View report page

Failure to comply with the Management Regulations or with a direction is punishable
on summary conviction by penalties ranging from up to £20 for the first offence, to a
maximum of £100 and three months imprisonment for second and subsequent offences. These
are designed to deal primarily with the worst type of multi-occupied houses, where
nothing less than strong action would be likely to achieve results. At the same time,
the Minister relies on Local Authorities to make quite clear to the people concerned
what it is that the regulations require to ensure the satisfactory management of these
houses, and to give them every opportunity to put matters right before resorting to the
new penalty provisions.
As already suggested, the root of the problems associated with houses in multiple,
occupation is the shortage of dwellings available for renting and the lack of security
of tenure, and while the new powers are a step in the right direction, it is questionable
whether they do, in fact, go far enough. The mere possession of these statutory
provisions will not of itself, solve the problem. The new legislation neither prohibits
the establishment of unsatisfactory houses, nor requires the owner or occupier to give
notice to, or to seek permission from, the Local Authority, to let a house in lodgings.
Planning powers also appear to be ineffective in preventing the establishment of houses
of this type. At best, after considerable administrative procedure, they can be used
to undo what has already been done, and penalise the persons responsible. To enforce
minimal standards of amenity, and reduce overcrowding in houses in multiple occupation
may also mean the displacement or eviction of some individuals or families for whom
alternative accommodation will have to be found.
A survey of housing accommodation in the Borough is at present being undertaken
by the Public Health Inspectorate, to ascertain the extent of the problem of multiple
occupations in Leyton, and appropriate action is being taken under the relevant statutory
provisions.
Over the past twelve months some 11,960 inspections and reinspections were made
under Public Health Acts, Housing and Rant Acts, Prevention of Damage by Pests Act,
Clean Air Act and other legislation; 1,729 complaints regarding unsatisfactory
conditions were investigated, and 498 notices specifying works to remedy defects such
as dampness, general disrepair, defective drainage, leaking roofs, etc. were served.
In addition, pursuant to the requirements of Section 3 of the Housing Act, 1957, and
the Housing Consolidated Regulations, 1925/32, some 795 houses were surveyed to
ascertain their fitness for human habitation, having regard to the standard prescribed
by the Act and the possibility or otherwise of their being included in a slum clearance
scheme, or dealt with by demolition or closing order procedure.
Legal proceedings arising from the failure of owners to comply with the requirements
of notices served under the nuisance abatement procedure of the Public Health Act
were initiated in 24 cases, and in all cases, the work was completed either before the
date of the hearing, or after adjournement of the summonses. Such proceedings are not,
however, always successful in enforcing essential repairs. In a number of instances,
the Public Health Committee were obliged to consider alternative procedures under the
Housing Acts.
During the year under review 8 applications under the Rent Act, 1957, for certificates
of disrepair, and 38 applications for certificates as to the remedying of defects
etc. were received and dealt with by the Public Health Inspectorate; 8 notices (Form J)
of the Council's proposal to issue such certificates were served on landlords, arising
out of which 1 undertaking (Form K) to remedy defects specified thereon within a period
of six months were submitted by the owners and accepted by the Council, and 7 certificates
of disrepair were issued.
14