London's Pulse: Medical Officer of Health reports 1848-1972

View report page

Kingston upon Thames 1950

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Kingston-upon-Thames]

This page requires JavaScript

21
13. COMPLAINTS.
There was a fall in the number of complaints received
during the year 1950, viz; 671 compared with 781 the
previous year. There were increases under only two headings,
rodent infestation and non-removal of house refuse. In the
case of the rats and mice, the increase reflects the continued
co-operation of householders who now do not incur
any risk of a charge for services rendered, by disclosing
the presence of rodents on their premises. Furthermore,
this co-operation is valuable from another point of view.
Not infrequently, the presence of rats indicates structural
defects in buildings or in connection with drainage systems,
and the investigation by the department which follows
immediately upon the receipt of complaints, may bring to
light conditions which might otherwise have remained undiscovered.
The reduction in the number of complaints regarding food
(quality, soundness, etc.) was welcome, 30 compared with 43 in
1949. This figure of 30 or 4.4% of the total number of complaints
received is reasonably low when one realises the
immense amount of foodstuffs which is handled and sold within
the borough.

The following is a brief tabulated list of causes for complaints received during 1950:-

Sanitary Defects253
Rodents158
vermin Infestation41
Non-removal of Refuse17
Defective Ashbins9
Drains and Sanitary Arrangements109
Overcrowding6
Food (Quality, Soundness, etc.)30
Nuisance from smoke16
Miscellaneous32
671

14. RODENT AND INSECT PEST CONTROL.
The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act, 1949, came into
force on 31st March 1950. Administration of this Act is vested
in the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and Local
Authorities are entrusted with the duty of carrying out many
of its provisions.
The Act replaced the Rats and Mice Destruction Act of
1919, which had many inherent weaknesses. The new Act
appears to have received a general welcome. It affords considerable
support to local authorities in their efforts to
combat pests, and the fact that there are means to enforce
compliance with the requirements of the Act, is no doubt
the reason why it has not yet been necessary to implement
the statutory powers contained in the Act.
A good deal of humour is directed towards this work
of rat extermination by those who may not realise the valuable
nature of the work. The material damage that one or two rats
are capable of causing in business premises needs to be seen
to be believed. The contamination of foodstuffs and the consequent
danger of food poisoning in those who consume the
food should now be well known. But there is also the effect
on the minds of women and children who are quite often
thoroughly scared by the presence of rats or mice, and this