on this Act, for 1965, the comment was made that the condition of
floors, passages and staircasing constituted the greatest threat to the employees' welfare. Despite
the inspectors' efforts over the years, this statement is still partly true. Constantly attention has to be
drawn to defects of structure and obstructions. In many cases it appears that wear and tear and
continuing poor practice pass unnoticed by the occupiers, who come to accept conditions as normal.
Some use has been made of letters quoting Section 22 of the Act in cases where danger exists.
A firmly worded letter pointing out that an application could be made to a Magistrates' Court for an
Order to prohibit a particular practice has been found to be effective.
The Act has been effective in reducing the hazard at one time posed by dangerous machinery,
hoists and lifts. Initial difficulties with the guarding of food slicing machines have now been
overcome. Occasionally unguarded prescribed dangerous machines are found and guards still have
to be required.
The system whereby hoists and lifts in premises subject to the Act are inspected by a competent
person and reports on certain defects are sent to the Council has been in operation since 1969. It is
normal for this Council to require the responsible person to remedy the defects set out in the
inspecting engineer's report.
In 1973 it was found necessary to take what must be an unusual course in the enforcement of
this particular Section of the legislation. This Council successfully prosecuted a firm of engineering
surveyors for failure to correctly notify the Department of the result of their inspection. Three
summonses were issued for failure to submit the necessary reports in respect of two hand operated
lifts and a hoist at a Public House. The summonses were not contested and the defendants were
fined £10 on each summons with £3 costs.
49