View report page

29 or 11.4% were considered to be in a condition prejudicial to
health or a nuisance, and to call for action under the Public Health
Act, 1936.
4 or 1.5% were considered to be unfit for human habitation within
the meaning of the Housing Act, 1957.
It was found that in 168 instances the owners had increased rents
under the provisions of the Rent Act, 1957, but in only 13 of these
cases had the tenants applied for Certificates of Disrepair. Undoubtedly
in some of the remainder the owner had complied with the tenant's
request for repair works, and thus obviated the necessity for the tenant
to apply for a Certificate.
Of the 33 houses found to require attention, 3 had not had rent
increases, and of the 30 where increase had been applied only 4 of the
tenants had sought the repair of the property by the exercise of their
right to serve Form G on the owners. The remaining 26 had accepted
the increase, failing to exercise their rights under the Act, to secure
the repair of the property. The reason for this may be apathy, perhaps
ignorance of the law, but the opinion has been formed that many
tenants regard the Rent Act with apprehension, and are frightened of
being evicted.
The information obtained from this quick survey confirms an
opinion that the problem, though not to be completely ignored, does
not warrant interruption of the present routine of work, which is
concentrated very largely now on the duties imposed on the Council
by the Clean Air Act, 1956.
The premises found in this survey to need attention were dealt
with, and further spot checks will be undertaken at regular intervals.
38