View report page

78
"Before January, 1920, the date of the Act coming into force, if rats became
a nuisance the occupier usually complained to the owner who took the necessary
steps to abate the nuisance, either by calling in professional ratcatchers, or by instructing
his builder to see to the drains, if necessary, and to stop all holes and places
of ingress. Poisons also were used, chiefly by the ratcatcher, and the building was
dealt with as a whole. The chief poison in those days was generally phosphorous
and from it reasonably good results were obtained. Viruses of more or less efficiency
have also been in use for some years. The dangers to be apprehended from
the use of bacterial preparations and their limited application were fully discussed
in my report to the Corporation, dated February 24th, 1920. When the Act came
into force, however, the occupier of a building or part of a building became solely
responsible for rat riddance, the owner being under no obligation whatever to
carry out any structural works which might be shown to be necessary to repress
rats.
"This is the weak part of the Act for it becomes exceedingly difficult in a large
building, occupied by a large number of tenants, to get joint action, owing to
circumstances connected with the business; infestation, say, of a five-storey building
may only be noted on three or four of the stories. The fourth and fifth occupiers,
who are not affected, are extremely reluctant to spend money in bringing about
improvement which is of no benefit to themselves.
"Even though premises may be only partially infested the necessary alterations
are such in some cases that they can only be regarded as a charge which
should be equally distributed among the whole of the occupiers. This brief illustration
indicates clearly the necessity for the landlord or owner having responsibility
where premises present difficulties which only structural alteration can remedy.
If, however, the premises structurally are sound and separate tenancies are either
accidentally infested or the nature of the business is such as to encourage infestation
or render de-infestation difficult, then the occupier should shoulder the
responsibility."
The organised activities of rat repression, notwithstanding the unsatisfactory
state of the law, appear to have resulted in at any rate preventing an increase in
the rat population in the City area, and this in spite of the fact that rats are being
constantly imported from the docks. I doubt if there is any other square mile
in the world where so many professional ratcatchers, rat-poisoners and vendors of
rat poisons gain their livelihood, not because there are relatively more rats than
elsewhere but perhaps because City firms are better able to afford the cost than
those of some other boroughs and towns.
Of the 1,072 buildings visited during the year (see summary), 383 were found to
be rat infested and in these, ratproofing work was carried out at 358.
This work chiefly consisted of wiring basement area gratings, ventilators, roof
openings, and the stopping of rat-holes in walls and floors. Other necessary
work, such as the removal of wooden floors from basements and substituting
concrete floors, the stripping of internal walls of woodwork, e.g., matchboarding,
wainscoting and panelling (behind which rats nest and breed), and cementing the
walls, the removal of ceilings in certain cases, etc., could only be done to a very
limited extent because it would be considered a most unreasonable request to ask
an occupier to carry out this very expensive, though necessary work, in a building
which does not belong to him, and he would flatly refuse to do it, except
perhaps in a very exceptional case.