View report page

31
aware of the purpose of the Act. On investigation many applications
prove to be for the purpose of neglected work of maintenance;
and such cases are better dealt with under the provisions of Section
9, Housing Act, 1933.
The scope of the 1949 Act in a Borough like Tottenham is limited,
due to the fact that all the houses are fully occupied.
One case of a house scheduled as one of historic or architectural
interest has occurred and a closing order made. At the time
of preparing this report, however, the case has not been concluded.
Housing Act, Section 9
The repair of insanitary houses under Section 9, Housing Act,
1936, continues to occupy the greater part of the daily routine.
Great care, however, has still to be exercised in deciding which
Act is to be used, - the Public Health Act or Housing Act.
A new feature has arisen and is one which requires careful consideration,
namely, the suggestion on the part of owners that sane
of the work specified would, in fact, constitute improvement. If
accepted, this might have the effect of increasing rents, e.g., the
insertion of a damp proof course may be considered an improvement,
the landlord would then increase the rent by an amount equal to 8%
of the cost of the improvement.
A matter which is continually giving rise to controversy and
in the case of tenants -much irritation- is the question of wallpaper
or distemper. The normal practice is to ask for repapering
where paper already exists Some owners, however, refuse, and insist
on distempering. In one case an owner threatened to put on either
whitewash or black distemper,
Case law has established a decision regarding the provision of
hot water supply, which has already had local repercussion. This
is an amenity and cannot be required under the Housing Act, since
it has been ruled that lack of a hot water supply does not render
a house unfit for human habitation. The local effect of this ruling
has been that some owners are now refusing to repair or renew
geysers, and are refusing to renew fireplaces and stoves with back
or side boilers.
An interesting comparison can, however, be drawn between the
case law decision which rules out the question of hot water supply
and the requirements of the Report on the "Standards of Fitness Subcommittee
of the Central Housing Advisory Committee." This body