View report page

40
The housing problem, as I have said in previous reports, is one
of extraordinary difficulty from many points of view. One is bound
to admit that the removal of the Rent Restriction Act would, in
many cases, create immense hardship. For example, one street of
houses—the average rent of which is in the region of 13/6—directly
one becomes de-controlled the rent that is obtained is 32s. per week.
In the case of two semi-detached cottages, identically the same, let
at 13s. a week, one became de-controlled, the rent now obtained
being 35s. a week.
On the other hand, the more one sees of the Rent Restriction
Act and sub-letting, and the wear and tear of premises, particularly
where there is more than one sub-tenancy, the more one feels that
the landlord, in these cases, is not getting a square deal. The amount
which he receives is 40 per cent., which in the case of sub-letting
is quite insufficient to cover the increased wear and tear, and there
is a certain class of tenant who insists on the last letter of the law
in respect of repairs, which they have brought about by their profiteering.
Proceedings.
Proceedings taken during the year were as follows: —
{a) Proceedings for non-compliance with notices served under
Section 94 cf the Public Health Act, 1875, were instituted in 19
instances. Summonses were withdrawn in 6 cases where work was
in progress or had been completed. In the remaining 13 instances
Orders to abate the nuisances were made, and in addition the following
Fines and Costs were imposed in 7 of these instances
Fine £2, and Costs £2 2s. in two instances.
Costs £2 2s. in three instances.
Costs 11s. in two instances.
(b) Non-compliance with notices to vacate premises after Closing
Orders had become operative. In 18 instances proceedings
were taken and an Order for possession was made in each case.