London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

London County Council 1959

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for London County Council]

This page requires JavaScript

The Council, like other housing authorities, at that time had a scheme whereby points
were awarded. The Council scheme, as revised in 1955, contained 15 different categories,
as well as further awards for length of time registered. The scheme provided for the award
of a large number of points to cases of infective tuberculosis and this usually resulted in a
tuberculous case qualifying very quickly for rehousing. It was a feature of points schemes,
however, that other factors apart from health such as, for example, the length of time
registered and of residence in the district, operate against the intention to rehouse on
purely medical grounds.
A review of the housing position in 1955 showed that most of the larger areas for building
in London had been used, and that there was bound to be a slowing-up owing to lack of
sites within the county. Moreover slum clearance and other redevelopment required about
7,000 houses per year. The Council took a realistic view of the position and decided to
tackle slum clearance as a first priority but nevertheless decided to put aside a proportion
of the accommodation for rehousing on purely medical grounds.
Present position—In November, 1956 all applicants on the waiting list were informed
that between 1945 and 1955 the Council had rehoused 75,000 families and that in future
priority was to be given to slum clearance. In the following month a letter explaining the
position was sent to all general practitioners and to hospitals telling them that in future
there would be only a small allocation of accommodation to rehouse families on purely
medical grounds. Doctors were requested not to submit medical certificates, but to send a
personal letter to me in each individual case where they considered that there was a very
serious medical condition which would benefit from rehousing. In the first three months
1,400 personal letters were received and although this number has abated somewhat,
letters are still being received at a steady rate of 40 to 50 a week. The practitioners concerned
agree that the present system is greatly to be preferred to the widespread granting of
medical certificates, as the responsibility is entirely with the doctor and the patient rarely
handles the letter.
Investigation of cases—The present method of investigation is that on receipt of the
doctor's recommendation, the background is filled in by a health visitor and, where considered
desirable, by a public health inspector's report on the premises. This work is carried
out at divisional and borough level and a medical officer in each division assesses and
decides whether the case is worthy of consideration. The most worthy cases from each
division are then dealt with centrally and I or my deputy make the final decision as to which
families are to be nominated for accommodation. It cannot be stressed too strongly that
the vast majority of doctor's letters do draw attention to serious medical conditions, but in
view of the housing shortage the choice has to be between those which on the evidence
available seem most urgent. The rejection of a case does not reflect on the doctor making
the recommendation. It is simply that the very worst must be taken first. A small number
may be held over from one period to the next and reconsidered as borderline cases.
In a great number of the cases overcrowding is a factor. Overcrowding in itself is not
regarded as a reason for rehousing. It is defined statutorily, and is a matter which is dealt
with independently. Only when associated with medical factors is it taken into account in
considering rehousing.
A case selected for nomination is submitted to the Housing Committee, which before
giving final approval considers the particulars gathered by the housing department in
anticipation of rehousing. During the preliminary inquiries a number of cases are rejected
for very sound reasons. The main reason for this is suppression by the applicant of
material facts, such as residence for only a few months in the country and, more frequently,
false statements regarding the accommodation already occupied.
46