View report page

66
RE-OVERCROWDING OF DWELLINGS IN WHICH OVERCROWDING
HAD BEEN ABATED.
10 instances of re-overcrowding of dwellings after overcrowding
had been abated by re-housing the previous tenants, were discovered.
2 of these premises were re-let in an overcrowded condition, but
before the appointed day, and 8 were not re-let in an overcrowded condition,
but overcrowding was subsequently caused as follows :—
5 by children attaining the ages of one year or ten years.
2 by persons being brought into the premises after the commencement
of the tenancy; in both cases the persons brought in
were sisters of the occupiers. One of these occurred before the
appointed day and after due consideration the family was recommended
for re-housing. The other occurred after the appointed
day, the owner was informed, who subsequently transferred the
family to larger accommodation.
In the remaining case there was an intervening tenancy during
which period the premises were not overcrowded. The premises then
became vacant and a family living in overcrowded conditions in another
part of the Borough obtained possession by misrepresenting the number
of persons in family. This re-overcrowding occurred after the appointed
day and no action has, so far, been taken by the Council as it is understood
that the owner is applying for a Court Order for Possession.

120 of these families were living in premises which were dealt with
by way of slum clearance, closing and demolition orders.
Of the 515 cases abated, 34 were in dwellings owned by the London
County Council and 17 in dwellings owned by the Borough Council.