View report page

for failure is thus correctly apportioned, to single out only the owners
for blame appears to me to be unfair. The occupier of a rented
property can have a good deal to say in this matter, for the work of
improvement cannot proceed without his or her approval.
One owner of a block of 24 houses (in Beckenham), in very
reasonable structural repair, is anxious to modernise them all, but
the vast majority of the tenants refuse co-operation, and so the matter,
perforce, falls through.
One wonders whether the outcome of this dilatory approach will
not be the compulsory improvement of suitable older properties
resulting from further legislation on a subject which, in view of the
still desperate housing needs of the country, cannot be overlooked.
Housing Defects.
Damp houses have always claimed prior attention. In many
cases, dampness is due to the absence of a damp-proof course. Where
a house, as a result of the absence of proofing, is now damp, it does
not appear that to remedy the omission is the only satisfactory answer.
During the years a house has been without a damp-course the brickwork
has absorbed moisture to such a degree and height that many
years will pass before drying out is complete.
There are other and better methods of remedy in these cases
which, if skilfully introduced, give lasting and quick improvement.
These methods, too. are more economical.
Not all dampness in houses, however, results from the absence
of a damp-proof course. It frequently arises from a continued absence
of attention to minor defects. The broken or choked rainwater
guttering or pipe, the overflowing lavatory cistern, the broken setting
of a gully—such small items, continually ignored, eventually create
dilapidation and disrepair which require major repair work with
heavy financial outlay, where perhaps the expenditure of only time
in the early stages would have prevented it. Some owners sensibly
seek the co-operation of their tenants in such matters, and usually this
is forthcoming. Others consistently ignore their responsibilities until
the nuisance is of such magnitude as to warrant the service of Statutory
Notices by the Local Authority, and then it is found that the owner
will force the Authority to the final limit of its legal powers before
executing the work. This attitude is not easy to understand, for the
ultimate financial outlay is so much the greater for the delay, although
it is fair comment to say that the obligation, in this respect, is not
greatly increased by the fines and penalties imposed by Magistrates
for failure to comply with Notices. In certain cases owners might
reasonably expect greater co-operation from their tenants, for there
are instances where a tenant will refrain from remedying a most
trivial defect, but will suffer much discomfort and spend unlimited
time in endeavouring to force the local authority to intervene to bring
31