View report page

38
Some owners have complained that certain items included in notices have
been of a trivial character. Others complain that no prior notice of the
defects have been received from the tenants.
Experience shows that whilst many tenants are content to live in given
conditions and to pay what they regard as a reasonable rent, notice of an
increase brings the immediate reaction of wanting something better for the
extra rent. The result is an application for a certificate of disrepair, and
as the figures show the majority of these applications have been successful.
It should be noted that the majority of owners making increases also
take advantage of the provisions of Section 30 and serve on the tenant a
notice of declaration, that the owner has opted not to be responsible for
internal decorative repairs. Such a notice does not however place the
responsibility on the tenant. The owner is still responsible for keeping the
house reasonably suitable for occupation and in my view this will include
internal decorative repairs where the state of these renders the house unfit.
The provisions of Sections 9 and 10 of the Housing Act, 1936 have
continued to be operated, although in the modified form made necessary by the
new definition of fitness.
In view of the clearance programme less use is made of these sections in
respect of houses in proposed areas. Complaints received from these areas
are dealt with under the nuisance sections of the Public Health Act, 19 36 but
where the matter is urgent the provisions of the Tottenham Corporation Act,
1952, dealing with defective premises, is used.
Hiring the year under review it has again been necessary to take action
under Sections 11 & 12 of the Housing Act, 1936. A number of basements and
other rooms were closed under Section 12 and in certain cases Section 10, of
the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, was used to close
terraced houses.
In one case dealt with under Section 10 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous
Provisions) Act, an appeal against the closing order was lodged in the
County Court. In this case the Council refused to accept an undertaking
from the owner to repair, taking the view that the proposed repairs would not
render the house fit. The appellant was successful in his action and the
learned judge gave him 3 months in which to carry out his work.