View report page

39
correctly the relative incidence of controlled and decontrolled
houses in the district, but certain figures are available which may
be useful. We know approximately the number of controlled houses
of a rateable value of less than £20 a year. Before October 1933,
over 2,000 tenements had been registered by owners who claimed
that their houses were decontrolled. Probably these did not represent
all the decontrolled tenements, and applications to decontrol
over 250 have since been made. There were in the district, according
to the Abstract of Accounts for 1935-1936, a total of 4,932
private houses and tenements rated under £20 per year. It therefore
appears that even of lettings under £20 a year, not more than
half are controlled. The percentage of controlled houses rated at
£20-30 a year is probably much smaller, though we have no figures
concerning these. It may reasonably be assumed that a higher
percentage of controlled houses were overcrowded than was the
case of decontrolled, and the reasons for the overcrowding were
different. In the case of the decontrolled lettings, the main reason
was the high rent demanded, whilst in the case of a controlled, it
was the low rent which accounted for a considerable amount of the
overcrowding. Many of the controlled lettings had been occupied
for some time ; in some instances, the tenants had occupied
the lettings when they were married, and as the family grew they
were loth to forego the advantages which legislation had so fortunately
and unexpectedly placed within their reach. In a few
instances, we found that the tenants could afford a bigger house,
but of course the rent would be much higher ; in one case four boys
and a girl were in work as well as the father. In most of the cases,
though, the families could ill-afford the much higher rents which
decontrolled flats would fetch. The low rent fixes the controlled
tenant to his letting ; this was very obvious in the relative incidence
of the abatement of overcrowding and the manner in which the
overcrowding was abated. Of the 39 one-roomed tenements overcrowded,
15 were controlled and 24 decontrolled ; 2 of the former
had become uncrowded in six months, and 14 of the latter. One
of the overcrowded controlled lettings became uncrowded because
the tenant had sub-let one of the rooms at 13s. per week ; this sum
was obviously excessive, and the sub-tenant could have had a
reduction. The tenant probably knew more about the Rent
Restrictions Acts than the sub-tenant, and to avoid trouble, had
resumed possession of the whole tenement and abated the overcrowding.
Incidentally we find many instances of controlled houses
tenements which are sub-let, and the sub-tenant pays an excessive
tent; it is not generally known that an apportionment of the rent
of a controlled house if it is sub-let can be obtained on application
to the Court.