View report page

Group C Families
I suggested that the families on your housing list and in my
Group C had been generously treated since most had been granted
ten extra priority points.
Group B Families
The eleven families on your housing list and in Group B had
points totals averaging 68. In all except two instances these totals
included 15 priority points. Whilst these families were all in desperate
need of rehousing, I suggested that in all the circumstances these
applicants were being given reasonable priority, and I could not ask
you to do more.
1 also drew your attention to the fact that 3 of the 11 applicants
were grown up children of now elderly L.C.C. tenants. The most
logical action would have been to rehouse the old couple in one bedroom
accommodation, leaving their children and grandchildren in full
occupation of the house.
Unfortunately the parents were L.C.C. tenants whilst their children
were on your housing list, so that administrative difficulties prevented
this practical solution.
Group A Families
Since I h, d chosen to visit the families regarded by the Tuberculosis
Health Visitors as most in need of rehousing, the fact that
only 7 were plaed in Group A is to some extent reassuring.
Condition in these 7 households were bad however. For example,
in one three-bedroomed L.C.C. house were living 4 adults (including
the T.B. case) and no less than 9 children. Another family consisting
of the applicant, his wife (T.B. case) and child ate, lived and slept in
one small room of a relative's house: there were 4 other young children
and their parents in this two-bedroomed Council house.
I am pleased to say that the Housing Committee authorized the
Chousing Offer to offer all these families better accommodation.
NEED FOR COLLABORATION
The memorandum concluded by emphasizing the need for close
collaboration between all concerned. Others mentioned besides the
Medical Officer of Health and Chest Physician include (with the
responsible administering authority for Barking in parenthesis):—
Page 33