Hints from the Health Department. Leaflet from the archive of the Society of Medical Officers of Health. Credit: Wellcome Collection, London
[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for St. Marylebone, Metropolitan Borough]
This page requires JavaScript
11
It is seldom necessary to follow this procedure, except in distressing cases which sometimes occur
of old persons who, although no longer able to look after themselves and living in conditions which
make it impossible for them to be nursed at home, refuse to enter a home or hospital voluntarily.
During the year it was necessary to obtain Orders and remove to hospital three such old persons,
particulars of whom are given in Table 4, page 32.
Staff Medical Examinations.
The Medical Officer of Health is medical adviser for the purposes of the Council's superannuation
scheme. During 1956, one hundred and eight examinations of members of the staff and new entrants
were carried out.
New Legislation.
Details of the Acts, Orders and Regulations, relating to the work of the Department, which came
into operation during the year are given in Table 5, page 32.
SECTION C.—SANITARY CIRCUMSTANCES
Sanitary Inspection.
The borougli is divided into four areas each of which is dealt with by a district public health
inspector.
During the last few years the numbers of complaints received and notices served for sanitary defects
have decreased, probably due to the fact that repairs and maintenance, which were neglected during
the war and afterwards because of shortage of labour and difficulty in obtaining materials, are now
receiving more proper attention. In addition, many of the more badly housed families, who were
naturally a frequent source of complaint, have now been found other accommodation, thus giving
owners the opportunity of bringing the vacated houses or rooms, if not demolished or closed, up to a
satisfactory standard of repair.
In administering public health legislation it is essential to try to preserve a fair and proper balance
between tenants' complaints, not all of which can be justified, and landlords' responsibilities, not all
of which they fully recognise. Most owners have co-operated with the department, not only in dealing
witli matters brought to their attention by notice but sometimes by carrying out work which, although
not legally enforceable, would help maintain their property in a better condition. Many owners now
realise that the inspectors in interpreting the law regarding public health nuisances are not unreasonable
in their requirements and, furthermore, that early compliance with a notice may prevent the necessity
for more extensive repairs at a later date.
Prosecutions were taken against owners only when it was obvious that there was no intention of
complying with notices and where all other attempts at getting the work done had proved unsuccessful.
Most of the summonses were withdrawn as the work required had been carried out after they had been
served and, generally, before the hearing. Although the principal objective has been achieved, this
procedure can hardly be regarded as satisfactory, particularly in view of the long delays caused when
an owner constantly ignores the requirements of all notices until he receives a summons. One
persistent offender has now been formally warned that, in future, compliance with a notice will not
automatically ensure the withdrawal of an outstanding summons.
Excluding rat and mouse infestations, 1,278 complaints were received and details of the 1,048
various nuisances detected and remedied are shown in Table 6, page 32.
Notices.—Intimation notices numbered 470, and 156 of these were followed by the service of a
statutory notice to secure abatement of nuisances. In addition, twenty-nine notices were served
under Byelaws made under the Housing, Metropolis Management or Public Health Acts.
Legal Proceedings.
Legal proceedings under the provisions of the Public Health (London) Act, 1936, were taken in
13 cases. Details of the premises and outcome of proceedings are shown in Table 7, page 33.
Noise.
Thirty-five complaints of noise, involving twenty-seven alleged nuisances, were received. A large
proportion referred to demolition and building sites. The remainder concerned a wide variety of
supposed causes, including night baking, motor vehicle repairs, radio, gramophone, amplifier, factories
and workshops, dogs, loading and handling milk bottle crates, a refrigerator and a water storage tank.
The complaints were not always justified but where, upon investigation, nuisances were found to