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

View report page

Richmond upon Thames 1971

[Report of the Medical Officer of Health for Richmond]

This page requires JavaScript

Borough of Hammersmith and to Mr. F. C. Baldwin, Superintendent of the Baths, for
their valuable assistance during the year.
17 patients received treatment against scabies. In addition the bedding of 9 further
cases who were being treated by their family doctor was cleansed.
31 persons were treated for lice infestation, the bedding of a further 15 persons
disinfested; 5 premises were disinfected following infectious diseases and 144 premises
disinfested. Costs amounting to £472.80 were recovered.
7. PEST CONTROL
(a) Rats and Mice.

The number of complaints received from the public showed a welcome if relatively small decrease from the level of the preceding years.

197119701969
Number of complaints received1,2771,3601,347
Number of infestations found1,2841,0741,091
Total number of visits by rodent control staff13,87310,40110,748

The higher number of infestations found compared with complaints received reflects
the availability of staff to initiate surveys which led to the discovery of infestations not
reported to the Department by the public. This situation also contributed to the higher
total of visits paid by the staff compared with 1970.
Of the 1,284 infestations found 928 were caused by rats and 356 by mice. 88% of
the total occurred in other than business premises or local authority controlled areas. The
domestic garden remains the most common site for rat infestation in this Borough.
Proportionately the increase in mice infestations recorded was substantially higher
than the increase in rat infestations and this confirms the growing problem of mice.
A total of 4,294 premises of all types received visits for rodent control purposes
within the year.
The staff of rodent operatives remained at full strength throughout the year once
the vacancy was filled in the early days of 1971. This was a fortunate situation in view
of the difficult position over recruitment of staff for this work at the wage levels involved.
It is perhaps pertinent to comment here on the necessity for a high level of integrity
amongst rodent operatives because of their readily available access to all forms of property.
They must be capable of training in special skills and able to carry out their work
conscientiously without direct supervision. Perhaps most vital of all is the need for them
to maintain a relationship of mutual respect with the wide cross section of the public for
whom they provide a, not always appreciated, service.
It should be added that this service, freely available to all but business premises, does
not by law relieve the occupiers of the premises of their obligations under the Prevention
of Damage by Pests Act to eradicate rats and mice on the property they occupy.
The fortunate staff position meant that during the year we were able to sustain a
steady survey operation carried out by the Foreman Rodent Operative. Over 30 areas
were carefully scrutinized for rodent activity. Although some of these surveys produced
negative results the value of such an approach was demonstrated in one of the first areas
selected. This consisted of a well-defined district of quality domestic properties with
large gardens. In all 23 properties were involved and only two of these having reported
rat activity. The survey revealed that 7 of the properties and a common back passage
were infested. A wide range of land and properties both public and private came under
scrutiny in this way and it is hoped that by this method a more effective degree of rodent
elimination will be achieved.
61